I could sell you a Ricoh shoulder strap. Ask if you would like a picture.

I've been interested in that comparison too and your thoughts Simon. I've had a serious think about what direction I should be headed in and I want to concentrate much more on landscape. I think there's a very good chance that Pentax will announce the full frame later this year or by next year at the latest. I'm in no rush and I am very happy with my collection of fine Pentax primes and we very reluctant to give those up. The lenses though may well take a fair while to catch up so I can understand a migration. I've been following the photography of an ex-member who made exactly that same move at a place where that kind of discussion is welcomed.

The difference in sensor size has an impact on the lens line up. I wanted a normal prime and a wide prime combination for the Q but I suspect it will now not be wide enough as it will be developed for the larger sensor. That's if it ever arrives. So I have pixel peeped the samples so I can consider my options. I have compared the RAW images against the images from Q and Q7 reviews and against my own Q images.

The Q7 certainly seems to be a decent step up in terms of detail - it is pretty evident from the detail on the building with the clocktower and also on the leaves and stones on the path of the park shots. But the noise levels are still poor in low light even at low ISO. I don't think there has been any significant improvement in noise. The sky in the top left corner of the park shot is surprisingly noisy at ISO100 and that is good light. At ISO400 then darker areas are pretty horrible. That's too limiting for me as image quality for landscape is simply not good enough to make it a serious DSLR back-up. I suspect that the Q7 + wide angle price will rival the GR's but the difference in image quality looks vast.

It looks like a very good performer indeed for other purposes where iq is less critical. But the original Q still wins for me for its better build quality and classic design too. Good luck to the Q7, I suspect it will start selling well at the same price point the Q did.

Compatibility is quite straightforward really. You can use any lens for Pentax you like just with various degrees of manual intervention.

In K mount then the 'K' and 'M' series are fully manual - camera metering can be obtained in manual mode through the 'green button' stop down metering. The A series allows camera metering in the usual way. The F series onwards add autofocus.

The earlier screwmount lenses can be used with an adaptor. They are manual but as you can manually stop down the aperture on camera then camera's metering can be used.

This database will give you the family tree of Pentax lenses and users' opinions of them. There is of course a world of third party lenses too. Understanding the evolution of Pentax lenses first will help you with the compatibility of non-Pentax lenses.

If I were to recommend a lens just to introduce you to the world of old lenses then it would be the K series 55mm f1.8. It is an excellent lens, easily available and cheap. You can sell it on if you don't like it so it would only cost you postage. The M series 50mm f1.7 would be an alternative for the same reasons.

A recent prime would be more expensive so it would depend upon your preferences and budget. That database will give you a good idea. My favourite recent catalogue lens is the FA43mmLtd.

There is a vast catalogue going back decades to choose from. Are you more interested in new or old lenses, does auto focus matter, does auto metering matter? To what extent is budget a factor? And hi.

Not for me but I can see serious benefits for the wildlife photographer, in fact I could see it as a must have in certain situations. As Ricoh's aim is for Pentax to become a player then I agree that yes Pentax needs to keep up with this type of innovation.

My reason for deleting images is not because of lack of storage, it is for other reasons. Basically I believe less is more and I really should stick to my principles.

I'm back after a couple of days sans internet. Nice to see the discussion ticking along nicely and there are some very interesting points raised.

I'm particularly interested in the longevity of digital storage. How to find a permanent storage site (not so easy). Who's to say when Flickr will be no more? Likewise Microsoft or the owners of other storage sites. If you have many images then you require large amounts of space which needs an annual subscription so what happens when you pay no more when you pop your clogs or when dementia takes hold. Have you written links to websites into your will and will you keep them up to date? What file extensions have the best long term archival potential.

I have a bag full of family photographs from up to at least 100 years ago. I wonder how to if my images will be around in 100 years. Unless I print them on archive quality paper and add them to the bag then I rather think not.

In the meantime I am deleting like mad. Most of my photos are really of no more interest to me so I can't see how they would interest anyone. Most of them do not speak of time or place and they are hampering me going forward. I spend too much time faffing around reorganising old stuff that I can now do much better, so I am getting rid of it and looking forward. Rather than relying on something that is 'ok' I can delete it and use it as a spur to go and do better.

I'm also thinking about how best to display my images digitally and how to tailor my approach to that. Again there seems no obvious long term best solution.

The more I think about it the more I reckon Kris (Wombat) has the right idea with his film cameras.

I have amassed a fair few digital photos since I started this lark three or four years ago, way too many.

The most (only) important ones (regardless of artistic merit) are the family album images, those will be all be carefully archived and the best of them (but not too many) will be arranged into digital and traditional album media for future generations to do as they wish with them.

I don't have anything else that I think could really be regarded as having any particular value to anyone else. The few photos that I think are quite good will be retained (with the original RAW files). I will also retain images that do not stand up in their own right but might have potential to be used in compositing or the like. Of the rest I shall permanently delete those images I thought were alright at the time but now realise are not and therefore serve no further purpose. These number a couple of thousand. I shall initially retain a few hundred but continue to purge those that no longer live up to my standards as I would rather have a small, easily navigable and hopefully higher quality collection.

What do others do?

That's what I mean by a niche use. If there simply is no way of getting closer than 1750mm worth of distance to the subject then it is a very worthwhile exercise for an acceptable record of the subject.

I have the RJ adapter, ordered from China without issue. The aperture control is a bit tricky to get used to but once you get used to it then it's fine. I have ordered a few little bits and pieces from China and service has always been very good indeed. So I wouldn't have any qualms.