Transparency films will usually scan better than print films, Ektar can be a bit contrasty but it's a great film (I used to use Ektar 25). I also like Portra 160NC for colour print film. In slide, I usually prefer Fuji Provia 100F (the colours in Velvia are often a bit much).

When I removed my pins (by removing the mounts), some of them were 5mm or longer, pushed out by a spring - you might be grinding for some time...,

For many years my favourite was a Super-A - small, stylish and a superb finder. The Z-1 handles almost exactly like a K-5 and the LX simply feels better than anything else (and has several finder & screen options). Most film bodies go for peanuts, the only really expensive ones are the MZ-S & LX, the MX/K1000 can be moderately expensive but everything else can be bought for very little.

On old cameras condition is most important. Cameras with manual film advance levers are more reliable than 20yr old in-built auto-winders, mechanical shutters are more reliable than electronic and electronics degrade with age much faster than mechanical bits.

Glad you got it off. Removing the pin is probably quite easy (I've removed all of mine), see this link for an idea of the procedure: link

John.

Have you tried putting the body into manual focus? This should retract the screw-drive connector and might help?

Most film cameras are fully compatible with manual 'K' mount lenses, the exceptions are listed here: link. Some of the MZ series bodies have a 'penta-mirror' instead of a penta-prism (dimmer view and more distortion in the viewfinder). I'm aware the MZ-M uses this finder - not sure what else might use it (the cheaper options probably).

With manual lenses you may prefer a manual focus camera - the focus aids give more confidence than the green hexagon in my opinion. My choice would be either a P30n, ME Super, MX or K1000 because they use cheap readily available batteries and will shoot for ages on them.

John.

Hi QC, I've had a lot of expired film and film exposed 'ages ago' processed recently, some examples are shown here:link (most of the shots that look 'fine' haven't been included as there's nothing to see generally).

I shoot almost exclusively Ilford mono film (easier to get hold of and I prefer to support UK manufactures), FP4+ & HP5+ seem to be bullet proof, XP2 Super (C-41) has so much latitude it's silly. At the moment I get mine developed by the 'Ilford Lab Direct' (11x 120 roll films [FP4+ & HP5+] exposed in 2003 have just come back with excellent results), but I want to get back to doing it myself.

I have developed my own mono film, hugely rewarding, and if you've got a access to a film scanner, very cost effective. It's a doddle, you need a changing bag, dev tank, the chemicals and basic cookery skills (it's all time & temperature).

John.

I like them all (although I'd probably crop the bike tighter), is it monochrome C41 (Kodak TCN400 or Ilford XP2)?

Film is incredibly hardy and resilient to age. I've just had some mono 120 roll film which I exposed in 2003 processed (long story) and it looks perfectly fine. Colour film may start to lose colour stability after a long time (I've had reasonable results from colour slide film exposed ten years previously). Film a century old has been rescued from the Antarctic and been developed & printed.

John.

Just pointing out that these limitations only apply to bodies with crippled mounts (all of the DSLRs and some of the MZ series film cameras). I usually use HyperManual so I don't really notice the extra step. Otherwise 'K' & 'M' lenses work fine in M and Av on film bodies. A future FF with non-crippled mount would be very interesting!

When using my K-5, the only real drawback when using M lenses is that because you need to use Manual mode, you lose the horizontal spirit level in the finder (it becomes the exposure +/- indicator).

John.

Pretty much what one of the photomags suggested when testing on even high-end Cannikon bodies. Only the AF points close to the centre were able to work at wide-enough apertures and even then had problems. It's probably not just the thin DoF but also the very small image seen by the AF sensor at wide-angles.

It's the kind of challenging lens only a 3rd party manufacturer might want to make - would be interesting to see how it performs on a Sigma body?