The page in question looks as though it was written a long time ago, when the first FAJ lenses appeared. This was the prelude to the digital age as the lenses came out with the new *ist film camera.

I think most current and certainly new users won't really care that they have to set lenses to "A" to use them fully - let's face it, that means lenses going back to the early 1980s can still be sued without any problems whatsoever, well over 30 years of lenses. Even older ones we have to accept some compromises, but they still work if you want them to.

You can't achieve that with Canon, there are quite a few restrictions with Nikon, Olympus restrict use to certain lenses at certain apertures....so Pentax come out pretty well in this. I don't think there's much to complain about.

It is quibbling a bit though, isn't it? It isn't a problem with A lenses and later if they are used in the way that the bodies were designed for them to be used.

When I first started using lenses where the body controlled the aperture I thought it was a step backwards, but actually it's just the same thing. It doesn't matter what the method is as long as it's efficient.

Having said that, if the cameras allowed normal use of M and K lenses I would be more inclined to use them. As it is, I don't see the point as current lenses are as good, sometimes better. Unless of course we want to experiment, and that's something else entirely.

A lenses and later should be no problem. Earlier lenses require a bit more input from us!

It's most likely that model and/or camera simply moved.

Unless we use a Victorian neck-brace the model will waver about and the photographer likewise. As the movement is likely to be to-and-fro rather than side-to-side the point of focus will easily be lost, especially at wide apertures.

I could see the advantages straight away when I reviewed the cameras.

Some months on I can offer a bit of lateral thinking. The Ricoh GR shares much of the spec of the K-5 IIs, especially the sensor and lack of AA filter. It also shares much of the characteristics.

After using the GR for a while now, pretty intensively, I'm happy to say that the result is excellent and it offers enhanced crispness over the conventional AA filter cameras. I like it.

I have a feeling that future cameras will generally move to no AA filter. The compacts already have. It will happen gradually as the technology proves itself to a generally reluctant audience.

The point about the plane of focus is technically correct, but in practice it's only relevant at macro distances. The actual diameter of the sphere which is the plane of focus is huge compared to the distances, so the actual error is very small. There's probably more error in either the AF system or our ability to manually focus.

It's not reliance on centre spot, which implies we depend on it to get out of a fix, it's just the quickest and most efficient way to work. I know where I want to focus, the camera doesn't.

At very close differences, using centre spot and then QuickShift is still the fastest way.

K-5 is good to ISO1600 without any caveat. Beyond that it's still very usable, albeit it with gradually more intrusive noise.

I've skimmed the review and the one option they missed out with AF was the option to just use centre point focus. This is actually the most efficient option with any camera.

The technique is focus where you want to, hold focus with a half press on the shutter release, recompose and fire. It can be very fast indeed.

Some of the full stops were distorting the page, so I've removed that post.

I suppose we could continue to quibble as the 645D is definitely a DSLR, just in a different format. That's no different to "FF" or APS-C, they are all DSLRs.

People buy for the first time for some amazingly wooly reasons, or maybe they over-research, or maybe they just see something they fancy. The mind of the buyer can be a mysterious and fragile thing.