Yep, but bear in mind that I would still like to be able to crop and enlarge the negatives. I want to get the old enlarger back into action as early attempts to scan negatives proved tedious and unsatisfactory - the scanner just can't cope with the resolution needed if you then plan to enlarge the results. Scanning A4-sized prints made the old way should be much better.

It sounds as if 1/125 with a 150mm or 200mm lens would be safe enough though?

I think I've got a full set of 3.5" disks for Supercalc here somewhere, although I've never used it. I rescued them from being chucked during a recent clear-out as I firmly believe old hardware/software needs to be kept for historical reasons. That's why I have two BBC Bs, a 386, and a couple of 486s around.

They all vary according to the model. I picked up a minty MZ-50 with the 35-80mm for a tenner a couple of years ago, but prices seem to be all over the place. Expect to pay more for the single digit bodies as they generally have a higher spec.

The Z series are much the same - I'd suggest looking on the K mount site to check specifications and using that to work out which model you want. The Z-1/Z-1P are obviously the most sought-after as they were aimed at the professional market.

SF bodies are relatively cheap, you can probably find an SF7 or SFX/SFXn for under £20 with a bit of rummaging. They are big, heavy cameras though. If you want one, try to get an SFX/SFXn as apart from the higher spec it has one major advantage. Pentax made an alternate grip to allow the use of AAs. This isn't like modern grips but instead replaces the standard battery holder, leaving the camera with a chunkier handgrip rather than anything bolted on underneath.

If you can tolerate the slight extra height it adds to the camera then the AA battery grip for the MZ series might be worth having. A while ago ebay sellers in the USA were offloading them for next to nothing brand new.

Just wondering whether the standard formula for the minimum shutter speed you should use handheld also applies to medium format? I know on 35mm you really need to keep the shutter speed number higher than the focal length of the lens to avoid shake (so with a 500mm lens you need to be at least 1/500th if not higher), does this apply to MF too or are the numbers different?

The 18-55mm will vignette horribly, I tried mine on an SFX and it was very obvious in the viewfinder.

If you really want a Pentax ultrawide for film then look for the FA-J 18-35mm, as sold on the *ist D. Quite pricey mind, and by most accounts not worth the money. For some reason people seem to be paying insane money for them despite the fact that it has no aperture ring and is therefore a bit useless on older film bodies.

Ahh, the Corsa...

We had one briefly, it was scarily bad. I really don't think it's a good first car at all, simply because it feels narrow and top-heavy. If I had to take one of those or my Discovery around the Nurburgring I'd take the Discovery on a decent set of A/Ts any day, it's just much, much easier to throw around!

I learned in a Citroen ZX diesel which didn't have any electronic aids, but which did handle very predictably and rewarded smooth driving as it didn't have a huge amount of power, so the more speed you could carry through a corner the faster progress you could make.

The MZ-50 is claimed to have a "crippled" K mount on the Dimitrov site, I haven't tried mine with an M lens to see what happens though so maybe it is fully functional?

The MZ-10 definitely has a full KAF2, it also supports Power Zoom if you have any lenses fitted with that.

Just avoid the 35-80mm lens often sold with the MZ-50 as it's pretty dire. It looks promising enough (compact, fairly long lens) but it can't match the earlier 35-70mm for image quality.

IMO learning to drive the official way has been reduced to driving by numbers. Travel at these speeds and you'll be safe, do this, do that. They don't seem interested in training people to think and analyse and feel.

The basic problem is the idea that everyone can drive. I just don't think some people have the general awareness to do it properly. They don't understand how to feel what the car is doing and act accordingly.

Higher ISO doesn't always equal more grain these days, or at least you can go much higher before it starts getting annoying. I mostly use Ilford HP5 which is rated at 400ISO, but the resulting negatives show very little grain at all. The only reason for using anything else in B&W (for me) is if I want a much slower film such as Pan F or the infra-red tricks their SFX is capable of, or for pure curiosity.

I plan to have a go with their Delta 3200 at some point, I'm expecting a lot of grain there! Also planning to test their Delta 400 and 100 against HP5 and FP4 to see which is better.

Discovery is smaller than you'd think, at least the original TDI models are. Apparently it's only about 50cm longer than the new Mini 4x4 thing and probably no wider. I know mine can get into and out of all sorts of unlikely locations without bending things.

My favourite trick is getting it into supermarket parking spaces in one go. I generally walk past several people fiddling around and failing miserably to park far smaller vehicles on my way into the shop!