I've been thinking about this and can't really see how that can be so. The area read by the AF sensor isn't so tiny that it's going to look beyond the reflective front of the eye and somehow focus on the very dark back of the eye.

That would imply a degree of accuracy and ability that isn't there.

The articulated screen makes the MX-1 bulkier than it would otherwise be, and I would happily do without that facility, but I put up with it and it does still fit a jacket pocket.

The one wheel isn't a problem and handling is fine.

The Ricoh GR is the latest model and that's around £550 I think now, the GR IV is the previous model presumably and it isn't rated as highly as the new one is.

The MX-1 is the one I tend to use as the zoom lens makes it much more versatile. I also have the GR and the quality is better, it's more compact but the versatility isn't there.

This time at Rufford Old Hall, looking through the spy hatch into the Great Hall. The ancient oak screen in the foreground would be pitch black without doing something about it and in-camera HDR seems to do the job very well.

We shall be there on Saturday with a coach from ADAPS, several of us getting into the spirit of things with various degrees of costume.

I have my Victorian frock coat and Victorian waistcoat, plus a genuine silver topped cane and possibly a top hat. This will blend impeccably with my Billingham Hadley Pro....

Sue has a magnificent dress made out of more material than I knew existed.

Bethany (Granddaughter) has a Victorian skirt and blouse outfit, Mark (Brother-in-Law) has a frock coat and medieval shirt, Diane (Mark's wife) has a Goth outfit proper.

All armed with Pentax cameras.

Yes, but I'm not sure how that helps with identification and under what circumstances. Needles and haystacks....I think an insurance claim is the way forward as reclaiming the goods seems a thin possibility.

Apart from anything else, would you want the kit back after any number of people might have been messing with it?

By the time I get to that part of the world Nigel I'll hopefully have a K-3, so the goal posts will move still further.....

The serial numbers will be on the lenses and also on the card that comes in the box. Not sure exactly what you mean.

It's not really a matter of challenging your assumptions Nigel, because I just felt you were going off on a bit of a tangent and over thinking this.

The shot is almost a straight shot, without any attempt to use any enhancement of the dynamic range. The image has had a very slight lift of brightness via Levels, resizing for the forum and modest sharpening.

The point of using this particular shot was just to show that flare was well controlled, much better controlled than might have been thought reasonable for a lens of this type.

Contrast and resolution are certainly not the same thing, but our eyes are such that a lower resolution contrasty image will look sharper than a high resolution low contrast one. This effect is exploited using Photoshop sharpening techniques, but it's all an illusion. We can't really make an image sharper, it just looks that way to us.

Bearing in mind that other marques are outside our remit, it certainly seems that many of us (me included) are getting very good mileage out of the Pentax MX-1.

It has a fast lens (f/1.8 at the wide end), an excellent lens, an articulated screen if that appeals and it produces excellent results. Mine travels everywhere with me and I have used it quite happily to make A3 prints.

The large prints were indistinguishable from any others and nobody for a moment thought they were from a compact camera.

One of the things I do is sell items on eBay on commission basis, and I think you would do well to eBay these. The lenses can fetch amazing prices sometimes, and not always the ones that are really good lenses.

That Tele-Takumar 200mm may not do so well, but it's a superb lens, well worth using.