Expect crap when using built-in microphones. They only cost a couple of pennies. A good mic costs as much as a camera.

Read my article on capturing sound for video for options depending on your budget.

It should also be noted that off-brand companies like Vivitar were left to do much of the innovating, by having superior optics in close focus versions.

Or you could buy into German optics... remembering using Zeiss on Contax bodies.

And then there was Olympus who had truly astounding fast and wide lenses.

Even in the "old days" there was a lot of variety, variation and choice. Especially once auto-focus kicked in and different brands went in different directions. (And Pentax lost their initiative and market share.)

To address the original question, a 28mm lens would be the "perfect normal" on APS-C, as it would recreate the field of view of a 43mm lens on 35mm film. A 24mm lens would also be extremely useful, recreating the common 35mm street prime from film days.

I use the 24mm focal length all the time, either through the long end of the DA12-24mm or with a Vivitar close focus prime that does a very decent job. To me the range between 24-28mm is absolutely essential. The omission of these focal lengths from the Pentax prime catalogue is one of the big mysteries of the universe, more puzzling than Stonehenge and the Pyramids.

True except the last statement.

The field of view of 43mm has nothing to do with how our eyes see. It is an accident of film size.

How does one test this? Simply look at a scene. I think it is apparent our field of view is very wide, in fact generally stated as around 160 degrees. We'd need a fish-eye lens to get close to this, but then that wouldn't be rectilinear.

Of course how our eyes view a scene and how we are trained to view photographs are two different things.

Stumps, I am not a zoom person. The only one I make an exception for is the DA12-24 since there is no alternative. Add that to the FA43 and FA77 and really I need little else for my paid gigs, travel kit, whatever. So really I cannot advise on a zoom to replace the kit.

Get yourself a fast prime and never look back.

A 50/1.7 is a good cheap choice. FA43 Limited is the pinnacle.

It is true for the first model (LS-10) but the latest two have improved this. Now a non-issue unless you are spending several grand on mics that don't also roll off the bottom two octaves. In which case you would not be using a hand recorder in any case, you'd be using something with XLR inputs and phantom power. In fact, such a roll-off has the advantages of reducing handling noise and reducing rumble you'd filter out anyway. In other words, for the application scope they are designed for, there are no appreciable audio compromises in these devices.

Your limitations will be dictated by your microphones and audio engineering skills, not by your recorder.

My blog has all these issues covered in detail. Link in my sig. Click on the "audio" menu button.

Which obviously means it isn't true.

Oh well, whatever. Go to consumer sites and take their advice if you wish. I am done with dispensing free advice based on dozens of years of experience.

Oh my, I just read that "review" you linked to. What a joke.

"the built-in speaker on the back that lets you listen back to recordings without having to plug in a pair of headphones, demonstrate that Zoom's designers really did their homework designing the H4n"

A speaker? First, every shoulder recorder since year dot has a speaker. Marantz, Sony, Olympus all have speakers. Second, no-one in their right mind would use it, except for journalists checking to be sure they got something -- anything -- on tape.

"Zoom's everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach feels refreshingly generous, offering more features than recorders that cost twice as much."

Who cares about features if the unit fails after six months due to bad soldering? Or if everything you record has an extra 8dB of noise you cannot remove?

CNET is a gadget site for kidz who want to spend money on toyz. It is not to be taken seriously. I doubt you look to them for camera lens recommendations, so why would you for anything else?

I am not saying you are "dead wrong" so much as those who who have been advising you are. It is a shame they are unaware of better alternatives to the mediocre products they recommend. I put this down to simple ignorance and the herd mentality, neither of which suits a Pentax user!

The Zoom H2 is 166 Euro and has inferior sound and toy-like build. The Olympus LS-5 is 175 Euro and has superior sound for a pocket recorder, with the best build I have seen on any small unit. Are you really saying that it's not worth 8 Euros to buy a superior unit? (Disclaimer: I am basing this on the LS-10 and LS-11. I have not held the LS-5 but by every account it is identical.)

I am not sure why one would even consider the Zoom H-4N if, as you intimate, this is for a starter setup. It costs 315 Euro and is still bettered significantly by the Olympus, as I have already mentioned. No beginner needs four audio tracks, so it is the people recommending that unit who are "overestimating the needs of the average video shooter", not myself.

I would rather buy two separate audio recorders than one Zoom H4. In fact, that is exactly what I did! If I need four tracks I have them. I can use one with a mono mic and the other for stereo ambiance, positioning each for best sound. Syncing manually is a piece of cake. If I don't need more than two channels (99% of the time), I can carry just one unit.

I also have the Fostex FR-2LE for when I need even better sound and phantom power. But that's another step up. I am restricting my comments in the main to the low end.