A bit late on this one... I guess the wedding's happened already... but here goes... the 35mm f/2 is great. Optically excellent and while f/2 may not seem particularly fast, it is completely useable wide-open. Probably the ideal "normal" lens equivalent to a 50mm on the 135 format (OK so actually the 31mm Limited would be truly ideal but then it would be a fair bit heavier and a lot more expensive too). Like the 50mm f/1.4, this is one of those lenses that just can't be beat for the money.

Er... whatever the situation regarding what gets posted where, I'll try to answer your question... I looked at this Plustek when looking for a replacement for a Canon CanoScan flatbed... which first had a fault - which their service department somehow couldn't seem to find so they simply sent it back - and then promptly stopped working altogether just one week after the warranty expired. To cut it short I won't be buying Canon again in a hurry, but I digress...

... anyway, I looked at the Plustek, a few other flatbeds and some second-hand dedicated film scanners. The Plustek has the resolution in theory, but in practice was relatively lacking, particularly in colour accuracy compared to the competition (by which I don't mean high-end dedicated scanners but good flatbeds). In the end I went for an Epson V700 - a flatbed designed for scanning film of various formats - and feel that the higher price over a lower end flatbed was completely justified, while the quality is certainly good enough to choose this instead of spending even more on a dedicated scanner.

Admittedly the Epson does cost three times as much as the Plustek, in fact as much as a K100d at around £350, but if you still shoot film regularly then I feel it's well worth it... on the other hand I do shoot medium format too... if you will only shoot 35mm then I guess the Plustek may be worth a look, but in that case personally I would follow the advice of other posters and look at a second-hand dedicated scanner by Nikon or Minolta... they may have lower resolution, but I think of it as being a bit like comparing a 6mp dSLR with a 12mp point-&-shoot... there's a lot more to it than just numbers.

Yes, a tripod or shake reduction will help if the blurring is caused by the camera's movement, but it won't help freeze the subject's movement. For that you need to increase ISO, use a larger aperture (probably both), or use a flash to introduce more light to the scene.

Easy... FA* 200mm f/4 Macro...

... maybe a D-FA version to include quick shift...

... mmm...

Fairly sure I saw one in the window last week

So not only am I compared to DPreview posters but now to Jeffrey Archer. Gee, isn't it exciting making personal insults on the Internet?

I already acknowledged that those excessively positive comments were read on another forum and I was mistaken in responding to them here. You do remember that, right? Of course not, you somehow skipped over all the suggestions I made in order to claim that I made no suggestions, and here again you seem to apply the same selective reading.

Yeah it takes two to argue. One of those two apologised in order to end the argument, the other one apparently decided that wasn't enough and had a go. If you expected me to not respond to that then what you actually mean here is simply "George likes to have the last word". Maybe if you had a drink or two yourself and cheered up you might be able to accept that my comments are not going to hurt you or the company, and allow people to disagree with you.

No. I made criticisms because Pentax made only a very minor upgrade to an existing model. I went over the top because of nonsense I read about what a wonderful and fantastic thing this was.

Should they not have done so? That's debatable. Or is it? I thought this was a discussion forum, implying that people could have different opinions.
Who said anything about spending millions developing brand new cameras every year? It's not like they only went one year without doing so - the K10D is IMO the only truly brand new camera since the *Ist DS which has been effectively 'upgraded' ever since. Also you can get more value out of an existing camera by adding more than just SDM support and DR.

OK... the K100D was slightly different from the *Ist DL2, slightly different from the *Ist DL, slightly different from the *Ist DS. (Sorry for not agreeing to call a very slight redesign a new product).

Whose posts have you been reading? I made several suggestions, including more megapixels (not because they're better but because they sell), a larger buffer, more differentiation in body design... oh and some comments about that very minor factor, lenses. I'm sorry if I didn't provide a "concrete" plan for Pentax to follow.

Brilliant and totally unexpected. I was expecting you to say that I was probably RiceHigh using another name, but no, you surprised me...
... why not go one further and suggest that I'm a fully paid Canon mole? Because obviously no loyal Pentax user could possibly ever find a single fault with the system...

No, I didn't miss the point at all. I just turned it around to include the other people who populate DPreview, the fanatical brand loyalists. I'm not peeping at pixels. I'm looking for certain things from the system and not finding them, and I am concerned about whether Pentax is going to provide them... so yes, I moan. I thought negative comments were allowed as well as positive ones but again that doesn't seem to be the case.

I did. I even apologised, but you couldn't resist bashing me with the DPreview comment, and here we are again.

Actually it wasn't Dpreview. It was PentaxForums. And as far as I'm concerned, blind brand loyalty and applauding absolutely everything the company ever does, while refusing to accept that any criticism may be valid (which is what was happening there and which is not unheard-of here) is what I see from Canon or Nikon users on Dpreview, and does no more to help Pentax or Pentax users than the negative posts on that site.

Hehe, I don't mind either but don't get me started - I'm still waiting for Sigma to confirm that they're actually going to make the 70-200mm on which I paid a deposit. I definitely can't blame Pentax for that and I could probably go off on a whole other rant about Sigma's current attitude to Pentax and Minolta customers... but I think I'm all out of rant for today

Sorry for getting agitated, to be honest I think half the time I was actually responding to what I was reading on another forum. Anyway I am now the new owner of a 35mm f/2 courtesy of a fellow poster, so after a day's shooting with that I will return hopefully a lot calmer

Erm... well based on that post it seems to me that you underestimate everything except dust reduction.

The pixel count may not matter to me or you but it's significant that reviews usually have to point out that 6mp is adequate. I am sure than many consumers are not convinced.

If you are concerned about people looking at specs and comparing features, do you not think a larger buffer would also impress potential buyers?

Do you think negative comments about lens range or availability are rare? Here the competitors don't even need to advertise because every photo forum in the world is full of Canon and Nikon users doing it for them, every post of "What dSLR?" being met by comments about how the big two offer more choice, more widely available.

And finally, since we are talking about the importance of perception, there's a wider issue here... it's the same camera body, several years on, with most of the same contents inside it. Each 'update' is a minor one which no doubt you think is valuable, but it can't possibly look that impressive to people not yet invested in the system.

Dust reduction is just one feature, just one entry on a spec sheet, and just one thing which competitors might advertise and reviewers might comment on. There are others too, which aren't being addressed.

OK... You say "every little helps". I'll be willing to concede the point, since you put it in those terms (I have seen people on other forums using other terms, like "Marketing genius" and "awesome". To put it bluntly, what they've done here is a half-arsed move. If it's a half-arsed move which genuinely helps to maintain or increase market share, then good... if.