k10D for now and the foreseeable future, I'm afraid.
Got the tickets booked already -ta!
Thanks for advice so far.

I just may be ready to spend some money on a suitable lens for photos of the Alhambra Palace and other places around Granada. These two Pentax lenses are not dissimilar in price and both would be good for internal / atmospheric pictures.
The 14mm has a nice big aperture but I guess the 15mm could have better IQ.
What's the general opinion about their relative merits? Which would be better for my £500+?

A good recommendation!
Thanks

Oh yes - thanks. Apart from the sucker-on-LCD-screen problem it seems to be better in several ways. That review seems to be from 2007. Any changes since then?

Cheers for the responses but I am more confused than before.
Assuming the Spyder family aren't really as rubbish as some of you imply (smile), what make the (much) more expensive versions better for the 'Enthusiastic Amateur'? Bear in mind that, if I ever have a very sellable photograph or get involved in Advertising pictures, I may be upgrading everything, in any case.

How much of a problem is the wide gamut monitor thing? For the forseeable future I will have nothing better than an imac to edit on.

Is there actually any alternative to the Spyder3Express at a similar price?

Ah. That's helpful; thanks. I couldn't see why it shouldn't work on two different machines.
Two monitors - how the other half live!

I was considering buying one of these for use with a new monitor. I am also considering splashing out on an imac, soon.
I have read that spyder models, other than the express, support "multiple monitors". Does this mean that the Express can only be used for one monitor only, which would not suit me? Or have I got it wrong?

Fair enough, thanks. Sounds like you are 'damning with faint praise' when you say "not Photo Quality". That's what I was after.
I guess, for loadsamoney, I can get what I want done commercially.
I did have some OHP transparency paper a long time ago and it gave very washed out images using my particular print settings. Things may be better now - but not that much better, it seems.

Even nice ones of your thumb!

Without taking the risk of wasting my money I'm asking the Forum whether they are any good. I have an hp printer and use hp paper and ink. It gives pretty good results which more or less satisfy me. I had the idea of presenting some appropriate pictures as transparencies on an illuminated screen for impact.
Can I expect 'impact' or just recognisable 'coloured pictures', doing it this way?
What's the general view? Is it worth my while buying a box or will I be disappointed?