I think the critical aperture may be f5.6 and if you're getting a result with a lens of smaller than that aperture, it's a bonus.

There's nothing to be annoyed about - Physics is Physics and it can't be altered.

RAW is simply the output from the sensor, with no modifications added, or at least only enough so that the image can actually bew deciphered. JPEG is a preset interpretation in a way, but we can select the parameters of that.

The case for RAW, like many arguments, has a point but tends to be grossly over-stated. The JPEG output of Pentax DSLRs is splendid.

I was thinking about it, but by all means you take first option Cuchulainn.

It's good photography, very interesting, thanks for the link.

Thanks Nigel, too far to collect then. I'll PM you so you can send some images, but you can post some in this thread by following the instructions at the top of the list of topics in the Your Photos forum.

Whereabouts is your location?

So it is, I missed it, many thanks.

Links please?

I ship quite a few lenses and cameras all over the world and the percentage loss is very, very small. I'd take a risk on Royal Mail Small Packets for items of relatively small value, but be careful with items over £500 as the cost will be huge if you want them properly insured.

The 67 is the most splendid medium format camera, with a sublime viewfinder that is breathtakingly sharp and bright, and of course quite enormous!

It handles like an overgrown 35mm film camera and is well suited to landscape photography and other field work. In the studio interchangeable backs were often preferred, but using 220 film with 20 shots per load is still not too bad.

Quality can be assured, but in many ways I would prefer the 645D these days. What I would say is that the jump in quality from 35mm to 645 film for me was not enough, but the jump from either to 6x7cm certainly would be. Don't forget a 67 plus lenses will be very heavy and bulky.