But their favourite is Canadian Club, so they don't have much taste in this regard!

I'm with Tim. Why shoot APS-C Pentax at all if you want big cameras?

Grips are designed to add battery power and to permit easier portrait shooting with the trade-off being weight and bulk. Well, I just shot my first wedding and now have close to 30GB of images from three cameras. I did not need to change batteries once. Cameras are a lot more efficient than they used to be -- the battery argument is null and void. Besides, it is so easy to change batteries if you have even 30 seconds down-time at some point... which you will. Or your assistant can do it. Etc.

As for portraits, turning the camera gets into all sorts of headache areas. You need an L-bracket for the tripod (if using). You need a big flash bracket to get the same control over orientation. The best advice I read, in one of the better wedding photography books, is to avoid all this extra hardware and setup time and shoot everything landscape. Crop later. We have the pixels to spare.

Grips had their day but are now a solution looking for a problem. That's my take anyway, acknowledging that everyone has their own comfort zones.

645 lens filter sizes vary across 58mm, 67mm, 77mm, 82mm. A couple of the cheapest models were 58mm.

Ditto.

I can't wait until you try to load an SD card.

The only problem with the FA43 is that it is not wider. The only problem with the FA31 is that it is not smaller. And cheaper. And wider.

There is no problem with the FA77.

Lots of good advice here. Budget was not stated, which is really the deciding feature. An image professional might spend two grand on the best monitor but few others are likely to... not even professional photographers.

I have two screens and prefer them to be different aspect ratios. That way if I am composing for OHP I can use one as a template and if I am editing HD video I can use the other. In any case adding multiple monitors is often easier on the pocket-book than having just one. And more flexible if you need to move one of them to act as a temporary display centre. The only annoying bit is all the power cables.

I have been using an old Samsung Syncmaster 1272B for ten years, but a few months back added the Dell U2311H, which is notably nicer. I think that wide-screen is less than optimal, but that's what you get these days. Certainly you'll want a matte screen as glossy is annoying as all get out. For an 8-bit e-IPS monitor this Dell was very good value, especially as I somehow got 1/3 off list.

I agree that a hardware calibrator is the best route, but a decent one would have cost as much as my monitor. When the question becomes: "monitor or calibrator?" I guess you know the right answer! As a side note, the software calibration built into Windows 7 is surprisingly good.

The U2311H has a great stand that permits adjustment in all directions, including rotation into portrait (to answer a question above). I am sure there are many better monitors but they would also be more cash.

Instead of relying on brands, check this database alongside prad.de and tftcentral.

I take my DA12-24mm on every trip, but then again I normally travel to European cities. Here the 12mm end is vital -- the 24mm focal is useful no matter where you are. For landscapes I would be more than happy with 16mm and for the best quality would use my FA43 and stitch up a pano.

Have fun with the 10-20mm.

In my early days I tried teleconverters but they are annoying to use. Rather than switch one lens for another, one has to make two attachments, all for a compromise in IQ. You seem dedicated to spending good money for good products; I wouldn't mess that up with a converter.

That said, the best ones (all else being equal) are those that provide the lowest magnification, 1.4 rather than 1.7 rather than 2.0.

I am always willing to change my mind based on evidence or a compelling argument. I have learned a lot on Pentax Forums, for example, where I am sure one can find many cases of me admitting ignorance or error.

I am also willing to admit that specific lenses are better than others and that some of the best are macro lenses. But that was not my point.

My references are "slightly bizarre"? I wonder why?