Thanks for the advice. I've ordered the A24/2.8 from Ffordes - I can't justify £449 for a FA* for the level of use it's likely to get, and I've tracked two A 24s on ebay - one made £155 and the other is already £137 with a day to go.

Next on the list is an A 50mm 1.7 to replace my manual 50mm f/2. More LBA (), but I've postponed purchase of a K5 and have doubts about the new 18-135 WR.

I have the K20 and don't have any interest in the K7 - I don't use AF or auto modes very often, and don't think (going by shots posted on the Web, I've not actually used one) that the K7 offers any improvements in IQ. I don't have a problem with the K20's exposure in manual particularly if I check what the meter's doing against the background. I expect I might buy a K5 once it's been out for a while - it does seem to offer some IQ improvements and particularly better low-light performance.

The K20D got a very good review on DPreview too, particularly for the build and image quality. Helped stop me spending my money on a D300 anyway.

I'm heading for a Pentax-A 24mm 2.8 or possibly third-party equivalent, I want to get away from 'green button' metering with the M/K lenses and can't justify the price of the FA* for the amount of use it will get.

I have an Epson V500 scanner that I bought just over a year ago, and I've just finished transferring around 7000 images (slides and negatives) to the computer. The rationale was (a) there wouldn't be an extra cost to scanning once I'd bought the machine (other than my time), (b) it's a flatbed so has other uses, and (c) the scanner on my office printer no longer works with Windows Vista.

The quality is quite a lot better than Boots/Jessops CDs, but some way off K20D (or LX3) images regardless of resolution. Slides give better results than negatives, but that may just be the quirks of my particular scanner. Then there's the problem - despite gentle cleaning - of dust / hairs in the image, requiring some post-processing. I wouldn't print from a scan other than for a 'snap' for family or friends, though I've put some scanned images into pdf publications (half-A4 or smaller) and they aren't really distinguishable from digitals (and also used one for a calendar with the same result).

I rarely use my only film camera (an Olympus RC35), but still promise myself an MX or something similar having learned years ago on a fully manual SLR.

Here's mine, not Pentax but a fully-functioning finger-trapping wooden tripod. The connection to the head is quite crude; the legs fold out and click into position, then the bottom section of the legs slide down and are each held in place with a thumb screw. I used it for years with a Praktica MTL3.

I recently asked a similar question (about 4 down the page, 24/28mm A/FA). I have a Pentax M 28mm f/3.5, but as it's fully manual the metering can be a bit of a fiddle - so I'm with you on 'the other stuff.' There are some suggestions in the thread - I'm thinking about a Pentax A 24mm or Sigma Super Wide.

I find the 16-45mm ideal for mountains, but it is bulkier than the kit lens. I do find situations where a wider angle would be useful, though I'm more often looking for additional reach.

Thanks all. I've decided on a 24 as I don't have one, probably either the A or the Sigma; will keep an eye out for an FA* but haven't been able to track any down on the web. I see from another thread that the K5 may have more accurate 'green button' metering, and as I intend to buy a K5 sometime in the future that gives me some hope for the M 28.

I have two 'M' lenses, a 28mm 3.5 and a 50mm f2. Both are good sharp lenses, the 28 particularly so, but the 'green button' metering is a nuisance - without compensating manually it overexposes in low light and underexposes at small apertures. In practice it means taking a test shot or two to get the exposure right (or of course using an external light meter). I have to feel enthusiastic to use them, and just posted on another thread about finding a good auto 24 or 28.