Independent manufacturers have made Pentax mount lenses for decades, the mount has hardly changed. In the 'old' days, EOS mount lenses were more expensive as they had to have a focus motor inside the lens, didn't stop them being made, the user had to pay more. If they can't get a simple aperture lever to work anymore on a mount they've made for decades, why trust them to get the much more complex optics correct?

It wouldn't surprise me if the Zeiss ZK lenses went out of production because the FA Ltd lenses were so good/popular.

Edit: I'd have loved a ZK50/1.4 but had to 'settle' for an FA43/1.9 Ltd instead

John.

Apparently, according to the Royal Mail, so is Manchester - the addresses of all of the Post Offices in Manchester are given as 'Manchester, Lancashire' on the branch finder.

I haven't used their Warrington shop, but have used Wilkinson's in Preston for years, excellent service and most of the new gear I've bought from them over the years has come with a free 3yr warranty. Only needed it once - FA28-80 PZ switch repair (yep that long) and it was handled without problems.

John.

As has been pointed out, 'Travel' means different things to different people. If taking a DLSR and one lens, I'd probably take my K-5 (leaving the grip at home) and DA17-70/4. The lens is just about wide enough, just about long enough and just about fast enough - bit bulky though. If buying today I'd look at the 16-85, however if you already have the 18-135 it may be harder to justify a new lens?

Depends if the 'one lens' option is down to space/weight or the ease of use of a zoom, swapping lenses while traveling (if you're rushed) is sometimes more awkward than at other times. But I'd also suggest taking a fast/compact standard lens maybe? Next time I take my K-5 I'm considering taking my FA20-35/4, 50/1.4 & M135/3.5. More recently, I usually only take my MX-1 to give me more space for the LX and these three lenses.

If you take only take one lens, I suggest packing a spare body/lens cap pair so you can separate them if you need to. I once struggled to get the K-5 & DA17-70 inside a hotel safe with the lens mounted.

John.

My travel gear used to be a K-5 (without a grip) and DA17-70, which together are still quite bulky. I now use my MX-1 instead (almost the same capability). But the compact size makes it more portable when I need to carry a small camera, and it also allows me to take my LX and three lenses as well

Holidays & scenery are one thing, brollies and lights are another (I'd prefer the holidays & scenery - everybody uses brollies & lights... boring!).

As someone who has always (last 20yrs) shot medium format film using several formats/systems, I can only comment that bigger is usually better. It's not just the results, turning up with a bigger camera often has an impact all it's own (you get noticed shooting a Pentax 6x7).

A 'zed' is a substantial investment (I've only got as far as a P67->645 adapter for my 67 lenses), it helps if you have a revenue stream from the system (but I wouldn't want to shoot boring weddings). It's difficult today to get the most out of medium format image quality (who _needs_ a 50 MP file? - how big does the print have to be?), but there's much more to it than 'just' IQ.

I enjoy shooting medium format film (I shoot more exposures on it than I shoot on my K-5). If I hadn't already spent a considerable amount building 6x4.5, 6x6 & 6x7 systems over the years, I'd consider buying a 645Z (as long as I had a PC capable of managing the images - I don't - not a problem with film). I don't need one, I probably wouldn't get the best out of it, but I would enjoy every exposure - and that counts for a lot.

Once you've shot medium format, it makes smaller formats seem much less significant.

John.

No is the short answer. For those photographers that actually are risking their lives (war photography, most likely), many probably believe they'll be OK - hazard of the job. The 'standard' comment when faced with life-threatening situations appears to be that the viewfinder 'seemed like a window' and the photographer believed they were 'safe' behind it.

Turning the question around, if you thought your life was in danger, would you try and run for it or (attempt to) take photos?

Robert Landsberg's photos of Mount St Helens erupting are an example: link

John.

I carried mine everywhere in my jeans pocket for several years until it finally developed a fault (slight pressure on the back door makes it think you've loaded a new film and it advances several frames). Beautiful & brilliant camera, very small for a 135 and an excellent lens.

The IR remote I bought for mine still works with my K-5 (as does the one from my Zoom90-WR), so there's a chance a modern IR remote would also work with the Espio Mini.

For those that can't remember, the in-store promotional arrangement has the camera inside a book with the pages cut to 'hide' it - hence the 'Espio' name.

John.

Although I have a P67 with several lenses - and feel on film this is a great camera - with the 645D & Z out there, a 645 with FA lenses looks a much more enticing proposition today (although I'll shoot my P67 & P6x7 until they wear out). I have however acquired an OEM 67->645 lens adapter 'just in case'!

The GR looks a great camera - if I didn't already have a GR1s (35mm film format) I'd have bought one (I shoot much more film than digital). None of the Fuji X series I've seen is anywhere comparable with a GR size wise (shirt-pocketable) - which for me is the most important factor in this kind of camera.

If Pentax/Ricoh don't make the camera for you, buy another (there will be trade-offs - some of which may bite you later), but I'd have to ask why a Fuji X series (with or without a 'really thin prime') would be better than a GR?