Don't trust door step sellers so I'll make sure I'm out. Thanks anyhow!
Now if anyone wants a Samsung GX20 box I have one available (with charger.) It'll also house a K20D perfectly.
Seriously, if anyone would like this let me know. Three GX20/K20D third party batteries could be included.

I did about post it before Christmas (when it was £199) but went back and negotiated that better price as the box was missing so bought it myself. Sorry! As the box was missing, so was the battery charger that would have been in it but I found someone selling one of these on eBay for much, much less than the usual £35 or thereabouts from a dealer.
I quite like the camera. If someone thinks it's too small I don't know how they'd get on with an MX-1 or a Q or some other compact. The big plus for the K-S1 is it's a DSLR so has an optical viewfinder, the bit that's missing from the Q and MX-1, but in the same weight league. Don't be put off by the negative comments made about them, especially for £99. Yes, £99 with the JL two year warranty. Perhaps I'll find someone selling an empty K-S1 box on eBay for £100 to complete the package; it wouldn't be a first!

No personal experience, I just use a large enough memory card and upload to the PC when I get home. However Eyefi cards allow users to wirelessly transfer images and videos directly to their smartphone or tablet whereas the Pentax Flucard offers the option of wireless remote control of the camera on a smart device, including live view. So seems you need to source an Eye-fi card. Be aware that if you take raw images the file sizes are huge so may not be suitable for public wi-fi networks, and also consider the privacy/security risks of public wi-fi (which would put me off doing this.)

I agree entirely with part of your sentient that it's the person behind the equipment that determines the image. Absolutely. 100%. But that isn't what this is about!
Some photographers and dealers in photographic equipment do wish to know which equipment is being used. Imagine someone selling a lens and advertises it with a photograph from their archives thought to be taken with that lens to back up the advert. Then someone happens to check the photograph and finds the photograph wasn't taken with that lens after all. A pure mistake, but one that can happen. The poor photographer/seller could up in court for misrepresentation! If only the photograph had had accurate exif info visible the mistake wouldn't have happened. The photographer wasn't aware the lens model detail was hidden in the 'maker notes' but just not visible in the exif. The simple two second process I described in the OP would have avoided that error.
I cannot really understand why you're posting about what some might find to be a useful process when it doesn't actually bother you one way or the other. Presumably no one's ever asked you why the lens model detail is missing from the exif in your own photographs (I've checked, it is missing.) I take it your response would be it doesn't matter? But it did to the person asking. In the case of film you'd likely just have to say I cannot remember, but with digital why not share the detail if you wish, it's the photographer's choice. If it hadn't bothered me I wouldn't have bothered finding out about it and making that post. But you don't have to read it if you're not interested and certainly not complain about something written to possibly help others with an often asked question. I often see things written that seem irrelevant to me such as which is the best Canikon lens to purchase but I just ignore them as I appreciate it might help someone else.

A further example. I have two Pentax 28-105mm lenses. One's the old FA version and the other's the new DFA version. I go out with both and come back with dozens of photos. Some of the photos seem to show a problem of some kind (imaginery here!) I notice some chromatic aberration in the tree branches. Oh heck, which lens is doing that, the other one's fine. Do I just Ignore it or decide one lens is better than the other and identify which lens has the problem?
Am I correct in thinking you'd go for the former option whereas I'd go for the second? If you agree the second version is right for you too you'd need the means to identify which lens was used for which photograph and might find the process in the OP useful.

I'd have thought the lens serial numbers should be very close as well. They're not.

The speed setting dial on the ebay one is coloured differently to the linked to (mir.com) page as is the film speed setting dial.

The supplied certificate of authenticity with the eBay one has no details completed.

The serial number on the base looks to be stuck on rather than engraved as shown on the one on the mir.com page.

Stu, I'd pass on it if I were you! Reported as suspect counterfeit item.

There's something odd about it. This page link suggests only 300 were made with serial numbers from XM001 to XM300. The eBay one is XM318. And I agree, it looks pretty tatty, not like the one photographed on that linked to web page.
That eBay one couldn't be a fake could it? Of course, the article could be misinformed but spending over four grand would require serious research.
Bojidar Dimitrov confirms only 300 were made. 318 is out of range.

Why?
1. Someone might ask you which lens you used to take a particular photo.
2. You might be comparing several lenses for a review to see which performs best (and worst.) Safest to be able to get the detail correct.
3. In ten years time you may have forgotten.
4. Because you can.
Some lenses are better for certain uses than others making it useful to be able to check back which it was. Mind, if someone only has one lens I guess they might consider the detail academic! But it isn't immaterial for everyone as it does seem to be a common question on forums, etc. and even the fact that the lens model is missing from the exif. What prompted the original post was an emailed query as to why the photos in my gallery showed the lens model in the exif while theirs using the same gallery software didn't. I thought I'd share my research. Sorry if you find it immaterial, others seem to think differently. Next you'll be asking why people bother doing lens reviews, I guess.

Try a call to:
Johnsons Photopia Ltd
Hempstalls Lane
Newcastle under Lyme
Staffordshire
ST5 0SW
Tel: 0 1782 753350
Email: [email protected]">[email protected]

See: http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/en/repair-process.html

Johnsons are the official Ricoh/Pentax approved repairers and I believe if you take out a PU Plus membership here you can get a discount on repairs. Perhaps JR can confirm this still applies.

There's a table of the lens type codes which are placed in the maker notes here: http://dev.exiv2.org/projects/exiv2/repository/entry/trunk/src/pentaxmn.cpp#L687

ExifTool seems to be kept more up to date than some commercial packages and provides the facility to have the lens model data in the exif with older software, even to the extent of writing in yourself such as for old M lenses.

Yes, really cheap! Just the cost of a couple of K-1's. Does it come with a bag of peanuts too?