TBH a major attraction of film to me is that the cameras are physically smaller. Even with the 35mm f2.4 attached the K-m is still bigger than an M series with 50/1.7. I can fit an ME Super with 50mm lens into the cubby box between the front seats of my car, and I doubt a DSLR would tolerate being left in there in cold weather for long.

With a decent negative scanner film can more than hold its end up compared to digital.

Oddly enough I don't tend to treat the more valuable bodies this way - I have two or three which I paid next to nothing for and use when I'd be worried about the MX getting drowned or frozen.

Wonder if Pentax would consider doing an Apple/Sony and having dedicated sections in non-camera shops? I could just see a small corner of John Lewis as a Pentax Pro Centre...

It will inevitably cost more than digital, but here are some guide prices:

I would reckon a roll of Ilford HP5 developed at home to cost about £7, given that the price has jumped alarmingly (it was £32 for a ten pack. It's now £36 or £43 depending on seller!) That includes a share of the chemicals but not the start-up costs of the dev tank, measuring cylinders, thermometer, etc. Expect to spend up to £50 on the kit and chemicals to develop B&W at home but the chemicals will last for ages if kept in their original neat form (only mix what you need when you need it).

Boots charge about £6 to develop and print a plain 36 exposure roll of colour negative, add on anywhere between £1 and £9 for the film depending on type (the £9 was for 1600 ASA, which you'd only use for very specific circumstances).

Boots colour slide works out at about £9 per roll. Always buy three rolls as they tend to be on three for two. I seem to be their only customer locally (the use by dates on the rolls are always the same as they were last time I bought some) and I do wonder how much longer they'll keep stocking the stuff.

So, more expensive than digital but not outrageously so. Look at it compared to any other leisure activity - I bet a year's membership for a golf club compares to an awful lot of film at about £10 per 36 exposures...

That said I will probably be shooting more colour from now on. The economics of B&W processing aren't quite as clear cut now, as I'd value the time, effort and share of chemicals I put into developing a roll at more or less the same as Boots charge to develop colour negative film, especially given that said price includes a set of prints (I usually just scan negatives and print the best ones, but that means lugging a laptop around or peering at tiny phone screens if you want to show anyone your photos).

Not a macro but a very sweet standard prime... (assuming you mean the 35mm f2.4, I think the DA Ltd 35mm Macro is out of budget!)

I think the only way you'll get a genuine macro lens for your budget is by going manual focus. Look for an SMC Pentax (or SMC Pentax-M) 50mm or 100mm f4. You should be able to find one for £150 or less even with the ridiculous prices now being paid on ebay.

There seem to be two of these, one with Power Zoom and a later design which appears to have a fair bit of Tamron involvement (but Pentax electronics and SMC coating).

If you're using it on a K200D, K10D, K20D, K7 or K5 the Power Zoom should work - I know it does on the K7 as I've had a play with it. You just click the zoom ring forward to reveal the "Power Zoom" lettering then turn it right or left - the more you turn the faster it will zoom.

Both seem well regarded, with the PZ model apparently the better of the pair. There is also an f3.2-4.5 version which is different again!

Do it...

The 50-135mm has jumped in price a bit recently (I got one of the last at £639 from SRS) but it's brilliant. I was torn between that and a Sigma/Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 but the 50-135mm is smaller and probably lighter. I wouldn't lug it around on a walk but for a fast telephoto it's easy to handle.

I do find shooting at f2.8 difficult as any rocking back and forth with a nearby subject will put it out of focus! It does incredible things with spot metering for stage shows though.

Also worth remembering that Macs now run a Linux/Unix clone OS. These tend to be more secure for two reasons - virus writers know there are more Windows users about (who are often easier to dupe because they just "want a computer" and bought whatever seemed a reasonable price at PC World but don't have a clue how to do anything other than use Internet Exploder and Word).

A Linux box also requires a password to install anything or make major changes, while this won't protect the "special" users who download and install everything in sight it will protect you from attempts by software to sidle in after you unwittingly visit an infected site.

About what I think when I see the "Send us your photos" links on news sites!

IMO the best way to fight this "free photos" attitude is to make it clear to the iphone-toting masses that any image they take has a value. It may be low, it may be high, but don't let anyone expect you to send it in for nothing. A greater understanding of the value of an image will surely help everyone aside from cheapskate organisations, as the ready supply of mugs willing to hand over their shots will dry up.

My K-m never recognises A series lenses anyway. Anything earlier than an F series and you have to set the SR manually.

There are some older lenses with neat tricks up their sleeves. Take the humble M 135mm f3.5 - can you find anything new with that focal length, aperture, and tiny size?

I would also worry about Polaroid TBH.

They made a creditable effort to redesign instant printing for the digital age with the POGO range, the snags are that the battery life on the printer is terrible (it will self-discharge within 24hrs with the printer switched off, or at least the two I've used were like this) and apparently the camera's image quality is dire (one review mentioned getting better results when they printed images from another camera on the Polaroid's built-in printer than the Polaroid itself could manage!)

There seem to be a number of old names struggling to adapt and keep up. Kodak, to me, seem a bit lost. They dumped Kodachrome (one of their best-known and loved products) and don't appear to be able to keep up with the sheer number of non-photographic companies now offering devices with cameras (such as Nokia, Apple, etc). I know a fair number of people who just use their phone as a compact camera now rather than actually buying a separate device.