Oh, I cannot afford a D800 either. In fact, I cannot even afford the OM-D

The main point there was that one needs to jump up fairly significantly in sensor size from MFT to get a better image. Most of us don't need anything better than MFT/APS-C.

It seems your main complaint is that the kit zooms you have are slow. Well, so are all kit zooms. The solution is to pony up for the fast Olympus zooms or shoot primes. Moving to Pentax will not solve that particular problem. I generally shoot an MFT kit consisting of the 14/20/45. This is equivalent to 28/40/90, which is classic old-school FOV and works exceedingly well. It was also quite inexpensive, and the lenses are very small and light.

Pentax can't match the ease of use of the EVF. I keep waiting for them to release a mirrorless camera without compromise, but they can't seem to do it.

OM-D also has the advantage in terms of ease of manual focus. Oh, if you find the focus square too large, you know you can reduce it?

Pentax has some excellent glass in the FA Limiteds. But maybe that's not of interest to you. Then again, Olympus are not slack on the lens front, and can mount practically any lens ever invented.

If you prize the small form factor of MFT then the Pentax system will seem enormous. The difference in IQ is negligible. Both camera systems have a great image pipeline.

Besides all this, Pentax has a long way to go with video.

Considering all this, moving from the OM-D to a K30 is a side-ways step at best. If you want a distinct step up, I would personally go for a Nikon D800.

But everyone has different needs. After four Pentax DSLRs I moved to MFT and haven't looked back. I now own five bodies: two Panasonic for superior video and three Olympus because I prefer the IBIS for stills. And the form factor and ergonomics. (That's one camera too many, I suppose!)

And I still shoot the best of my Pentax glass... just not on a Pentax camera.

(In fact my next film project will utilise two 50/1.2 lenses.)

I have used the software and you are being a jerk. That is rather familiar to me as well.

The Pentax software is SilkyPix right? If so, incomprehensibly bad. LR works very well if you have the money for it.

Have fun with a great kit! Experience will reveal the wonders of the FA43.

You know though that "middle" in this context actually covers most of the area of the frame. Unless you are putting your subject at the very edges, which would be an unusual composition!

In any case, accurate focusing at wide open apertures has A LOT more to do with sharpness than does the lens.

Also realise that on APS-C or MFT the worst aspect of the edges isn't even imaged on the reduced sensor.

No, course not.

I meant in the middle where the subject is. No-one shoots at f/1.9 to get the borders sharp! Stopped down to f/4 it's absolutely fine. FA31 better perhaps for that sort of thing. But the difference is negligible in real world.

FOV makes more difference to what the shots look like, and our personal comfort level.

Wow, that's a lot of experience!

The only thing I'd disagree with is that "the sharpness is not really convincing at open aperture" since this test, and all my other shooting, disagrees with this assessment. It is comparably sharp and in fact better than all other lenses (of this FOV) I have used at f/2.

The FA43 Limited is really my favourite lens. Not perfect, perhaps, because nothing is. But on MFT it turns out to be the perfect portrait length, which is something of a bonus.

The FA31 is too big for what it does, the way I use cameras... which involves carrying one literally everywhere. I am sure that on FF it would come into its own, as a very nice FOV for street stuff. I am not so fond of its FOV on Pentax digital but then again I never much liked normal on 135 film.

Just a preference thing, but I'd rather go wider or more tele than that. Generally tele. On APS-C I used the FA77 about twice as much as the FA43. On MFT I am happy using the 135 equivalent of 70, 85, or 90mm.

Everyone is going to have different priorities and we tried to provide enough information so people can make up their own minds. For example, if you want the most "distinctive" looking wide lens, it would be the Cosina.

But then we applied our own criteria. And that pretty well eliminates the Cosina since neither of us are after the coma look.

It's good to hear someone else's ideas. Besides, "Fun Boys at 1.2" sounds like a song by an eighties band.

Thanks Froeschle. I have signed the petition. It is true that with more time and consideration we could have worked around the metering issue. But we didn't notice at the time that it was necessary. And there was chicken to be eaten.

Sorry, Womble about Flickr. I have 6000 images there so can't so easily change!

I've uploaded full-sized images from every lens at f/1.2 and f/4, to accompany those already available, shot at f/2. This should help those who want to make a more detailed examination.

They are all gathered in the Tandoori Lens Summit set on Flickr.