don't know. there's a lot of it out there, that's for sure.

i grant that some zooms are equal to a specific prime, but not all primes in all ranges. in re: missing photos due to changing lenses, never had that problem - from cycling on the boards in the LA Olympics to the old soviet near east. knew what i was going to get, planned for it and got it.

i think this goes back to the (very old, and am tired of it as you) film vs digital issue. film is limited in that you are using a camera, not a computer with an attached lens. now, please, i'm not being harsh or condescending.

but, most of the image making world is relying on the bits and chips to make up for imperfect human activity. i doubt i've ever taken 10,000 photos in my entire life, and yet users today blandly speak of 200, 800, 1,000 images taken in single situations.

this to me, sad to say, speaks of lack of preparation. again, letting the onboard and desktop computers be the conveyences rather than craft and expertise. the electronic ability to move lenses in and out of focus, determine "perfect exposure", do not good images make. but it does allow users to avoid the addmittedly hard and difficult chore of actually learning. with image making driven by the electronics industry, rather than users, everything begins to look like a drive to the bottom.

i, and most likely you, judging from your photo, have spent a lifetime learning the craft of photography. and yes, i have wandered far afield here. but the images i'm seeing indicate a paucity of expertise and mediocrity i've never before seen. and it concerns me.

one salient concern is the fact that the ubiquitous instruction books have gone from 42 pages m(film) to over 250 pages (digital). one deals with basics, the second with computer programming. something most users are not comfortable with. the manual does not get read. the user puts the camera on automatic and begins firing off the shutter button. and never learns a damn thing.

maybe since aps sensors are so popular, kodak should reintroduce aps film cameras. i mean, what the hell?. why did anyone accept that? why did anyone buy a digital camera before anything came out in full frame?

and of course the answer was, you don't have to know anything and will get perfect exposures wthout negatives and all those paper prints. and that's exactly what we now have. lousy images.

photos taken by amateurs in the 1940's and 1950's were a hell of a lot better, with their unmetered kodak folding bellows cameras than what is being seen now. and the reason for that is simple, they knew what they were doing and did not have to go through 80 rolls of film to document a family event.

even though they were amateurs, the understood the basics of light and composition. one of my teachers used to say that light was 10 percent of photography and if you didn't know how to read that, you had no business with a camera. elitist? i don't think so. he simply cared about making a good photograph.

so, if i've bored you, made you angry or upset, i apologise. but i can not let go the degradation of image making that i'm seeing today. the highly manipulated images lack credibility and one cannot determine what was actually seen and what the image communicates.

anyway, thanks for your patience. i'll now probably be "drummed out of the corps", ah well.

love your string monopod!!!

greetings and happy new year back at you. so glad you are enjoying using your nikon dslr - we all should have as much fun as you seem to be having!
just go on enjoying, as that is the whole point of making images!!

a decent bottle of scotch

nope, you are not lazy. it's cheaper for companies to make zoom lenses rather than prime lenses, so the market is awash with every combination of zoom you can think of.

prime lenses are simply better at their given focal length than a zoom lens. i've heard the argument that my new zoom lens tests better than your prime. my response is always to come back to me 2-3 years from now and try to make that claim. the physics of optics and laws of mechanics mitigate against a superior zoom.

you know, i've been thinking about this and personally i'd go with a haze, rather than uv, filter.

B+W, of course makes excellent filters, but so does Hoya and Rolev (if you can find these). all the above used Schott glass (see Zeiss). so no need to worry about the so-called image degradation which many seem obsessed with.

ah, went nuts and forgot what i was going to say. i'll check with Erv and see if we have a metering prong and the correct screws. if he has, i'll send you another post and let you know. that way, i can get your mailing address and get them out to you.
wj cody

i remember my first hasselblad, back in '76. Erica and I went out and flew through a roll of tri-x, brought it back to the house, developed it and nearly fell on the floor. the negatives were damn near three dimensional. great lenses, great camera - still use my 500cm and 501s today. love them beyond all others. and i do agree with Ken Rockwell that the mamiya 6x6 and 6x7 rangefinders provide better results. but that has to do with rear lens element to film distance in the camera. i find for composition my 'blads to be my go to cameras. i use my mamiya 6 when i'm just out looking for grab shots (like a big leica)!

so, congratulations on your purchase and i hope you enjoy it as much as i have over the years. they are nearly indestructible.

hi, i buy many photographic items from overseas, including Hong Kong. i also sell to lots of folks there. however, the issue is warranty service. Neither Nikon or Canon will service non-United States imported cameras. they will not service them even if you offer to pay.

while the up front savings may be attractive, should anything go south, you'd incurr a great deal of expense and time in having it repaired. also, i'm big on using in country, and especially local resources, when buying my equipment. this way, the few remaining independent businesses stand a chance of surviving. they are also there when you need them for advice, not to mention knowledge of the product.

in the old newspaper biz, the 24-120 was know, somewhat sarcastically, as the "streetsweeper" lens. not the best nikon effort.
the 24-70 is a much better lens, i would opine.

with film photography the general guiding principal has been glossy will provide better definition in the grey and black areas.
whereas matte finishes block up a little bit. now that can be somewhat ameliorated in the darkroom via burning and dodging.
so, anyway, hope this is of some assistance to you.

hi, just received your post. if your lenses are k mount, which is the bayonet mount, there is not need for an adapter. they will work (with the usual feature caveats) on your camera. if, however, your lenses are the old m42 thread mount, then you should be able to find an adapter for them, most likely on ebay, or try B&H Photographic. they may have something for you.

hi, just wanted to post a concern. one of the LX's weak spots were the mirror bumpers. they are made of some sort of synthetic rubber and they degrade over time, become sticky and keep the mirror from lifting at exposure. i don't know of a lot of photo techs who have replacements, but perhaps they can make something to use should this ever happen to you - i sure hope not, as the LX is the most nifty Pentax i ever used!

i always thought it was simple, in an instance such as this, you don't screw with other peoples' work!

ah, but then, i'm a snob.