Me too - in my original post I was thinking about how I'd want to improve on it if I replace it, and I could only think of the screen, mount and 100% VF (and I've already bought a Katz Eye split screen). Maybe full-frame at some distant date if the bulk can be reduced. If Pentax would spend the money on those rather than video and doing in-camera what you can do on screen I might change, but until then the K20D is close enough to as good as it gets.

Stan

A challenging question Stefan! I don't think it's that easy to answer - it's easy to make up reasons, but less easy to articulate underlying motivations.

There are certain things I find strongly pleasing visually, for instance an old building, a harbour, someone's face, a piece of furniture, the colours of trees or mountains, patterns of light and shade... equally I find some images particularly pleasing because of what they capture or how they are composed or both. Therefore I get pleasure from making images that have those sort of visual qualities, both for myself and to share them with others - maybe to convey something of the world as I enjoy it. My technique doesn't always match what I want to capture, but I know I can do much better using photography than any other form of visual art!

Because I enjoy doing it!

Simplistically just to record images and stimulate memories, more thoughtfully to try to communicate to others something of what I see in a place or notice about a scene.

As the author of a travelogue I'd make the distinction between producing a guidebook or archive and writing something personal that brings to the fore the things I notice and that matter to me - a bit like Martin (Malo) above. I think if any of my photography can aspire to being called 'art,' it's because I'm trying to convey that personal perspective rather than any higher merit it might have (or more likely lack).

Stan

I received my 16-45 a couple of weeks ago (paid £230). I've only used it on a couple of walkabout shoots, but my first impressions are that it's noticeably sharper than the kit lens (DA 18-55 v2) and has slightly better colour rendition, particularly at the wider end. That isn't to say the kit lens is deficient, but I have an 'old' FA 24-90 that is also an improvement on the 18-55 and I wanted a wider lens of similar quality to complement it. My guess is that the 16-45 will be on the camera more than the 24-90 other than in open countryside.

Stan

Hi,

I agree with everything above, I'd only add that you will get better results with the 70-300 using a tripod (or some other form of support like a 'gorillapod' or bean bag). The longer the lens, the more it amplifies any camera shake.

The K20 is an excellent camera BTW!

Stan

What features would you like to see if you upgraded your current SLR?

Mine's a K20, and if it could be improved I'd like:

- non-crippled K-mount
- split-prism focusing screen
- 100% viewfinder.

Plus maybe more accurate metering in auto mode, but I hardly ever use it so it's not really a problem.

Stan

To satisfy my curiosity I did note down the focal lengths from some sets of images typical of the type of photography I do. All taken with 18-55 or 24-90 (I usually carry both).

Krakow (city scenes, 129 images) - mean 28mm, 25% at 18mm, none at 90mm
Madeira (mountains/villages etc, 344) - mean 37mm, 13% at 18mm, 6% at 90mm
Northumbria (rolling country, coast, 76) - mean 52mm, none at 18mm, 14% at 90mm

So my estimate wasn't too bad! Looking at the distribution of focal lengths, if I had to start again I'd be better off with a 17-70 as my main lens and possibly a 12-24 as secondary (considering how many of the city shots were taken at the widest angle available).

Of course all this is biased by the lenses I carry, and my reluctance to swap between them too often (judging by the number taken at 24mm and 55mm)

Any closer and you might have had a good shot of its talons!

My K20 usually has a 24-90 on, sometimes swapped for the kit 18-55 or (now) 16-45. Of those two if I had only room for one on an overseas trip it would be the 16-45, on the basis that cropping the image is possible but adding to it isn't. To choose a single focal length I'd say about 24mm using the above principle (on average I probably use around 24-36mm most, but it would be interesting if I could get my computer to do a statistical analysis on all the images on it).

Hmm... suggests a 28mm prime to go with my 50mm.

I bought an Epson V500 (photo-enabled flatbed) last year and over 12 months I've worked my way through about 150 sets of negatives and 40 slide films - I've not digitised everything, but used the 'preview' to decide what's worth including. I set up a quick mode for snaps and a slower, higher-resolution one for quality images. The IQ is satisfactory for what I want (I'm keeping the originals), and now I've almost finished I have a much better flatbed scanner than the multifunction machine in my office.

I agree with ChrisA about the amount of crud on the slides/negatives, even after gentle cleaning. Also some of the older ones are washed out or have a colour cast. I'm slowly editing them with Photoshop; the automatic processing mode wasn't particularly effective so I stopped using it (and had to re-scan a few images that it had over-corrected).

I've also played with digitally restoring some old (c. 1900-1930) prints using the scanner and Photoshop, though I could probably get just as good results by photographing off the tripod.