With a bit of lateral thinking, all is not lost though. The blades are not particularly intrusive and could be easily cloned out using Photoshop. I think that's the way forwards as it is, otherwise a revisit and a reshoot.

It's very imprecise though walkeja. You need a much more accurate method of measuting this to establish what you are trying to. A grid with markers on it would be more appropriate.

If you make a mark at the edge of your field of vision through the viewfinder on all four sides and the corners, you should see those marks at the same places in the image you shoot. Needless to say, you would also need to do this on a solid tripod with SR switched off. Using the delayed action would be ideal.

Two possibilities spring to mind. Check you are not set to spot metering, use matrix or centre weighted. Check you have not set some minus exposure compensation.

I understand the distinction that you are making Steve, but that's not really right either. The lens sees a circular image.

The real point is that what we see in the viewfinder is 100% what we see in the recorded image.

It means that what the sensor sees is exactly the same as what the viewfinder sees. 100% of what is recorded is shown in the viewfinder.

The magnification at which it is shown is 95%, which means the picture you see is the same but slightly smaller than real life. However, 95% is actually very good indeed and there are many cameras that don't get anywhere near this.

There are some cameras that don't "click" with the buyers on release, but afterwards their qualities become appreciated and they become sought after classics. The MX-1 is one of them - I use mine pretty much all the time, wherever I go.

Moved to Your Photos. Agree with Andrew. Film era compact cameras were generally not up to SLR standards, regardless of price, and were a disappointment. Wishful thinking usually!

These days digital compacts can be fantastic, and hold up well even when making prints for critical use.

I can see the attraction of buying cheaper batteries obviously, but regardless of what they are labelled they can deliver a significantly lower performance, the cheapest ones can be dangerous and they don't have the same longevity. Branded batteries are generally better, including familiar names such as Hanel and Inov8, but in tests have all been shown to fall short of the rated specification. That in itself doesn't mean they are no good of course.

What I would say is that having spent quite a bit of cash on top quality equipment then I have learnt over the years that buying the proper Pentax accessories gives more satisfaction and actually in the long term can be less costly. This can relate in other ways than just the cash outlay, so for example on Thursday I did a seven hour corporate shoot and potential problems with batteries were not a factor. The Pentax battery lasted all day without even dropping a bar on the display. I had two more in reserve, but they were not needed. Messing about with batteries was not on the agenda.

There are other technical issues inside the batteries, as some have overheat protection and others don't, and, as always, quality control issues relate to the price as well. All I'm saying is think about the cost over a long period of time and maybe don't penny-pinch on what is a core necessity for our cameras.

Just ask us to move it if it hasn't been noticed, rather than posting twice. I've moved this now to Classified Ads.

Yes, the ring can keep turning.

QuickShift is the ability to fine tune focus manually at any time, without having to engage manual focus with a switch or lever. If we find focus with a half depress of the shutter button and hold that position the manual focus ring can be used to alter the focus point. This can be especially useful in macro photography.