Functionally they are brilliant, looks-wise they are, to my eyes at least, butt ugly. But then I think most cameras from the 90s onwards look ugly! Somehow many cameras of the MX and OM1 era have a elegance about them. Perhaps I am overly nostalgic...

K.

Macro photography is addictive and frustrating. The slightest puff of wind and your image is soft but the buzz when you get something sharp composed how you want it is wonderful. I find it quite a time sponge...

K.

I reported the ad for "profanity in the listing". I wanted to report "the seller is a moron" but they didn't seem to have that option.

K.

And I think Leicas are over-priced and over-hyped but I wouldn't be stupid enough to say so in an advert to sell one.

K.

One of my images was chosen as Amateur Photographer "Image of the Week" this week (issue dated 23/4/11) so I am feeling a little smug!

It was a slightly different edit of this one:




Please excuse my smugness!

Best wishes, Kris.

A highly experienced photographer in strong control of what s/he is doing will get excellent results from shooting jpegs, JR being a fine example.

RAW allows (a) one to delay some of the work to the post processing stage rather than tweaking camera settings and (b) to rescue an imperfectly exposed image.

Provided how you work creates the results you want, then everything in the garden is rosy. I think Gartmore's approach makes a great deal of sense.

For example, I take lots of pictures of small objects in shady conditions (i.e., an ad hoc 'studio' in the field). I could (a) adjust the white balance in camera before photographing the finds and shoot jpeg or (b) shoot RAW and make sure there is something white in the image and set the white balance in Lightroom. I choose the latter simply because there is always something white in the image (the scale) and during the course of photographing several hundred small finds the light changes a bit.

As I use Lightroom, I find shooting RAW no more work than shooting jpegs. I do like the fact that my original RAW files are untouched and that I can create multiple copies in whatever format I need very quickly and easily.

It is very much courses for horses, and this whole endless debate is pretty pointless. The race car on the 20mph road is a bad analogy really. A better one would be if you had the chance to drive on a racetrack at 200mph the race car would be the best choice, but if you had to drive on a Romanian "yellow" class road, you're much better off using a Landrover. Use whatever you need to get the job done.

K.

How good are those rails? I've been after a rail for a while. The Pentax ones are as rare as hen's teeth (I have only seen one on ebay in several years of looking). Are they rigid enough if you buy two to get both forward/back and sideways movement?

Thanks, Kris.

And I'm on a diet...

You could have bought this one. M42 fitting mind...

Personally I think the dandelion from below is very good. Normally, very bright (?blown) highlights would be a problem but in this case they contribute to the shot. I would be tempted to clone out (or blur) the odd bits of grass at the bottom of the frame which seem to be more in focus and a little intrusive.

I have been thinking about getting a right angled finder (ref-converter in Pentax speak) for a while but genuine ones are pricey.

Best wishes, K.