I was put off by the warnings about the batteries needing to be fully charged and having to send the camera back to pentax if they were to fail during the period of the download.

I'm suprised by the lack of umph! of your batteries though. When you said they were performing badly I hadn't imagined that you were only able to get such few shots. May have been a problem with the original software if you think it is now rectified.

My batteries (2500mah's) give a few hundred shots between charges (difficult to tell exactly how many particularly if using the built in flash) however, the original CRV3's lasted for nearly 9 months (thousands of shots). Maybe I expect too much from the ni-mh's?

Ofutter,

I have downloaded the software but haven't been brave enough to load it yet, how long did it take?

With regard to the rechargeables, like you have experienced that you have to keep turning the camera off and on to get the most out of them. Most disappointing!

The original CRV3's lasted a long time, I'm wondering if they are the best option?

Maybe my money would be better spent on the 16-45 which everyone seems to agree is a much better lens than the 18-55 kit lens. As you say the fisheye effect has limited use.

How's the lens performing, would be interested in how good you think it is now that you've used it for a couple of weeks?

Still umming and ahhing about 10-17 or 12 -24!

If you use firefox it's easy to flip from tab to tab without 'them' noticing. But don't forget you will need to clear history before leaving the machine or you will be found out! AAAAGGGH!

Sounds like you're sold on the 10-17.

I'm still thinking about getting the sigma 12-24, but I would like to see one in a shop before parting with the 'hard earnt stuff'. Main reason for this choice is that I could use the sigma with the dear old MZ5N which I couldn't with the pentax.

No! the pentax 12-24 wouldn't be acceptable to the one who wears the trousers!

slofts

Agreed, particularly as there are plenty of 50mm primes around with more flexible specifications.

The 85mm f2 that Ffordes have would be better value, IMHO.

I'll think you'll find this is relatively rare. It was only in production for a couple of years about the same time that the M series was introduced, so there are probably not many around.

Bokeh Bob,

Thanks for the advice. I haven't tried the options which you have suggested but it'll be a bit of fun giving them a go. I've been using daylight and bracketing up to now.

I have als been using a A 50mm f2 and a M 50 f1.7 to date, and have managed to get a max. of approx. 90% coverage of the original slide. The problem I have obtaining 1:1 is due to the extension of the bellows unit. I'm going to try using extension tubes in place of the bellows next.

With regard to the lenses though! the f1.7 is giving me better copies than the f2 lens. However both are producing quite grainy images when processed in photshop. Like you I have a few slides to copy so I need to optimise performance before I get too carried away. How are your images? I know you can't beat slides!

Sorry, should have said slide copier attached to bellows.

The problem is that the standard unit won't allow great enough distance from the film plane to the object.

As you suggest, I will probably need to lash up some sort of rig to gain the additional distance.