Mmm.. Just a thought.

The scanner also removes the dust and scratches, given sufficient time.

I did find the copier was quite quick, once set up. I've never really examined the quality, though. It's certainly good enough for a 6"x 5" print.

I've got the original Pentax branded one, plus one from SRS at £10 plus another from 7Day... at £6.99. They are all rated the same voltage 7.2V and same capacity (I think it was 1500mAh, batteries at home, me at work ). They all charge OK from the same charger, and both the Pentax and SRS ones work OK in camera. Haven't tried the £6.99 one in camera yet, but I shall measure the voltage before use. Further update tonight when I try it out.

When I was at school, my brother bought a Kodak Retina 3S, which I rather fancied, but because it was my brother, I wouldn't possibly get one the same. By the time I could afford it I fell in love with the Pentax ME Super because of the size, the spec and the price and bought one in 1980 when working in the States with a 50mm f1.7 lens, a 28mm f2.8 and a Sigma 80-200mm. It was hardly any bigger than the Halina my wife had before we were married. The ME-S did until 1999 when I dropped it on an oak floor. After that, I just used a compact until starting a course in about 2003 where they had a couple of MZ-30 to lend. I bought a Canon AE-1 from a colleague, for me and a Pentax MZ-30 for the wife (she did the course with me). Later I bought the MZ-6 and then a *ist, then added an MX and another ME-S. I've been waiting for a worthwhile Digital SLR (Pentax, of course), and now have a K10D on order.

The Pentax gear always feels nice, works well and is usually good value for money. Not all the lenses I use are Pentax, and I'm not sure the kit leses are always the best quality. The D will probably have the Pentax 16-45 lens.

I'm afraid George's epigram, more gear freak than photographer is applicable in my case . I also have a problem that I can never sell anything, so have enough gear to kit out several times over.

The reason the focal length is needed for the SR is not whether to apply more or less, but how far to move the sensor, for a given cameras movement. As the image magnification on the sensor varies for the FL, so does the correction movement. I suspect that applying high degrees of SR on long FL lenses can produce image artifacts, like double imaging, so it may be better to turn it down a bit and get a softer image, but with no artificial introductions. Only guessing but....

As for the 22 bit conversion, I wonder if you can change the way it is downsampled, to accentuate the contrast resolution in the Highlights or in the shadows, or just do a straight compression. If you could move the effective sensitivity, and take two images into PS, you'd effectively have the same image with and without an ND. Then you'd be able to do some fancy mixing. Probably not, but we'll see.

Haven't been here for a while, so came in today, hoping that some of you would have reported on the K10 by now. Now I find it's been delayed . I don't think there is any doubt that I'll get one, but I was waiting for a review first. Perhaps I'll just have to trust Pentax and preorder anyhow. By now, I guess you lot have accounted for all the first shipping.

Hi,
I've used quite a few mail, telephone and internet order sites, and can recommend the following wholeheartedly, and several others I can't remember:

For adapters and filters, including custom adapters SRB Film; http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/index1.html
also
http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/page.asp?p=30001&1=Home%2BPage
http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/default.php?cPath=777

SRB were really good when I phoned and explained that I couldn't use the adapter I'd ordered, so they analysed what my problem was, and sent me a different adapter part. It arrived before they'd got the original back. It was mostly my fault, as I didn't understand how the adapter fitted until I'd received it.

If you really must have digital for some things like macro photography, then why not go for a cheap(ish) compact digital zoom cameara, and continue waiting for the right digital SLR. That's what I'm doing. I'm quite happy with my film SLRs, and have just bought an Optio 750z for about £200. Admittedly I've had to get an SD memory card, but that's going to be needed for the digital SLR.

We've been stuck at this level of sophistication on the digital SLRs for a while now, there has got to be something better, faster, cheaper coming soon, hasn't there?? Especially with the new tie up with Samsung, although usually technology exchanges take a while to come to fruition.

Would you like me to get a pocketed Pentax strap from my local agent, and post it off to you. It may not be the cheapest strap you've ever purchased, but it'll have the functions you want. You're obviously in need, and I'd hate for you to lose your new plastic loser bits.

The later SLRs MZ6 and ist* came with wider straps, which includes a mini snap closed pocket at each end. I hadn't come across them before, but they are really useful for keeping the eyepiece and hotshoe covers in. Can't get much else in there.

My local camera shop always seems to have a number of these straps in the bargain basket, so I have now fitted these straps to all my cameras. All I have to do now is find some covers to go in the pockets. Heyho.

I don't know how exhaustible the shop supply is, but I'm sure they must have a reasonable source. Problem is that posting them will cost more than their purchase value, don't rememnber how much, but it's only a few quid.

Perhaps a dumb question, but since 1.4x, 2x and even 3x conveters are used for increasing the focal length of lenses, isn't it possible to make a 0.6 times converter, to adapt film lenses to the same focal length equivalent for digital cameras? Whilst they're at it, they could also coat the rear element specially to compensate for the high reflectivity sensor. Then, we would have an acceptable means of addressing the problems which digital cameras have introduced in using existing lenses. Maybe not the perfect answer, but a good interim solution.

I suppose, the reason is that it would detract from the appeal of the new Digital optimised lenses for APS sensors. It also means that the lens system would be heavier than the equivalent film lens, rather than lighter and smaller.

Oh well, unlikely to happen I guess.

I make my comments from the perspective of a film camera user, as I'm still waiting for the right digital camera (Pentax, of course)

I leave a filter on all my lenses (generally a skylight), which means that when handling the lenses, if I get finger marks on the front, then I only have to clean the filter. I have never had the filter save the lens from impact damage. The only time I damaged a system, it was the camera that hit first, and upset the shutter, permanently.

When I take photos, then I decide whether to remove the filter. I only leave the filter on for long distance views, landscapes or objects in the distance, where there will be significant ultra violet hazing. I would expect the ultra violet to have a similar effect on Digital cameras, but it really depends on the sensitivity of the sensor to the shorter wavelength light and ultra violet. If the sensors are not sensitive in this region, then an ultra violet filter is superfluous, and probably degrade the picture.

As for film cameras, the sensor is definitely sensitive in the infra red range, and this sometimes distorts the apparent colours of blue flowers particularly, making them appear mauve. In this case, a blue filter (82) is essential to remove the invisible infra red light, which changes the colours recorded by the camera.

Since the colours you are trying to correct for are outside the visible range, they cannot be corrected for by the limited colour gamut available post capture, so filters are still essential in these areas.

So, in my view, the filters in these cases are only used to align the colours the camera records to those seen by the human eye. They should not be adding a colour cast, although any filter is an extra piece of glass and a couple of surfaces to interfere with the image.