Be prepared!

Some good points in all this. We can easily become obsessed with carrying kit everywhere, which I suppose is why sometimes there's a reaction against it and we start to look at compacts and CSCs again. However, no matter how good they might be, they are still small and fiddly and they aren't DSLRs. The DSLR has so many advantages, and doesn't necessarily have to be big and heavy either.

The K-1 of course bucks the Pentax trend a little bit and is slightly heavier and slightly bigger. Some of the lenses certainly are. But it's a thing of beauty, and resisting it has proved to be impossible. All the review lenses and the review body went back yesterday, you might hold a picture of me grappling with the courier as he took the package away (OK, not quite that bad). Fortunately my own K-1 and 28-105mm arrived later the same afternoon.....

For a camera that can be carried with you most of the time, the MX-1 is unlikely to disappoint. If you want to travel lighter than your main kit, but still have a versatile DSLR with you, consider the following:- a Pentax K-S2 fitted with the 18-135 zoom; it is not bulky and weighs in at just about a kilo. This is a neat WR combo capable of great quality images in most situations. Also, if needed, the images from this sensor and lens can give decent 5 megapixel crops from the centre of the field of view (which is very sharp), to double the effective reach available for wildlife, etc.

Cheers.
Philip

Actually John I agree with you, I am actually quite emotionally attached to my Pentax gear, particularly the lenses....going to a high risk place such as a four day music festival and camping means I am adverse to taking my decent stuff in case it gets nicked! I know that I could buy another FZ1000 anytime, but each of my lenses reminds me of a member here, or the good deal I got from SRS etc.... I must be a bit sad!

The first time I went to Womad back in 2008. I took my k100D and kit lens plus Tamron 70-300, I wasn't so emotionally invested then!

Still trying to make my mind up for tomorrow, when I'm planning to go to Appleby Horse Fair (fingers crossed).

I've done it previously with only 1 body and the 18-135. And I've also done it previously with 2 bodies, the 16-50 on one, 50-135 in the other and the 12-24, 18-135, and Pentax Q with fisheye in the camera bag.

I've packed my bag already with the 2 bodies, but now thinking I might just take the K3 with the 18-135 attached, and put the 10-17 in my jacket pocket.

Decisions, decisions. At least I know I'm leaving the grips at home to save some weight.

I have 2 x K5's, one with a Tamron 17 - 50 f2.8 the other with a DA 55 - 300 F 4 - 5.8. These go into one Tamrac shoulder bag. I carry this and a monopod for the serious stuff. I still have the KX fitted with an 18 - 135 as a walkabout combination and when I'm really not taking photos I have a Fuji X10 in a pouch on my belt.
I'm not expecting to change anything anytime soon.

I'm in awe of the commitment shown by some of you guys. The older I get the more I'm drawn to smaller, lighter cameras and lenses.

In truth the standard of sensors has improved so much that, barring specialist use such as bird photography or extreme low-light work, most cameras on the market will take decent pictures. Certainly pixel-peeping will reveal differences, but for enlargements up to, say, A3, light cropping and web use, one would be hard-put to see any differences between one of the top compacts like a Sony RX100 and an APSC DSLR. I still don't "get" how they made the MX-1 work as it does, I suspect there must be some Japanese magic involved.

Having experienced the lightness, convenience and image quality of mirrorless cameras, I need a very good reason to haul around a bulky DSLR and lens. (I'm still recovering from a long weekend in Norfolk with my K5.) You can also blend into the background more easily with a smaller, more discreet camera (my GX7 has a silent electronic shutter which has no moving parts.) And if you've never used a tilting touch screen to select a focus-point then you've missed one of the real pleasures of modern photography.

DSLRs with their age-old film camera ergonomics, are, of course, still nicer to use, with their lovely viewfinders and are certainly less fiddly, as long as you've a valet to bear the weight between exposures.

I understand what you're saying Andrew and many people would agree with you.

Whenever I don't feel like carrying current DSLRs I remeber exactly how heavy the SLRs of the 1970s used to be. Not the Pentax and Olympus ones maybe, but a Nikon F2 or a Canon A1 would certainly weigh us down. In so many ways we are so spoilt these days.

[quote:3496ace15f="johnriley In so many ways we are so spoilt these days.[/quote]We certainly are, John. We've never had it so good. And as I said in another thread: most of us can't afford the ultimate house or ultimate car, but the K-1, surely one of if not the ultimate DSLRs, is within reach of most ordinary folk, if they choose to make some sacrifices.

I don't want or need one, because my photography doesn't warrant one, but a K-1 is by no means an impossible dream for those who do.

The harbour steps are just below Greenage's, but from JR's point about learning the bird's routine this as I say was an exception due the storms. I next saw him (or his cousin) a couple of days later on a small rock out at sea way out of telephoto range. Colourwise they look black at first but if the sunlight catches them the feathers have an extraordinary iridescent sheen, and a scale-like pattern. Plus an emerald green eye, so look a bit prehistoric.

Talking about compact cameras:

In my earlier days, I possessed a Leica 3C camera with a collapsible f2 Summitar lens.
This fitted in to my trouser pockets. Despite being so compact, the picture quality was as good as any other 35mm camera. Of course later on Rollei released the 35S, an even smaller 35mm with Zeiss lenses.
Regards, Horst