I believe that there are 3 factors in play here

1. In my opinion there is in photography a certain snobbery when it comes down to what is classed as professional equipment (read into that equipment capable of producing high quality images), that manifests itself as a strong bias for anything Nikon. I remember back in the mid 80's when I bought my Super A, the disdaining looks I received. Comments such as " thats not a proper camera, it does not work without batteries, what happens when they run out". That came from a guy who regularly carried round 3 Nikons (2 for backup) Well my Super A has been faultless for over 20 years and 1000's of shots.

2. $$$$ spent by Canon on advertising and wooing magazine publishers. Look to the world of golf equipment, Look how much Nike have spent and continue to spend for endorsement by Tiger Woods.

3. The late arrival of a Pentax DSLR or even a digital compact.

The deck is stacked against Pentax and will probably stay that way.

For my part I really don't care what some faceless no name journo says. I would not buy a camera based upon one review anymore than I would a toothbrush from someone selling at the door.
No I content myself in the reasons why I bought into the Pentax brand in the first place, handling, features and glass - "VALUE" something that some other manufacturers could not equal at any price

I echo the comments made by Chris and coincidently also spent some time dancing around a rhodendendron trying to capture Bees at feeding time.
There are still a few shots left on the roll so not sure how they will turn out (the need for instant feedback, or is it gratification is what will eventually convert me to digital)
Conditions were reasonable but I will consider myself lucky if I get shot with both Bee and flower sharp.

IMHO still a bargain at twice the price. I brought mine even though I had the the focal length covered by by a 70 - 210 zoom. I have always preferred a prime lens, for when I have specific images to capture.

I find 35-70 and 70 -210 in 35mm ideal for what I would call off the cuff shooting, so returning to the original thread, when I eventually go digital I would expect that it will be equivalents of these zooms, plus a wide angle prime that I will look for.

I was lucky enough to pick up a SMC M 3.5 135mm in mint condition for £5 a few years back. I find it a superb handling lens, mechanically very well made and very compact. I have used it to take many pictures of the kids as they have grown up, the extra focal length I find ideal for more candid portraits.

Don, I look forward to seeing/hearing the update - Steve

OK Don, I don't know if you made any changes but the MP3 file now loads and plays. As an intro it would work better for me if the image was moving, not that I am a fan of flashing images, it just seems a little to 'static'

Might be my PC Don, but the only thing I can open is the image, same on my laptop

Thanks to everyone for the feedback and sorry for hijacking this thread - Steve

I have both the old SMC A 70 -210 and a Vivitar 70 - 210 Series 1. Used them both for many years and this maybe heresy, but I actually prefer the Vivitar, which is PK rather than PKA . AF and weight do not bother me, and would not change for those reasons alone, however if the concensus is that a more modern lens is optically better then I am thinking it might be time to 'upgrade'
I often refer to Stan's Pentax website for lens comparisons, but am I right in thinking that it is no longer regularly updated?

The SMCP-F 4-5.6 70-210mm is a pretty good lens at a reasonable price.

George I am interested to know how would you rate this lens against the old SMC A F4 70 - 210mm?

I know this lens is heavy and lacks AF but, but is the glass/coatings that much better on the modern version?

For anyone that maybe interested there is a SMC A 70-210 for sales on EBAY with a BIN of £80. (no connection with me)