I understand what you're saying Andrew and many people would agree with you.

Whenever I don't feel like carrying current DSLRs I remeber exactly how heavy the SLRs of the 1970s used to be. Not the Pentax and Olympus ones maybe, but a Nikon F2 or a Canon A1 would certainly weigh us down. In so many ways we are so spoilt these days.

Some good points in all this. We can easily become obsessed with carrying kit everywhere, which I suppose is why sometimes there's a reaction against it and we start to look at compacts and CSCs again. However, no matter how good they might be, they are still small and fiddly and they aren't DSLRs. The DSLR has so many advantages, and doesn't necessarily have to be big and heavy either.

The K-1 of course bucks the Pentax trend a little bit and is slightly heavier and slightly bigger. Some of the lenses certainly are. But it's a thing of beauty, and resisting it has proved to be impossible. All the review lenses and the review body went back yesterday, you might hold a picture of me grappling with the courier as he took the package away (OK, not quite that bad). Fortunately my own K-1 and 28-105mm arrived later the same afternoon.....

I think it depends on how prepared we feel we need to be. A camera in the pocket at all times needs something very small, and for this I use an MX-1 or WG-3. I might also use the Q-S1 with its small standard prime lens.

But for DSLR quality then the Ricoh GR or a DSLR. The K-S1 and K-S2 are small and light and will knock the compacts for six in terms of image quality. If a camera in a small bag is acceptable, then these could be the ones.

Going into a photographic situation, visiting a National Trust property perhaps, then I don't see much alternative to a bag with camera body and at least a couple of extra lenses. Going to Martin mere to photograph birds, on the other hand, only needs one lens.

Yes, i think the last one is the best, although I do like most of them apart from the blurred sea image.

The SMC Pentax-DA 10-17mm Fisheye Zoom is not a full frame lens, so I thought it would be interesting to see how it fared on the K-1 anyway. At wider than 14mm or so it is useless on full frame, but at 17mm it does cover the format. This shot is at f/4.5, hardly giving the lens a chance to be at its best, but i did want to be able to see how much darkening there was at the corners. Not much it would seem.

Anyone lucky enough to find an SMC Pentax-FA 17-28mm Fisheye Zoom will have found a full frame version of this lens. It's interesting that a full frame version is also already on the Lens Roadmap. The Fisheye Zoom must have always been a popular design.

If you're looking through the optical viewfinder and it's black that means the mirror must still be locked up, as it is in Live View.

Perhaps you didn't switch off Live View?

I saw this on IE. It seems OK on Chrome and Firefox.

Found in Nunnington Hall, this is actually a model. There is a room full of the most gorgeous models of various types of Victorian room.

Ultimately, older lenses are fun to play with and can be excellent in terms of image quality.

In a practical sense, I wouldn't use them routinely for jobs that need to be done. Then it's new AF lenses that have, as I think Nigel mentioned, better coatings and optics more suited to digital cameras.

The Russian lenses can be very good, but have a long history of variable quality control. The cameras likewise, although the old Zenit(h) SLRs were robust enough to probably use as a car jack.

The newer lenses look very interesting, and I have reviewed at least one of them, the 32mm Minitar, but they are a very niche product. Lomography is a specific set of styles and has a very enthusiastic following, so it's well worth looking into.

The nearest thing pentax offer is the lens cap lens for the Q series.