I can't fault Harrow's work, service or communication. It took two weeks (14 days) from posting to return. The work was to fix a sticky mirror, loose hotshoe and I had the rewind knob replaced (extra cost). I have another LX that needs similar service and I'm waiting for a suitable two week window to send that for similar treatment (I didn't want them both in the post at the same time).

John.

Whether it's worth fixing is a personal choice (and depends on the currency the 300 relates to some extent) the cameras are less sought after than the MLU models.

So far I've not used the MLU on my 6x7 or 67 and have acceptably sharp handheld shots at 1/30th (no obvious signs of shake - neither mirror/shutter/camera shake - on the transparency with an 8x loupe). Doesn't mean it'll work all the time, but it isn't something I'd worry about. I haven't used it on a tripod at all - it might be more useful in that scenario though.

John.

Hi Aaron,

The 10/21 switch basically sets the point at which the shutter stops being cocked on the film counter. With 120 film, the counter itself is driven until the backing paper has been fully wound onto the take-up spool (not sure about 220).

With 120 film, the shutter is no longer cocked when advancing after frame 10, but the film counter continues to run as you wind the backing paper onto the take-up spool - this usually stops around frame 14 or 15.

I have had problems with only 9 frames from 120 film, I think this was down to me loading the film incorrectly (trying to line the start mark up exactly with the line on the film) by leaving it close enough after full wind of the lever, the problem seems to have gone away.

I can't help with the screw setting, my 6x7 MLU has a rotating switch connected to the socket.

John.

The 'HD' thing really annoys me. It has come from the video world where it means 1920x1080 at best (or just over 2MP) and doesn't to me, make it sound like a particularly impressive lens/coating/filter etc.

Last time I traveled I took just my K-5 (without the grip) & DA17-70, the lens was 'just about' wide enough, long enough & fast enough for my needs but next time I'd think about also taking a manual 135mm (which are quite small) if I need more reach - not that I'd always feel the need to carry it around during the day. An 18-135 might be the best option.

EDIT - An 18-135 isn't my ideal lens because I consider an f/4-5.6 'standard zoom' too slow and would prefer my DA17-70/4 & M135/3.5 instead (I wouldn't really miss the 70-134 range).

Next time I'm likely taking film - so the above doesn't work and I need to come up with something else!

John.

I love the 'future growth' graphs that curve gracefully into the stratosphere.

What's likely happened is that compact sales have hit the floor because everybody is using phones & tablets instead. Then the recent 'stylish' mirrorless's have been bought by the same phone/tablet (latest tech users) because they're sexy and cool. Only for them to realise that they're too big and cumbersome compared to their phone (which they always have with them) and they get left at home.

It's also that most 'tech' industries now expect to sell new models to existing users every 12-18 months based on how people buy phones & tablets. That includes cameras, TVs, Mac books, games consoles etc...

As far as I'm aware, at the moment 'cameras' (as opposed to cameras built around Android smart devices) do not have the ability to run what we commonly call 'apps' today. That is to say they can't run a user installed program that does something different to the firmware. The firmware will probably be protected against accidental overwriting & hacking (presumably by some form of cryptographic function). Whilst it's possible for hackers to target cameras, they'll always get more milage from hacking PCs & tablets which use much more standard operating systems and carry more personal information.

The most likely way to hack a camera is to hack the firmware update mechanism and then peddle modified firmware on the net as genuine (spoofing the manufacturer site etc.). Even if you achieve the former (the hack), you still need to write the modifications into the firmware and get it to run (no small task even if you're the manufacturer). Bricking a camera would be much easier, although I suspect the code to accept firmware downloads is probably write protected by hardware (one time programmable) and the first code to run in the boot-up sequence.

If cameras appear with WIFI and much more regular (or partial upgrades - software patches) automatic web based firmware updates (like PCs), then it becomes much easier to hack/brick (and even genuine firmware updates could have bugs that cause problems).

Writing a file to an SD card via WIFI is much easier as you only have to breach the security of the Adhoc network - or whichever similar mechanism will be provided for users to share photos. Spoofing it to represent it being taken by that camera is another story though.

My Pentax EI2000 (from 2001) allows IR transission of photos from the camera to other devices like printers (not sure about other cameras?) using HPs JetSend technology.

John.

I've tried this in the past and have seemed to spend ages accepting/denying cookies. The solution is not to have so many 'personalised' (for want of a better term) ads on this forum. I'm currently looking at ads for:

Broadband - I have it otherwise I wouldn't be here.
An online casino - I spend too much on Pentax gear to have any spare to gamble.
Three different holiday ads
An advert for Nikon cameras - quite a good deal as it happens

EDIT: And I've just spotted a bunch of keyword derived ads at the bottom including 'Pentax SLR' which goes to an ad page with two Canon ads and nothing about Pentax.

For me it isn't worth paying the PU subscription with so many ads.

Web advertising is a mystery to me, websites seem only too happy to host ad engines that post ads from competitors, often in preference (or more prominent) than their own 'official partners' ads. If I was an official partner I'd be pretty annoyed to be honest.

I think part of it is that a lot of lenses have shot up in value disproportionately over recent years. I know how much I paid for my F50/1.7 in the early '90s, the prices they're selling for now is much much higher. I remember (before ebay) when you couldn't give away a K mount lens - it wasn't worth the postage.

Back then I tried to sell off some of my lenses, but didn't have rear caps for them. Rather than send them off without, I offered the lens for postage as long as the buyer sent me a rear cap first - no takers. Those lenses today are going for £££ and I'm pleased I didn't give them away.

In those days an AF SLR was expensive and manual focus ones were insignificant. How that has changed.

I forgot to mention the IS on my 28-135 IS which lived a very cosseted life broke within months of buying. It was repaired under warranty but I swapped for the EF50/1.8ii which was much more pleasurable to use than the huge/heavy 28-135 - it needed IS more often that you'd normally expect.

Having SR in the body doesn't prevent you putting a stabilised lens on the front either.