Tests are fine up to a point, but of course there's more to a camera or lens than tests. It comes down to character, all the things which are hard to quantify but are quite real. The argument used to be German lenses vs Japanese lenses and tests only reveal part of the differences between them, inherent in their different optical styles.

We're now almost starting to discuss what "better" means or what "beats" means and that is quite sophisticated territory. I'm not able to judge whether or not a Nikon D800 beats a 645D or not, or indeed in what sense it might or might not beat it. By the time I can afford a 645D it will be an 80MP monster, the technologies having leapfrogeed yet again. Or I'll have settled on a camera phone...who knows?

You probably have to set the extended ISO range in the menus.

One thing I learned when shooting images for English heritage was to look upwards in city streets. Above the level of the shops there are some fantastic bits of architecture.

Does this windfall mean something photographic?

This is the same reason that I always wanted a Pentax 67, although I could never afford one. I would buy a 645D if I could justify it either by having enough spare cash (unlikely) or if I had a business-use excuse for it (more likely). Unfortunately I have neither at the moment.

The question is a good one. In the film scenario, I wanted better quality than 35mm but good ergononics and always loved the sheer quality of the 67. 67 transparencies have to be seen to be believed. I had to settle for 645, but the quality jump proved to be not enough to continue using it.

Likewise with APS-C, FF and 645D. The 645D has stunning potential, but if I settled for FF I can see no evidence whatsoever that people who use FF can produce anything that ourshines APS-C.

So my rationale is that I need to jump two format increases if it's going to make a real, tangible difference. Hope that explains why I don't see any contradiction in the logic.

I would just mention that memory cards are not a permanent form of memory. They will hold information for a long time (wonderfully vague) but if left unused for a longer time (whatever that may be) the cards may become unreadable.

Maybe an external hard drive would be a better place for storage?

The cynical amongst us might think to suggest that was the main reason for making FF bulky and heavy. But I'm being definitely tongue-in-cheek with that thought.

Image circles are of course...circular, so a square naturally uses more of that area. However, attempts to make square format 35mm-film cameras were met with universal disinterest. I would be surprised if anyone can remember any of them (apart from 126 cartridge models) but they were tried. It makes the cameras look very odd and they were not popular.

Considering how much resistance new ideas seem to get I doubt that any manufacturer would have the nerve!

I don't think Edward VII stamps will still be usable...

I used to spend hours researching stamps and painstakingly assembled an album of Great Britian stamps, even buying some new ones. I was always delighted with the few mint Edward VII that I managed to collect.

I can assure you that I'm not trying to sell any line, just saying what I think, as I assume you are. I sold in a specialised area for many years and to be honest I no longer have any desire whatsoever to sell anybody anything. I am happy to convey information and assistance though.

I agree it's not black and white, people have many motivations, but I wouldn't dismiss them all as being anything in particular, and certainly not as narrow-minded.

How about www.moonpig.com ?