I'm not suggesting that sensors shouldn't be available in sizes larger than APS-C, I'm just constantly baffled as to why people think 36x24mm is some sort of "ideal" size to be aspired to; especially as it was originally thought of as a "miniature" size introduced more for convenience and cheapness reasons rather than any inherent quality. If you want bigger sensors then why not pester the manufacturers to make a 6x6 one? I've been playing with my Super Ikonta today and thinking, "It won't be long before the electronics are small enough and cheap enough to have a digital version of this". Can't wait!

Even better, then you could have a viewfinder the size of your LCD screen (assuming EVF technology hasn't made all optical viewfinders completely redundant long before that anyway).

I love the sparrows in the last picture - I hope that wasn't eating too much cake that turned them to stone...

If by "FF" you mean the 36x24mm format (and I guess you do) then how can anything based on a 100+ year old set of measurements possibly be described as "cutting edge"? It's the oldest game going and in 10 years people will look back in puzzlement at the current crop of unneccessarily large and expensive "FF" cameras and wonder what kind of collective mania overtook those fool enough to shell out good money on them.

APS-C is far from perfect and I'm all for innovation (I really like the square sensor idea!) but 36x24 is a backwards step into the last century and it's high time the industry moved on. If you want a system that's truly cutting edge then try Micro FourThirds, not the doddering old-tech that Nikon, Canon and Sony would dearly like you to buy into.

I wouldn't worry about sending stuff internationally, from my experience I'd say 99.9% of all buyers are honest and the other 0.1% are just as likely to come from your own town as somewhere on the other side of the planet...

So have you run any film through the MX yet? You've got yourself a nice little three lens kit there for £35.

I used to have one on my Minolta years ago - it was good for an ultrawide on film but I've never tried one on digital (or a Pentax for that matter). Nicely made lens though and plenty sharp corner-to-corner at mid apertures, I'd imagine you'd get a reasonable price if you decide to sell it.

Is that your new Schneider on the front there? Is it any good after all the waiting? Nice towel btw!

I like the last one - looks like it should have a big arrow pointing down beneath it

Get yourself a Watameter, it's an external rangefinder and they're usually quite cheap on eBay. I've been using one this week as I ran a film through my Werra; looking at the results it seems to have done the trick nicely (I'm rubbish at estimating distance too ). There are several variations but the one I have is marked in feet and inches and runs from 22" to infinity.

You should have a go at dismantling an older mechanical camera; without electronics to control things the parts count is quite extraordinary! The inside of an MX (the only Pentax I've had experience of taking apart) is mind-bogglingly complex with enough cogs to seemingly build two dozen fine Swiss watches...

I sold one of those recently for not much more money (around £18 iirc) and had the same thoughts as you John: The plastic mount made it feel a little cheap but otherwise it seemed quite a nice little camera.

I'd also be interested to see what results you manage to squeeze out of it