Ken - that is stunning!

You might want a spare film body so you can run two rolls of film at once (say a roll of colour Ektar 100 in one and a roll of Tri-X 400 in the other). Something like a P30t would be reliable, very cheap (change from a tenner) and - best of all - doesn't have foam light seals to replace

Will you be getting the films scanned to make your own prints / upload to flickr etc? If so it doesn't matter so much whether you use slide or neg colour film. You would also be able to remove colour casts, tweak contrast, dodge and burn etc.

The only drawback is that, as a portrait lens, it's a bit slow (as a consumer zoom, you need to stop it down a stop or two really). But it is a worthwhile lens to have, definitely for the price.

Pretty stupendous set of images! Inspiring... thanks for sharing. The skyscraper/bare trees shot is just my cup of tea, but the events photography is great too.

The lens on the Super A is a Sigma 24mm Superwide II.

They scrubbed up nicely! The MX wins hands down in the beauty stakes for me, but the Super A is also nice looking and has more support for modern lenses (having Tv mode).

I definitely agree! There's certainly a lot of inspiration Pentax ought to draw from the MX when they come to design their APSC/FF CSC camera - in elegance of design and simplicity of operation.

I think the reason I thought they were HDR was... with the K7 there's a point where you have to stop with the fill light slider - too much noise starts to creep in. The K5 obviously allows you to go much much further! Lifting the shadows that much does create an HDR effect.

Another reason to buy a K5 I suppose!

It's a good shot - and I can see why Pentax liked it!

IMO the house(s) distract from the main focal point of the picture, ie the derelict tower.

That's certainly better.

But I think G has a point... I don't find the flatness of the light and the total blackness of the dark areas particularly enticing. However the crop makes much more of the composition IMO.