FWIW, I think of the ultra-wide zooms available for Pentax APS-C (apart from the 11-18mm f/2.8 DA*) I think this is the best option. I'm pretty happy with mine.

I agree entirely. Pentax/Ricoh behaved in a shameful manner over this whole problem. They did nothing at all.

I wouldn't buy one of the affected cameras due to this problem and I warn others to do the same. People ask me for recommendations for which camera to buy and I can no longer recommend the lower tier of Pentax cameras because of this.

I doubt the claim will get anywhere but perhaps it will act as a warning for the future, to acknowledge and take action when a systemic fault like this comes to light.

Film-era gear has risen rapidly in price, especially cameras, over the last year or two and many of the bargains are gone. I fear that should any of my less common film items break I won't be able to get replacements. This is due to the rise in popularity of film rather than the K-1 or mirrorless. The K-1 has been around for a few years, as have mirrorless cameras, and despite worries to the contrary, neither produced an increase in older gear prices.

Many old cameras that would have been sold for less than twenty quid only a couple of years ago now sell for 150 or more.

I believe that the M42 mount with rear pin to stop down the aperture is as far as it goes in being fully compatible. Several manufacturers developed their own system later of allowing open-aperture metering on M42 cameras and lenses and I think they all used different systems, Pentax and Fuji among them. In most cases the open-aperture metering system is all that is incompatible, so the lenses will mount and work but there'll be no O.A. metering. In other cases I believe that lenses may not mount.

Real photographers??

I believe the Olympus brand will likely survive in some form as whoever it gets sold to will buy the brand name for that use, in exactly the same way as the Pentax brand was sold to Hoya and then Ricoh.

I have always felt that the four thirds standard was a poor choice at the outset, not because of the aspect ratio, but because of the sensor size. They have been unable to sufficiently differentiate themselves from compacts and then smartphones, when it comes to image quality or other advantages. Four thirds (and micro four thirds) aren't cheaper than APS-C, they're not significantly smaller or lighter than APS-C, they're not faster... Panasonic have differentiated themselves to some degree by having strong video features but that's not inherent to the smaller sensor and others are rapidly catching up. Frankly, it's impressive that it has survived this long.

Although it's sad to see a company exit the market, it does mean that in the future people are less likely to go m4/3 and are therefore more likely to go to another system such as Pentax, though I suspect they will be few. More will go to Fujifilm or Sony.

It's funny, I see very few Panasonic cameras around and yet they seem to be doing OK. When I was in Japan I saw a lot of m4/3 cameras but 90% were Olympus.

Wow, this looks like a very handy tool. I had a good browse.

For those who comment on film prices in general, the ones at 7-day-shop are not really representative of the market. Prices have increased over the last five or six years, especially for colour film, but decent prices can be found if you have a look around. Recently I've been getting HP5+ for €5.09 a roll of 135/36, albeit that's in Spain where film is one of the few things that are cheaper here than in the UK.

Analogue Wonderland are fine and have a large selection but they're often not the best for price. Traditional photographic shops, especially those with an online presence, are good to check.

I remember growing up (in the eighties) my parents were very frugal with film and my impression is that it was more expensive (as a percentage of disposable income) than it is now.

7dayshop used to sell film but I think they stopped for a few years. They seem VERY expensive now - £9.99 for a single roll of Kodak Gold 200, 24 exposures!! Are they pulling our legs??

I checked back in my e-mail to see the last purchase I made from them: five rolls of original Acros in 135 format for, wait for it, £5.50 a roll, in 2016. Try getting any of the better B&W films for that price now. The new Acros II costs at least double that.

I also found a mail advertising their low prices on Kodak films in 2014, with prices that would make you weep when comparing them to what you'd pay today.

The colour version is better, because of the richness of the greens and the subtlety of the varying light level among the different layers of foliage.