I've tried Av, I've tried M, I've tried changing to centre weighted metering. Nothing seems to help! Really annoying as I have a Super Tak 35mm f3.5 here which is a gorgeous lens to handle, but I can't use it for this reason.

If I stop down below f11 with older K mount lenses then I hit underexposure problems. I'm wondering if the body doesn't wait for long enough during the stop-down process before taking a reading - it may be taking the reading before the aperture is fully closed? It's seldom a huge problem as I don't tend to go below f11 hand held, if I want to use it for close-ups at smaller apertures then a tripod and some trial and improvement with the digital preview does the trick.

I have just been testing the M 28mm f3.5 against an F 35-70mm and FA 28-80 (the Power Zoom version). Predictably it makes both of them look fuzzy at the same aperture, but I was surprised by how close it was.

It's also worth reading up on the regulations surrounding "Goods must be of satisfactory quality". This effectively says that items must be sufficiently durable and therefore should function for a length of time proportionate to their price. For expensive camera gear this would be a lot longer than the extended warranty covers - I would say that five or six years of intensive use would be a reasonable expectation.

It wouldn't be as easy as just claiming on the extended warranty, but it's a good one to quote when the sales staff are trying to talk you into paying extra for an extended guarantee on appliances. You already have this protection under consumer law and you don't need to pay extra for it.

It might be worth keeping an eye on ebay for a suitably vintage light meter, there are still a few around in working order. I'm not sure that a war reporter would have been likely to carry one though - expensive, fragile, and slow to use, never a good combination in a firefight!

I bought a more recent handheld one for £5 a while ago, it worked perfectly after I reattached the loose window. Just need to calibrate it properly now as I've tried using it with my K-m and it seemed to underexpose a bit. I'm guessing I need a grey card to do this?

I haven't had that problem at larger apertures with the K-m. It doesn't seem to like M42 lenses however - they always underexpose no matter what I try.

What I hadn't realised before I read the "developing film in a tin helmet on a moonless night" story (which was definitely attached to Capa too in the article I read - it could be that it was a common technique of war reporters) is that film of that era came in shorter rolls and was frequently developed simply by passing it back and forth through a dish of developer. Having dealt with 36-exposure rolls I wasn't entirely sure how you'd get it all in the helmet without it sticking to itself, and agitating it would be somewhat interesting!

Has anyone considered emailing Pentax and complaining about this? I can't believe they know about it and allow the store to keep the Pro Centre status, it must be damaging the brand image.

If they got a few similar complaints then they'd probably investigate, possibly even to the extent of sending a mystery shopper or two in to report back.

Weirdly I think the old Pentax lens cases aren't actually very good for lenses.

I only have one lens with its original case. I only have one lens which has developed fungus since I bought it. It's the same lens! All of my others live in modern Lowepro cases with a silica gel bag in the little mesh pocket in the lid and are fine. My theory is that the Lowepro cases allow the lens to breathe, while the Pentax ones are a bit too well sealed.

For bonus points: Obtain one of the Agfa Rondinax tanks that take 120 film and process film on site. Providing you have pre-mixed chemicals, a watch, and somewhere shaded to operate the tank then it should be possible to develop the film to negatives in the field.

That sounds more like Robert Capa to me!

You can still buy 120 film, I'm not sure what speeds it comes in though. I would be inclined to see if Ilford do a B&W film which would suit, as that should give a decent retro feel to the images.

I've opened up f1.7 and f2 versions of this lens, guessing it'll be one of those as even fungus-riddled f1.4s go for more than £20!

First work out which elements are affected - all three of the ones I dealt with had fungus on the front element of the rear group, so I simply had to unscrew the finishing ring (the bit with the "Pentax-M" lettering on, it's screwed into the filter thread) then unscrew the front group. Open the aperture fully then swab the fungus off the elements with a cotton bud dipped in vinegar, then polish with a dry bud. Try to keep dust to a minimum - you won't get the lens perfect but a small amount of dust won't do much harm. You don't need to disturb the aperture blades or focusing at all, just tighten the parts back on a little more than finger tight. A can of compressed air might be helpful to blast the dust out before reassembling.

You can buy a special tool for opening lenses which will be very helpful - mine cost about £15 from ebay and IIRC it's called a lens spanner/lens wrench. It has prongs to fit into the notches in the lens parts which secure the elements in place, so you can open the element group assemblies if there is any fungus between them. One of my 50mm f2s had something nasty growing on the inside of the front element too, which cleaned off using the same technique.

I would still contact the seller and complain as this isn't as advertised, but it isn't unrepairable. To give an idea of the actual value, my two 50mm f2s cost around £5 each and the f1.7 was about £12 with declared fungus (all BIN).

Does anyone know how to get the front off the 2nd version of the M 28mm f2.8? I have one with a slight fungus problem and attempts to unscrew the (plastic) finishing ring have failed!