Nice capture. Should I point out that a steam loco emits smoke rather than exhaust? Exhaust is emitted by internal combustion engines, ie diesels. Did the train have a diesel at the rear today or have they become more trusting that it won't break down now?

Is it this one:- http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/chinon-auto-mc-28mm-f2-8.html ?
It was a Dixons own brand lens, so at the budget end. Quality would have varied so you'll need to try it to see (note the reviews at that link.). If it works for you you've answered your own question and grabbed a bargain, if it doesn't it didn't cost a fortune.

They talk about only allowing retouching which conforms to the currently accepted standards in the industry. What on earth does that mean? It needs defining for that competition, not just a vague meaningless wish-washy instruction. The organisers need to do better.

It's officially designated full frame. There's an official list somewhere (can't find it now) and the 560 was on it.

Select [Enable] in [27. Using Aperture Ring] of the C4 menu.
Use exposure Mode M
Press the green button to take a meter reading.

There is further info on this on page 84 of the K3 manual.

Have you seen: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Pentax-K-K-01-16-3MP-Digital-Camera-Black-Body-only-/1... ?

I like all of those. Inspirational.

By all means try again. List the steps you have taken as to the setup and camera settings and highlight where things seem to go wrong or be different. You many have come across a K-1 firmware bug none else has discovered yet. Most new cameras have such things!

It could be just changing one of the settings will make it work as you wish it to.

You could pay more than that for just the lens. Full frame too!

Thanks Matt for that clarification. Should one want to extract the embedded jpeg, exiftool has the facility to do that. That jpeg is based on the camera settings and is a reduced size copy of the jpeg saved to the SD card.
That still begs the question, how could one view RAW data without processing it by one means or another? It's not possible! Either the camera has to process it or an external photo program has to to make the ones and zeros understandable.
One can have a similar question, how can one view a colour print from negative film without printing the negative. 20 different printers will end up with 20 different looking prints unless one gave the first print to each of the remaining 19 and asked them to match it (even then there would be subtle differences.)
This can only lead one to have to accept that there isn't such a thing as an unprocessed photograph. The only real question remaining is how much post processing is acceptable and that is one's personal opinion based on one's preferences and perception.