A couple of years ago I went looking for a CSC. I'd been away from photography for several years and went looking for a small, feature packed and versatile camera. After looking at various CSC options (and additional/expensive EVFs) I ended up with a K-5. It's hardy much bigger than a CSC and suits me much better.

I have an MX-1 which covers all my needs when I want a small camera, and I use with the K-5 if I have a long lens attached to it (airshows etc.).

Although CSCs are slightly smaller cameras than Pentax DSLRs(the lenses are often similar sizes), they only really better a compact if you carry more than one lens. In which case they still need to go into the same bag that my K-5 (or 35mm film) kit has to go into so there's not much point (for me) in a slightly smaller and less capable camera.

As I see it CSC's and compacts are different animals for different situations. CSC's are more versatile while compacts are for when you want a small camera. There's possibly a cross-over point with something like a Q with only a small lens fitted - but generally I feel a compact is probably better suited.

I'd also recommend the MX-1, here's one from mine: link

This is my only example of in-camera HDR link, in my case there was no detail in the shadows (high key exposure) and very little in the highlights (low key).

It would be better if it wasn't restricted to JPEG, but I don't know if its possible to merge several raw images into a single raw image.

£299 from the Ricoh online store:link

The maximum width of image you can get on 120/220 film is 56mm, the 6x7 is something like 56x69, the 645 will be something like 56x42 'across' the film rather than 'along' it. Either way it makes very little difference due to the much bigger formats, but dropping down from 6x7 to 6x4.5 might be a bit underwhelming - handling will be better, faster and more 'compact' though.

As I already had the 75/4 (which is also very good) and not the 105, I find the 45 perfect (but it is very wide). Had I had a 105 I might have gone for one of the 55s (there are 'old & 'new' versions I think), but had I seen the 45 first, I might not have done - if that makes sense.

Although the 645Z is a pipe-dream at the moment, I have priced a 67->645 adapter but I'm not sure what the 45, 55 & 75 '645Z equivalent' focal lengths* would work out as yet?

* EDIT - I do of course mean 'angles of view'.

EDIT - The 45 equates to 36 (on 135), the 55 equates to 43.5 and the 75 presumably to 60mm.

Thanks vjacesslav,

To update this thread, I have stopped lining the start marks up exactly and they usually line up in about the right place. Since I've started doing this I haven't had anymore problems.

For what its worth - With 120 film, the film counter continues to count until the backing paper is rolled onto the spool. If I get 10 shots, this happens around number '15', if I get less than 10 shots it seems to happen about '13' or '14'. This might provide warning that the last shot may not have been captured at the time of shooting.

My opinion for what it's worth, is that handling is as much a feature as anything else. I've been using Pentax dual wheels since I bought my Z-1 in the '90s and I'd find it very hard to buy a Pentax without them. Beyond that it's the users choice.

I believe it's better to buy a camera you can grow into rather than one you'll outgrow soon - as long as you're sensible with the budget you can afford - not that I abide by this part very well!

I like it, apart from the lean to the left (which I didn't notice until Smeggy pointed it out) and I'm not sure about the vapour trail (not that there's much you could have done about it) but I'm not suggesting you should clone it out.

Was this with the DA10-17?

I agree, I didn't see the actual story (I don't read the mirror) but the image didn't even seem to fit the story. Ethics aside, you'd have thought they'd have found a more appropriate 'stock' image - food banks are currently a hot topic - it wouldn't have been hard to find one.