I am flying into Miami and staying for a couple of days prior to the cruise.

I travel very infrequently and have asked for advice on where to go and how best to avoid any kind of incident or trouble.

I have been advised by my Insurance Company. by the people organising the cruise and also by the American travel firm that I should keep my camera equipment as unobtrusive as possible.
One even suggested that my camera strap should be of a design that prevents it being cut and the camera stolen.

I thought the Forum would be the best place to get advice on a suitable compact lens, or even a suitable compact .

Smeggypants, you now have your answer. The reason is that I have been advised. I certainly did not warrant the following irrrelevant comments.
As a further aside, I have a walking disability and well past my bus pass age. I need to travel light.

HG. I have no issues with the 18-250. I get very good results as well.
Having been put on my guard I am somewhat nervous of even taking my K5. If this is the best and probably the most compact solution then I shall look no further. America has never appealed to me as a place to visit, illogical though this would be.

I am going on a Carribian cruise that will be visiting a nature reserve. Guess there will be many animals not seen here abouts hence the longer zoom.
I have to travel through America and have been advised to keep my equipment as unobtrusive as possible.
Have toyed with getting a decent compact to shoot with whilst in America itself. These will be holiday shots.
I can pack my 300mm f4 as an alternative for the visit to the wildlife centre but it means a tripod or monopod as well.
A compact zoom at 80 plus in another make might meet the need.
Just unsure and wondering if someone with a similar experiece ccould suggest alternatives.

Its my usual ramble. Hope it makes some sense.

I have three tamron zooms.

85-210 4.5 macro.

70-300 f4-5.6 tele macro

18-250 f3.5-6.3.

I need a compact zoom for travelling. Neither of the above are as compact as I would like.

What alternatives can posters recommend, please.

As a macro person, these pics are amazing technically, yet, somehow for me they have a bizarre quality.

Macro allows us to see what we cannot with the naked eye, even close up and so appreciate the wonder and beauty of living things.

Highlighting the more challenging aspects of creatures is not for me. That is not to put down the achievements of this photographer, just my take on things.

Pentaxophile wrote. "I know you have isssues with digital".

Now where did this perception come from?

Let me dispel this myth.

Sixty years of photographic experience crammed into an average brain with a less than average memory.

My philosophy. Ask a question and be enlightened. Don't ask and remain in the dark.

Old but not quite daguerrote-type-era!!!

daguerrotype-era!!! What manual do I need to work this one out LOL.

Pentaxophile.

I never seriously intended to use the camera. Just read that bit in the manual about covering the side of the cannister and was confused, which is a regular occurrance. Tying that up with the ability to alter the ASA on the camera body set me thinking

I was not informed in that manual that the ability to alter the ASA on the camera body is there for those loading their own film.

So! Just wanted clarification. The best place to find that is on our forum. Thanks to everyone who made the journey with me.

regards thoramay.

I knew I should not have asked. If I was confused then I am doubly confused now.

Am I right in believing that the ability to alter the ASA is there for those loading their own film of various ratings?

I bought the camera for two reasons.

1. It had a 50mm A 1.7 lens in very good nick.

2. The camera had been in the charity shop for some time and was scheduled for binning.

The camera body is also in very good condition. If anyone is prepared to give it a go or add to a collection I will willingly post it on complete with a roll of 200ASA colour film

The manual seems to suggest that you can change the ASA rating at will, a different rating to each shot.
So, would that still hold true that it can be processed at 200ASA and all the shots will be fine?
Seems contradictory to me. Might as well produce an 'any rating of your choice' film. Isn't that what digital cameras achieve?
I cannot get my head around this!!!

I have just picked up from a charity shop a pentax A3. The manual states that you can adjust the asa rating of the film by masking the bar code on the film canister to prevent that camera reading the desigated rating.
I had assumed that a film rating was manufactured into the film itself and that it remained as such.

Can the rating of a 200asa film be altered by a camera setting. I am confused. Clarification, please.