You're right Mike, but I was just making a point. Most 120 film cameras in living memory were 6x6cm, so we could take that as our example.

Rather than make comparisons though, just bear in mind that smaller formats show more DOF.

Then forget comparisons altogether and just stick to learning what the format you use can do.

There was never a published "120 format-equivalent" figure for the benefit of 35mm users. The only reason we now have "35mm-equivalent" is that digital is not just one format, but many different formats. It gives at least some reference point between cameras.

Page 94 of the K-5 manual tells us that the DOF difference is one aperture stop compared to a 35mm film camera.

Contact lenses are just not an option for many people.

I've just had a look at that Algi, and what horrible images they are. I wouldn't like to draw anyconclusions from them really.

It depends how you define "good", which is not solely resolution tests. Lens testing reveals the physical characteristics of the optical performance, from which we can deduce what images will look like. But do we like this "look" for a particular lens?

I owned and tested the 31mm, 43mm, 77mm and also the 40mm and 70mm. Of these, the best performers test-wise were the 31mm and 77mm. The ones I would keep were the 43mm and 70mm. In the case of the 70mm I had that on loan and would buy one if there were spare funds available, but I still have the 43mm.

Why? The answer lies in the look of the images from the lenses. That does not mean I suggest others buy a 43mm though. It means that individuals like different characteristics in their images. This reflects our own photographic style.

The more casual photographer may see little or no difference between any of them.

We would not presume to comment on your eyesight Mike!

Always format a card in the camera it's to be used in before you start to use it. This will avoid problems.

As I mentioned in the review, possibly once, possibly a couple of times, is that I wen to considerable lengths to repeat as closely as possible all the images that were shot for the K-5 II review. This is one reason why it was important that I did both reviews. If you look at both reviews you will find that each and every shot in the first one is repeated in the second one.

So, all you have to do is to download a full res image or two from the K-5 II review and then download the same images from the K-5 IIs review. You are then free to process them as you wish in Photoshop or Lightroom, or whatever else, and see for yourself.

I purposely did not dwell on previous reviews so I only saw what I saw and was not influenced at all by what other people saw, so I don't know if the other reviewers took the same methodology. I can only say that there was something here I wanted to know and I set about finding out.

So, my conclusion was very positive, and there's now no doubt at all in my mind. Smeggypants, you now need to find out for yourself, and I've given you the material to work with. Have fun with it.

On reflection, I missed a trick here. I should really have taken the Q adapter and the 43mm lens. They would still have fitted into a pocket or two and given me a more meaningful 236.5mm f/1.9 35-mm equivalent lens. That would have made for some nice close ups.

Isn't it easy to be wise after the event?