The Super-A & LX use mechanical dials for ISO, there's only so many 'click' positions available on these dials - hence the limitations with high ISO and exposure compensation. Another option maybe a DX capable camera with DX override, as these mostly allowed override to ISO 6400 and had electronic exposure compensation mechanisms (I'm thinking of the SFXn & Z-1 type camera - but I've never tried it).

As far as film goes, you're probably going to get better results from Delta 3200 than HP5+ pushed to EI3200. But, be aware that Delta 3200 has a base ISO of ISO 1000 and needs extended development (pushing) to get EI3200. Ilford chemicals provide the relevant info - but if sending the film for development make sure the lab are aware.

John.

My feeling is that this is a post for another forum (although the mods may have their own opinion). IMHO if you really want a 3 layer sensor, the Foveon is the only solution, anything else is 'second best' at best. As a film shooter I have three (sometimes four) colour layers to play with.

If you're already a Pentax shooter the question is irrelevant, the difference will be minuscule. If you're undecided about Pentax/OMD/Foveon try them in a shop and pick the one you prefer.

John.

If you're thinking about the FA43 and wondering about the focal length, you could always buy a film body to go with it until the FF becomes available

They are two different lenses, the FA43 is sharper and much better built - but for me it's magic is its focal length when used on an FF (film) body. On an APS-C body its just a 'wrong' focal length (at least a 50mm makes a good portrait lens). I've never used mine on my K-5 - on an MX or LX it's a dream though.

On film I feel it's a much better general focal length than a 50mm (on my K-5 I use an FA28/2.8 to get a similar equivalent focal length). On an FF DSLR - yes please!

John.

When a reputable camera magazine reviewed some of the very wide, very fast lenses they commented that camera manufacturers would not offer them. The reason was that focusing them is a challenge for the body and only the very best pro bodies had enough accurate AF points to do so (even on full-fat pro bodies only a handful of the most sensitive 'centre' AF points could handle it). Whilst an independent lens manufacturer would be happy to sell them, camera manufacturers would not want to sell a ££££ lens that didn't focus well on their best ££££ pro body.

I'd assume that given correct focus calibration (via the AF dock or whatever they call it), with centre-point AF in the right (or slightly less than ideal) conditions with good technique would work well. Beyond that there's a likelihood that AF performance will drop off for each sub-optimal factor at play (up until the point where the increased DoF inherent in wide-angles starts to make up the difference).

John.

Any 'decent' pro would/should have suggested you take the time to familiarise yourself with your camera rather than buying 'their' choice (unless perhaps they had a collection of exotic lenses they were willing to lend to you).

John.

Exposure depends on which metering mode you use, the effect you want to achieve, your personal preferences, your technique and (now it's digital with raw capture available) over a dozen other settings/options. As a photographer it's up to you to to understand your gear and how to express yourself with it. If it doesn't work for you, move on and use something else (there's no point using gear you don't understand or trust).

As for how popular Pentax gear is, I don't really care - I have more than I need and it suits the way I work better than the other options I've tried (otherwise I'd have moved on years ago).

John.

If you want sharpness and fast apertures I wouldn't look for a zoom, instead I'd look for an FA20/2.8, FA35/2 and FA50/1.4 combination (I went for the FA20-35/4 over the FA20/2.8 but I'm not fussed by the difference between f/2.8 & f/4 for a wide-angle (it also makes a cracking zoom range for film!).

As someone who has used one of these since buying my Z-1 in the '90s, it's hard not to comment (BTW mine is not for sale). This is a very well made (full frame) lens, there's lots of metal and it's larger than some later lenses (so it's heavier). It doesn't have AF and unless you get the KA mount, will need the green button.

So what's good? I won't comment on the price I paid for mine 'used' in the '90s (it was a lot - and that was without the hood), this is a Tamron SP (variously described as Special or Super Performance). It's faster than most xx-300 zooms and compared to my other independent AF 'APO' xx-300 zoom, the Tamron is sharper throughout the range and especially at 300mm.

davidxgreen: If it were mine I wouldn't sell it for the price you're asking, wait for the FF body to arrive and compare it to the available FF lens options.

John.

HCB was a great, no-nonsense photojournalist, one of his books has some shots with the film perforations running across the photos ('Lomo' style), quite how he manged it I don't know. That said, apart from the shot of the guy jumping over the puddle mirroring the circus advert behind him, most that I've seen are not that memorable.

Mono is an accident of technology (either during capture, transmission or printing - while colour film was available from the '40s, newspapers didn't print in colour until the late '80s).

If I want a mono image, I shoot mono film, the thought of converting colour to a 'greyscale' image (film or digital) seems alien to me. Admittedly I'm a film enthusiast and loading shooting and processing film is all part of the experience. Digitally, if funds were no problem I might go for a Leica Monochrome, but the thought of a mono sensor guessing pixel colours courtesy of a bayer filter only to convert them back to mono doesn't excite me in the slightest.

Note to Pentax: If you can get the pixel shifting in the K-3ii to cancel out the effect of the bayer filter that would be an interesting mono development.

John.