Now sorted.

Title says it all, I'm looking for a 6x7/67 folding hood in good condition, although I may consider a rigid hood.

John.

I like 'Blea Tarn 2' best, the composition is superb.

Hi cameradextrous,

Not necessarily, but I think it will be more expensive like-for-like whether it's a 'pro', 'prosumer' or 'enthusiast' body. The existing FF manufacturers have already paid for a large chunk of their R&D, their volumes are much higher than Pentax (currently zero) and developing a FF camera in 2014/15 is more expensive than in 2010/11. Obviously it would be cheaper than a Leica M... hopefully

It was the Ricoh name on the back of the K-3 that alienated many on the US forum, along with 'wasting' the 'MX' logo on the MX-1.

Yes, but many Pentax users have stocked up on expensive DA & DA* lenses (some of the UK prices are eye-watering). The APS-C format suggests that you may need really wide-angle lenses which aren't available in 'FF' K mounts (K/M/A/F/FA series), so the only options have been DA/DA-Ltd lens lines. To get equivalent existing FF lenses you're basically looking at FA/FA* lenses which are far from cheap (new lenses launched with an FF body would be much more expensive).

It means that to get the most of the camera you'd need an 'A' lens or later. Many Pentaxians prefer to use older glass and when faced with the decision as to whether to buy or not, it gives them the excuse not to 'If only they hadn't crippled the mount I'd have pre-ordered one today, but as it is I won't be buying one'. The negativity on the US forum when the K-3 had 'Ricoh' on the back was surprising & shocking.

I'd buy one if available, but then I've got a good collection of FA glass waiting to go on it...

John.

Lets get real, any Pentax FF will be expensive (it won't be cheaper than current FF cameras and lower volumes suggest it would be more expensive). It will annoy half the Pentax users because it's too big or isn't a digital K1000/MX/LX or Ricoh decide to put their name on it. Whether it has an articulated screen or not will alienate others and woe-betide if it has a crippled K mount.

Most of us will never be satisfied, and fewer will be able to justify the expense of the body and possibly new lenses. If one were to be launched next year, it's likely you could buy a used 645D for similar money.

Pentax have to aim high, they have to focus on a pro spec body for it to work. They have to pull users from other systems as well as current Pentax users, that means something special and that may mean concentrating on the 645Z.

John.

I've avoided this thread until now (and can't be bothered to read the previous pages of comments). My take on the issue(s) are:

This is a free (cost wise) forum (if you choose not to subscribe to PU+), therefore you have the choice to participate or not. If you choose to, then there are rules/Ts&Cs that you are expected to follow (and most of these are about being civil to other users).

This forum (actually more than just a forum) is a replacement for the 'old' Pentax User Club (which you had to pay for). This club was exclusively Pentax - no if's, but's or options.

There are dozens of other forums to discuss other makes, if you wish to discuss them you'd be better doing so on one of those. If you're moving away from Pentax, then I feel you'd be better concentrating on your new gear in a more appropriate forum where you can discuss it with like-minded users in more detail.

I like the rules as they are but the implementation of them has to be (and seen to be) fair and reasonable.

I shoot lots of non-Pentax gear myself, but I discuss that on other (more suitable) forums, not because I have to but because I get more out of them.

John.

I have a different Miranda 35-70/3.5-4.5 in a non-A mount bought with my Miranda MS-2 Super in the '80s from Dixons. It came with a generic rubber screw-on collapsible 52mm hood. I used it for years with no obvious problems, the coatings might not be up to SMC standards but otherwise a perfectly usable lens.

I also have an 'A' mount Miranda 24/2.8 which originally had a Ricoh pin, but which I've since removed.

John.

The M40 was my favourite lens for film until I bought an FA43. I used it mostly on a Super-A but also MX & LX. In comparison, 50mm seems too tight and I've now got an FA28/2.8 to cover this focal length on APS-C. It's a bit slow for a standard lens but otherwise a very hand lens to have.

I'd take the DA18-135 & 8-16 and think about the 70-300 if I could squeeze it in. If you have a battery grip, I'd leave that at home.

My current travel kit is mostly film based but I take my MX-1, LX, FA20-35, fast fifty & M135 lenses. While these don't cover every eventuality, they cover most of what I need. Having a compact available is a big help when you can't be bothered to cart a DSLR about.

I would suggest taking a spare body/lens cap pair with you so you can always separate the body from the lens if you have to squeeze them into a hotel safe (my K-5 & DA17-70 only just fitted in coupled together).

Having a suitable bag also helps, a bag with enough 'other' storage for all the other travel stuff makes taking your gear on day trips a bit easier. As for a tripod, I never found the need to bother (I wouldn't use it enough), instead consider a bean bag or mini tripod/clamp thingy.

John.

I shoot in RAW+ (3Mp JPEG) and as a rough guide the first shot appears to write in about 2-3 seconds, if you shoot more it appears to slow down as it's buffering (it's hard to put better numbers on it). It's not something that I find an issue in any way.

The lens is 6-24mm (which I think equates to 28-112 or there abouts), beyond this is offers 'Intelligent Zoom' when shooting RAW+. This isn't a digital zoom, but it activates 'in camera' cropping of the JPEG - the smaller the Mp of the JPEG, the more it can crop (zoom). This gives you a 'full-frame' RAW image and 'cropped' JPEG. It also offers 'digital zoom' but I don't use that.

If I'm traveling with my K-5 and only one lens (usually DA17-70), the MX-1 replaces that, it's simply so much smaller and convenient. Only if I want more than one lens does the K-5 become more attractive. If on the other hand I want to take a film SLR, the MX-1 covers any 'digital' shots I might want so I can leave the K-5 at home.