That is a fantastic picture! But then all those on your website are - you're to blame for me keeping on putting sneaky bids on Pentax 6x7's on eBay...

Because a useable higher ISO inevitably entails the use of a CMOS sensor and a higher base ISO (200-400) - this is undoubtably the way mainstream cameras are going as CMOS sensors are cheaper to make and don't run as hot, allowing video and live view to be implemented.

The humble CCD sensor on the other hand only has one single advantage - better image quality at base ISO. For those who don't need to stray over 100 (studios, landscapes on a tripod, etc) and don't need video capability then the CCD sensor still rules, simply because it produces a better image. It's no accident that the 645D (and DMF cameras from Mamiya, Hasselblad, Leica, PhaseOne, etc) all use CCD sensors that don't even offer high ISO levels as an option.

You pays your money and makes your choice.

From what I understand Asahi often "reserved" batches of serial numbers for later productions, so there's no guarantee that a lower number means an older camera. If you have one of the early Super-Tak 50/1.4's (with the protruding rear element) then be wary of using it on the 389xxx / green R body. The later 50/1.4's should be safe on any camera as they don't stick out at the back.

Yes - both 35mm and MF. Not as much as I shoot digitally though...

A mirrorless camera wouldn't be a bad thing - it seems as though that's the "hot" area of the market these days and Sony look set to launch two in the near future with an APS-C sensor (like the Samsung).

I just hope that Pentax don't cripple it by sticking with the K-mount. By all means bring out an adapter to allow all our current lenses to be used, but the main advantages of mirrorless designs are centred around the smaller sizes required. Give us an all new mount and make the registration distance even smaller than M4/3's and the throat bigger than the Canon EOS mount - then we could use pretty much anything from anyone with appropriate adapters.

Add a new line of "Micro-K" pancakes (rework the 21, 40 and 70) and you'd have a fantastic pocket camera system - I'd buy it!

I'm with you George. I have no idea if that's right or not, just that; "the data are..." sounds completely alien to me. I will continue using "is".

I don't own either camera but from what I've read on here it would seem that the K-7 is faster than the K20D but that the difference isn't a night-and-day one.

I briefly used an Optio M85 (the entry level model) which I bought as a present for somebody last xmas. I found the image quality to be very good, however, the lack of any form of manual control would have driven me up the wall in very short time.

As point-and-shoot cameras I think the Pentax range are as good as any of their rivals, I just wish they made one with a fast lens, proper manual controls and a hot shoe...

If you're the sort of person who's happy with the camera making the technical decisions while you concentrate on composition etc, then I see no reason not to get any of the Pentax compacts - they all seem to offer a high level of image quality in relation to their cost from where I'm stood.

An interesting comparison, you could almost be describing the Nikon D3 and the Leica M9 (except the Leica has no AF at all of course, and it's more expensive). As far as I'm aware both of those cameras have buyers so it goes to show that high ISO and machine gun FPS are not the be-all-and-end-all to *all* camera buyers.

Personally, I never use continuous shooting, I focus manually in almost all situations (although an AF system would be nice - not fast per se, just accurate would do) and I rarely stray above ISO100 (400 tops in extremis) so in your scenario I'd go for the one with the best IQ at base ISO. That's my overriding priority, others may differ but fortunately there will be cameras on the market that cater for all tastes.

Actually, any of the kid leather shades would look great with black - even the Coral! Spring Green's another Pentax-y colour.