Whatever the inadequacies of the legislation, the notion of the 'orphan' highlights a genuine problem in need of a solution. It is by no means easy in every circumstance to trace a rights owner. With books, eg, this has meant that the world was denied their benefit at precisely the time when, with the arrival of digitisation, they could realistically be circulated again for public benefit. Hence the rise of the useful notion of the 'orphan'. Its use seems to me less compelling in the sphere of photography, though it is an extension of the same principle. Given the ease of replication, photographers worried about misuse of their material should take steps, such as watermarking, to make such exploitation too tiresome for a third party to contemplate.

'Purchase' or 'Purchase a print'? But as Dave says, it doesn't greatly matter.

There's an assessment of both lenses on http://www.photozone.de/pentax (and no doubt elsewhere). Photozone gives the edge to the Pentax lens. I haven't used the Sigma but can vouch for the Pentax. The quality is high -- higher than I expected from such a reasonably priced lens. Does it hunt? Yes, in very low light it can hunt. Worries about the motor? I did read somewhere (perhaps on here) that a Pentax engineer admitted they'd had to make the motor more robust. So, if true, and you buy new rather than 2nd hand, it seems as though that concern has been addressed.

I, too, must sing the praises of the 17-70, an excellent performer on such a variety of occasions. I find it slightly obtrusive for street photography, where a small prime is less 'in your face' (quite literally). It would be nice it it were 2.8, but then it'd be bigger! Also be good to have it WR, but then it would cost more. Quality-wise, it is of high standard.

Very nice, partic no.1

Well, you did add 'but I love it', which even if intended humourously does suggest some level of attachment.

I find it hard to get past the shot itself to see what point you're trying to establish. I just cannot imagine (except for the purpose of record) wanting to print such a photograph, let alone print it at the size you mention.

And shooting a landscape (or the backs of suburban housing) is very different from candid or street photography. There is usually no reason not to spend time deciding precisely how to configure the camera's variables on the former; the latter is usually snatched at short notice. Many of the world's most iconic photographs have technical limitations, but no one pays them attention (whatever the size of the print) because the photographs are so absorbing and powerful.

An impressive crop. As a tourist, I know I'd be too conscious of being one of the ferenji, with all the resultant attention, to concentrate on my photography!

they all have something different. The second to last one has an interesting foreground and a sense of depth

By focusing so exclusively on selected technical desiderata, there's risk of overlooking or downgrading potentially more important inputs -- composition, DoF, perspective etc -- and ending up with a good record of a scene (with low noise etc) that is none the less aesthetically underwhelming. This thread may even demonstrate that for some readers.

One thing possibly in the Pentax's favour is its use of the conventional Bayer array on its sensor. Adobe has had two shots so far at rewritining algorithms for Fuji's X-Trans to get decent results in Lightroom. Otherwise, I agree with the above and would consider the MX-1 a little behind the curve. I personally also favour a viewfinder in a camera like this, though my demographic does not underwrite photography's future.