There are probably more K mount FF lenses around than any other brand (even many of the older ones are surprisingly still available new, see the SRS and other dealer lists.)
Walking past the diminished range of town centre camera shops I've noticed that the K-1 is often highlighted in the window. Pentax had no presence a year ago like that.
I think Pentax need to formally re-issue the FF limited primes and make the plastic fantastic DA35 & 50mm formally FF, add 20, 24 & 28mm primes and have affordable pricing for them. All the optical designs exist so with updated cosmetics they'd be a better range than the other brands have.

I think we all know that already
They could have filled in sub £500 cameras too as I saw several Pentax DSLRs well below £500 in John Lewis's the other day (obviously not second hand ones either!)
Interestingly some of the lower ranked over £1000 offerings were 4 to 5 times the price of a K-1.
Has Pentax finally come of age in the digital era?

If you wish to get basic exif from photos on that site, or any other site come to that and you use Firefox, the add-on Exify will show camera, shutter speed, aperture and ISO at the bottom of the photo. Not all web photos have exif info and Exify can't do the impossible. However it's a very useful add-on and works for many sites where the right mouse click is disabled causing alternatives such as Exif Viewer or FxIF to fail.

Another alternative is to contact that 'Welcome to Ships of the Mersey' site and ask them to install the Piwigo 'Exif View' addon (it won't cost them anything.) You can then click on an icon at the top and it will then show all the exif info.
(You can see how Exif View works on my site link if you wish as I use the same gallery software. It isn't something you can add in yourself. To get the exif, click on the little camera icon.)
A link to a related photo here: QMII if it helps avoiding rummaging around too much!

Shoot raw to one memory card and jpeg to another, then you can choose to deal with either and have a backup in case one card gets corrupted. K-1 raw files contain an exceptional dynamic range which cannot compare to camera processed jpegs.

For pixel shift raw processing the supplied program is best, otherwise Lightroom, Photoshop. Elements etc are fine. The trouble with the supplied program is that it is really s-l-o-w !

They'd be even more exaggerated with a 15-30 !

Have a look out the for FAJ 18-35mm. It's a FF lens that was originally supplied as standard on the istD. Should be really cheap but fine (i.e. less than £100 compared to more than £1000 for the new one.)

Yes indeed. The good lenses were never cheap but it's a shame Pentax ruined their reputation with some horrible cheap plasticky things. I think when they started producing the FAJ's they were trying to improve the quality as I purchased a bargain 18-35 and its truly fine on the K-1 and a tiny fraction of the cost of the newly released 15-30. Then the change to dedicated APSC digital lenses came about and many of even the earliest DA's proved to be really fine lenses, eg the 16-45.
There was a suggestion in a thread last February that some of the DA's would work well on the K-1 with a 1.4X converter. I've already tried indoors with the 12-24 which was the lens mentioned and it seems surprisingly good. I'll make some test shots with various DA APSC zooms plus the Tamron 1.4 converter on the K-1and see what works and what doesn't. I think we may be surprised. The field of view should roughly cover what the lens produces on APSC (in fact slightly more) but on the full frame of the K-1 sensor.

So's the full frame K mount version. 180 degree field of view, takes some working out how best to use it. What's more Hemi-Fisheye straightens out the edge curvature so well it doesn't look fisheye at all.

It doesn't look so bad. I've checked some where the image isn't too contrasty and the histogram is fairly central but why it should react to clouds the way it does is a bit of a puzzle still. Sharpness isn't bad for a zoom, much better than those late film era standard zooms were, or at least the 28-80 I have which has chromatic aberrations so wide it would swallow the Grand Canyon! Pentax did themselves no favours producing such poor consumer lenses at that time and I think it has taken until now (the K-1) to overcome the general perception that Pentax were poor. It is only those who were Pentax users from before the late film era who had any faith in the brand or those who are using the more recent DSLRs and know better.

You've got some excellent results from it there Nigel. Your photos haven't coming out as bright as mine seem, were you dialling the exposure down at all?