I saw a Pentax as prize in either Photography Monthly or Practical Photographer last year sometime, but then it was sponsored by Pentax. Maybe that's what they need to do more of, the cost of sponsoring something like that can be no more than taking a couple of full page adverts in such magazines, which is what they are currently doing.

Hey, I take exception to that Pwynnej I also have a clutch of Pentax equipment, AND a BMW. Previously a secondhand Vauxhall Cavalier owner, so obviously my taste is impeccable .

I was having a discussion about maximum appertures with a Cannonite (friend) a couple of weeks back. He has a F1.2 L series on pre-order, which will be some astronomical price.

We got to talking about the maximum apertures we had come across, but I fail to see why small increases in aperture are so worthwhile.

The light transmission is proportional to the area of the lens and the f number is expressed as the focal length divided by the diameter. So the area doubles for every 1/Sqrt2 change in f, ie f2.0 f1.4, f1, f0.7, f0.5 with half stops at f2.4, f1.7, f1.2, f0.85. I believe Pentax used to have an f1.2 lens, but I can't remember seeing it mentioned recently. My friend was saying that he recalled an f0.95 lens being made for some cinematic purpose, but surely the depth of field would have been negligible? All that cost, and it's only an extra stop from f1.4. It seems to me that the law of diminishing returns must apply here.

Am I missing something, or is it really worth spending vast amounts extra to go beyond f1.4? And these sorts of aperture are only available around 50mm focal length in prime lenses.

As far as Pentax lens lines available today, or tomorrow, the alternative thread under Pentax Lenses https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3424 has a couple of useful links from Ammonyte.

Watford isn't really that bad, I suppose, just mind the speed cameras. Got mine today, still playing with it, before venturing out. My battery looks to be fully charged, maybe that's why the delay, how considerate of Pentax!

The menu system isn't very different to the Optio S5n and 750z, only more functions, loads of them . But it is good that they follow a familiar theme.

Off to play some more.

I'm sitting here working away, hoping to be interrupted by a call, but nothing so far. I shall be on tenterhooks tomorrow.

I know how you feel, but I have at least paid a deposit, so
*I'm sure it was a promise

I was quite a late entry, so I guess I'll just have to be patient

The term Retrofocus is new to me, but any lens with focal length less than about 40mm has the centre of focus behind the rear element of the lens, as this is the distance from the mount to the film plane. Similarly, long focal length lenses are generally physically shorter than their focal length, so the focal point must be in front of their front element. Do these have some other descriptive term applied to them? :

Is there a special design characteristic of these types of lenses that make them difficult to focus?

I just find it incredible that with a modern ultra- or hyper-zoom lens, the focal point moves from somewhere near or behind the rear element, to somewhere in front of the front element. Maybe when I have eternity to study it, I'll understand how it's done.

I understood that many lenses are designed to focus beyond infinity for visible light, as this enables them to be focused for infra-red. Although, if they don't have both visible & IR focal distances marked on them, setting them to the correct focal point would seem to be impossible.

Just been having a look at the Samsung site, and they show a Schneider D-XENON f4 12-24mm lens on the camera. Having looked at the Schneider site, they have very few camera lenses, mostly projection etc. Looking further down the Samsung page, the lenses they are citing as in development or available shortly, seem to be exactly the same as 5 of the Pentax lenses, so you could be right about these. I just thought it was interesting.

I got an f1.7KA on a tatty ME Super for less than £100, but paid nearer £120 for a f1.4KAF on its own. I doubt if you'll find a 1.4 attached to a camera, but sometimes people sell a camera with the 1.7 on for a good price. They don't always know exactly what they're selling, it pays to have a good look at the pictures.

BTW, love the pictures. I have the gear, but not the artistry. Sometimes I get lucky, but usually just trying too hard.

I am surprised by the vitriolic remarks made in this posting, I've never before seen anybody's character questioned on this forum, maybe their judgement, but that's OK, we can always have a disagreement, good debate and end up agreeing to disagree.

I can see all the points of view here (I don't necessarily agree with them all), and one day we may see anything, don't discount it.

Pentax have to go with the APS-C size sensors since they are forced to compete on an even cost ground. Anything else would incur serious extra development costs.

Once you have an APS-C sized sensor, again, you have to compete. The digital sensor has very high surface reflectivity, and forces different lens compromises to film lenses. Also, all the other manufacturers have gone for APS-C sized images, and therefore reduced the size and weight of the D lenses, can Pentax ignore this opportunity, cost advantage or competetiveness?

Presumably, using a D lens on an analogue camera will cause serious vignetting, but will it actually work? : Using many of the older FF lenses on the digital body will work, but there will be image degradation which is overcome by the digital lenses. So there's a good reason for there to be Digital and Film lenses, it's not just a matter of breaking faith with the compatability dogma.

I do have Nikon Coolscan IV, but find it quite slow to use. I guess a faster PC, which will have to wait till next year) may speed it a little, but most of the time is in the scanning, especially if using the ICE option (I suppose this is also processor bound).

Before I got the film scanner, I did try copying my slides onto print film, but found the contrast was generally too high, and I either lost the shadows or the highlights.

I do still have a slide copier (Ohnar or Jessops, can't remember). : Has anybody tried using a digital camera for this? : Especially as I have a K10D on order, thought it might be faster to try it this way. The other problem will be removing the negative orange colour cast, can't recall if there is a standard filter for this in PhotoShop (Elements).