I'd be very surprised if that isn't the upcoming Pentax lens in that range. It'll be Pentax branded with a 20-25% mark-up in the price.

A good quality A 50/1.7 with no aperture ring problems (very common on that model) could maybe sell for £40 in today's market. The 28mm maybe a little more, the £60 proposed by barkin is about right.

Both are very good lenses, bar any aperture ring problems. The 28mm is superb from f/4 with very modern rendering.

People over at the US forum are really up-in-arms over this but there are a lot of fanboys involved who don't seem capable of looking at things objectively. I'm not sure about the rigours of testing but the article certainly has the typical DPR whiff of anti-Pentax bias in it, especially disappointing as they had improved in this regard over the last few years.

Personally, I don't think I'd be too concerned about minutiae of image quality at silly ISOs on a FF camera that has just about the best image quality that money can buy in a camera. Yes, I'd prefer to make my own decisions on the application of NR and I'd favour noise over destructive smoothing, but the chances of that being an issue are tiny.

Maybe clean the contacts inside? Or perhaps you've loaded non-DX-coded film? Film cameras which use a DX code can usually use non-coded film but revert to a default ISO of 100, not sure if the Z1 works like that. If it does, perhaps you can use exposure compensation (if it doesn't have over-ride) to get correct exposure.

As a result of this I gave Smugmug a look yesterday. It's a site I'd heard of but I wasn't aware of exactly what it did until the Flickr acquisition brought it into the limelight. For $3.99 a month (when paying annually) you get unlimited upload space for photos at full quality and it seems to have some advanced sharing options which would make it ideal not just for backing up to the cloud but also to share shots with family and friends.

I've been thinking about cloud backup of my photos for some time and this looks like it may well be the best option.

I have wondered, if I had the money to spend on a FF camera, if I'd go for the K-1 or the A7iii and honestly I don't know. It's a moot point as I'm not prepared to spend that much cash on a camera, but I like to keep abreast of where the technology and market are, and where they're heading.

Sony has the advantage in size and that I could almost adapt every lens I own to it but in practice they're mostly K or M42 mount, only my SR mount lenses would lose out if I were to go for the K-1.

I would love to have eye-AF - all reports ( and my own opinion) indicate it's far from being a gimmick and very rarely fails.

I think the deal-breakers for me would be the reportedly poor build quality of the Sony (compared to the K-1) and that the Sony lenses are really, really expensive, even more so than Canons and Nikons. A simple 55mm f/1.8 costs £699!! It might be good but I don't see how that price can be justified.

Agreed. I was beginning to bend even though I already own three SFXns and one of the AA battery adaptors. They're a bit clunky and ugly but the SFXn is a trooper of a film SLR.

The K-70 would be the obvious choice, though you may be able to find a K-3 or K-3ii for not much more.

Some absolutely stunning shots there, especially the first few and the star-scape. They take me back to a school "character-building" trip to the Hebrides when I was 14 years old - I loved the place but have never been back. I look forward to seeing more of this work.

Convert the lens to screw-drive and if you need something reliable with in-lens motor then get a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 HSM.