The 50mm lens is the "standard" lens for full frame, giving a view very similar to the human eye. It can be used for a very wide variety of subjects, is top quality and can be optically abused with close up devices and so on without it failing to deliver. If I could only have one lens of one focal length it would be a 50mm. It's interesting to check on a zoom lens how often we shoot close to 50mm.

I suppose when we compare it to a Zeiss Milvus 50mm f/1.4 at around £1100 and the Pentax has a more complex optical formula plus AF then it could start to look very good value. When I spoke to Pentax they were suggesting that this new lens would be Zeiss quality and would "blow other marque lenses out of the water" or words to that effect.
It should certainly be very interesting.

Courtesy of Google Translate:

It just goes to show how little space can be required for fine studio shots.

I remember seeing pictures of how old crowd scenes were filmed in Holywood (in the black and white days of film) and they didn't waste an inch of space beyond what they were actually shooting.

I have very fond memories of Eric Fishwick, especially their photo fairs.

Do the images display on the camera? Have you transferred the images to the computer using a card reader and simple drag-and-drop into a folder? If the answer is yes to either of those things and there's a problem, then your card may be corrupted. Did you format it in camera prior to using it?

There are lots of possible things that can go wrong, but be careful of image recovery software that might delete all the images so it can try to recover them.

I would try the card in another camera, or another slot on the camera. If the card is a very large capacity with two rows of contacts then not all readers will recognise it.

Failing all that, I'm happy for you to e-mail me a faulty image and I'll have a look at it.

Forget lens protection filters, but always use a lens hood. The hood will help avoid flare and will also take any knocks. A filter presents an unprotected piece of extra glass right at the front of a lens, making it more prone to flare and possibly reducing quality.

However, on the last point, I did run a test with high quality filters and the reduction in resolution was found not to happen. There was, however, a much increased amount of flare.

If you were shooting JPEG images then the number on a card is indicated as an average expectation. However, the actual space taken up depends on the amount of detail in each image. There will be much bigger files if a series of detailed landscapes is taken, rather than say a series of simpler shots with large, even expanses of blue sky.

Perhaps if you look at the typical file sizes of some images it will help with an explanation.

I think there are still a few things I could spend my money on. The new 70-200mm f/4 will be a strong contender when it arrives, and maybe the new 50mm f/1.4 if it proves to be Zeiss quality as suggested.

Existing things that are outstanding include the Q 08 wide angle zoom, but £399 is too much for me. I'd snap it up at £150 but not a penny more than that.

Other than those, there will be other things I want, but there are very few that I need.

Glad you said hello, seven years soon goes by!