1. 700 or so is expected, I've never counted, but plenty that's for sure!

2. It's fast enough and second nature after a while.

3. If you adjust the dioptre on the viewfinder correctly the screen is sharp and easy to focus manually. I don't find a need for another screen, but some do. It depends on your eyesight perhaps.

4. Voigtlander lenses have an excellent reputation and should work perfectly well. Pentax lenses should be at least as good. There are also Zeiss lenses available in Pentax fit.

Why not offer £60?

Very well done, it's a great boost to see your own work in print.

But which body? It makes a big difference.

The MZ5 and MZ3 are the two body types that operate the same way - that is, they have conventional shutter speed dials. You could interchange using these without so much as blinking.

The older lenses you list are not really up to the standard of modern digital lenses, but they will take pictures.

I'd start with the kit lens and develop a digital kit over time. You'll find it better image quality, lighter, more compact and much easier to use.

If the maximum aperture is acceptable to you, then the 16-45mm certainly offers the best compromise between cost and quality.

If you need a wider aperture and can afford the extra cost then the 16-50mm is certainly another top class lens.

Both choices are significantly better than the kit lenses, MkI and MkII.

That's a modified ME - perhaps a prototype?

Imagine the 35mm frame split into two to make two vertical format frames of 18x24mm and you have half frame. You therefore get 72 shots on a 36 exposure film.

The advantage is economy and if the SLR is designed as half frame a smaller camera. A full frame SLR was sometimes modified but then it remains as bulky.

The disadvantage is that quality suffers as the film quality remains constant but the need for enlargement increases. Also 72 shots was too many for most people - it took forever to use up a film and the processing cost more rather than less.

Olpmpus made a range of half frame Pen cameras, both compacts and SLRs. The SLRs used a mirror system instead of a pentaprism and were therefore very compact indeed.

Interesting, there's no reason why a specialist run of a Pentax body with half frame could not have been ordered by someone with a specific purpose in mind.

Unfortunately the writer of the piece was not very knowledgable, so it makes me wonder whether it could have been an Alpa half frame variant with a Pentax lens. Pentax lenses were made for Alpa and Alpa certainly did half frame versions of their cameras.