There are various offers on Pentax goodies on Amazon today (and I think it's only today) - K1 II, 15-30/2.8, 21/2.4 Limited, various others. As is usual with Amazon the real discount is likely not as high as their percentages claim, but worth a look if you're after anything.

The link below should take you straight to all the Pentax stuff.

LINK

I think the interview is very cagey, either because Ricoh are looking at it and costs for a monochrome version are high or because they are quite far along with a GR IV and don't want to handicap mark III sales by suggesting that it will soon be obsolete. I agree a monochrome GR would sell well but at this point they need to bring out a mark IV and a mono version of that rather than a mono version of the already quite old mark III.

I think a 67 II would be my dream film camera and, although I've never used one, I don't think I'd give it up if I had one.

Well you got an excellent deal on the KP - that's about the normal price for body only, so you got the lenses for free. Virtually all the people who have bought a KP love it, the only real downside being it's not as sturdy as a K-5 or K-3.

The K-1, and all FF cameras really, are a different kettle of fish and would be much more suitable for shooting manual lenses and giving them the field of view that was originally intended. It's a lot bigger and heavier though. If you're happy with the KP then just stick with that. You may find the urge to have a FF returns, or it may not.

I use K&F adapters almost exclusively to adapt lenses to my mirrorless cameras and they are very well made and reasonably priced.

I had thought there was a P645 to K one but looking at their website there isn't.

The portrait in the middle is especially good. The lighting behind him looks like it would be quite striking and give nice atmospheric shots - did you have a play?

As for 43mm - Pentax SMC, HD, the one on the new Leica "compact" FF and I think there was a Mamiya medium format one that could be adapted (in theory).

I really don't want to be singled out as the bad guy shooting down others' genuine efforts but I believe that when people ask for feedback they deserve to get very honest results. I hope I'm not coming over as overly critical and if I am then I apologise.

I think these have toned down the colour and contrast from what you originally posted, personally I would tone them down even more on most (perhaps not all) of them. The shadows are still very dark but I hadn't realised these were from 2006 and therefore what is now a pretty old sensor so I'm not sure what level of shadow recovery will be possible.

Apart from that, some things I didn't notice in the first set you posted but looking back they are there. The sensor was dirty and there are quite a few spots that should be quite easy to clean up, mostly in the sky but some not. There also seems to be a strange blue artifact running across some of the images (top to bottom in the landscape orientation shots). I can see it in shots 1, 3 & 6 in this post. It sort of looks like flare, which would explain why it's not in all the shots, but not quite. I don't know what it is.

I'll reiterate that these are nicely composed shots. I would love to go somewhere to have the opportunity to shoot such beautiful landscapes one day.

The saturation of jpegs can be turned down without a quality loss I think. What can't be brought back are the blown out sky and the solid black shadows.

I agree. The K-3 III was what prompted me to switch to FF mirrorless for my main system, after all, why pay all that money for an APS-C camera when you can get a FF one for the same price? Of course it's not quite that simple, APS-C and DSLRs still have some advantages, but the massive price jump from previous generations is what made the whole system look unattractive for a future decision on upgrading my original K-3.

Very nice scenes but OTT with saturation and contrast in my opinion.