I think it's because the original premise was that we are stuck on a desert island, so which one lens would we have with us.

Presumably that would be something that could cope with the widest range of subject matter. The 31mm won't be much help in many situations, lovely lens though it may be.

Our two K-5s focus without any problem in light which is lower than our eyes can focus in.

There's a lot of discussion about AF, but we really don't know how fortunate we are that it's as slick as it is. By comparison, manual focusing is very variable as our eyes are very poor at selecting the point of highest contrast, and therefore, of highest sharpness.

Apparently the microprism centre spot is the most effective aid for most people, although the split image seemed to take over. The amount of error is immense though, much more than any AF error.

Yes, the pre-flash is the problem. Have a look in the K-5 menus, after reading the appropriate section of the manual.

It is in there, somewhere.

Logic may not come into it much when we decide we like something. It's more likely to be a logical choice when it's made for commercial reasons, but for pleasure we surely just use what appeals to us?

I know someone who bought Rolleiflexes because he thought that's what professionals used. Then he bought Nikons because he thought that was what professionals used. He wasn't a very good photographer with either of them. In one sense though, the choice was very logical, because it's what pleased him.

What some people don't realise properly is that I bought into Pentax after using everything under the sun. It's what I found ergonomically to be the most satisfying to use. And that's after making a huge project over several years to try and be able to use every type of camera ever made. I completed that task maybe four years ago, but since then have tried out most new alternatives as well.

Apart from disliking the Z series I am still happily in favour with pentax design. It came back on track for me with the MZ-5. Interestingly, it was the MZ-5 that excited me as I could use it just as I used my old favourite, the MX.

No more now, I think we've covered it puma. The original question was fine and the answer looks negative for the forseeable future, unless we're wrong.

There's no need to get abusive though, and that goes for anybody. If an argument doesn't make sense, people will ask questions about it and challenge it. That is debate.

However, being abusive is not debate so please stop now and let's move on to something else.

I'm not sure exactly what the problem is if the lens is OK?

I think you'll be lucky to make any sense of Pentax serial numbers though. Manufacturers may mix up the numbers to avoid giving away the numbers of production runs. A few manufacturers in the past have been fairly rigorous in keeping track, but not Pentax.

OK guys, let's call a halt before war breaks out!

The biggest problem with Virgin Media is that the connection dies to a crawl at regular intervals. Rebooting the router cures it and it's then back up to speed.

I can sometimes get up to 5.7Mbps, which is not at all bad via a BT phone line. What I really want is it just to be reliable and consistent.

I think michaelblue is more making the point that sometimes people find they want to complain about what they can't buy, but when suddenly they can buy then they don't. At that point they find a new objection.

It's well known to people to sell. I'd buy it if you had a 600mm lens...well, when the 560mm arrives they may still not buy. "I'll have to give it some thought." And so on.

In other words, sometimes it's just chatter and not really a serious expectation that they will ever have to make the decision.

I'm sure there are a few people who move to a full frame camera, for whatever reason, but likewise there will be a few who move back. I have never seen any evidence that those who use FF cameras take better pictures.

However, that doesn't mean to say I'm suggesting that you shouldn't. If you want to, then go for it.