As someone who enjoys manual focusing I steer clear of the pancakes. I coughed up the money for the FA43 over the DA40 and the FA77 over the DA70 because the extra aperture matters. In fact I got both at a serious discount. I think it is worth saving for the very best, though the FA31 has so far eluded me, and at the new prices might for some time.

I am not necessarily a "collector" though I do have more lenses than I need. That came about as a byproduct of not knowing what I liked. I will soon rectify the situation with a purge.

I can see a place for the DA 15/4 for those who want something small. But otherwise I think this is one place a zoom is a lot handier than a prime, since every mm of focal length is a significant difference. The DA12-24 makes so much more sense than the 14mm prime.

The concern over Pentax' lens range is somewhat dated. Two years ago there were significantly fewer choices, but now that there are DA* telephotos and zooms, plus several more primes and an overabundance of "kit lens" type zooms to choose from, there is really almost nothing missing (except very long fast glass).

Of all these I can't say I have too much that's exotic. I could claim the 50/1.2.

This FF sensor gets you less noise a) because there are fewer pixels and b) because they are larger. FF retains more detail in the images than APS-C by a significant margin, just as MF trumps FF. That seems important to the OP.

Of course, but such people would hardly be trying to get into FF digital in the first place.

For those who want to save money I recommend a K100DS with Pentax 50/1.2 and Vivitar 28/2 lenses. Take first-class shots for a few hundred quid. No compromises except those of the cropped sensor. But I think it's obvious that is a different context!

Actually, the first set is not like for like either, or I would have the Nikon 85/1.8, which would be more equivalent in terms of focal length and max aperture, though about the same price. But I kept the 50mm because that would be a better match for the purpose, as a general lens. Really, to match focals I should compare the 31mm Limited APS-C to 50mm full-frame, but then the Nikon kit is actually cheaper -- and faster!

The second set is matched for effective focal length but you are gaining a stop with the Nikon. Choosing an even slower less pro build for the Pentax would not help the comparison (even though I personally enjoy the 16-45).

My purpose was to make some sort of quick comparison based on the kit a photographer might buy tabula rasa. Of course there are further advantages to Nikon (flash) and Pentax (weather-sealing). But it is a reasonable comparison to show that full-frame is not that much more expensive. 50% more investment to a wedding photographer who can amortize the cost is very little. What's £1500 compared to a year's operating costs?

Or even hand-held:

Er, let me try to be helpful, because I actually like using the multi-exposure in-camera. It's handy that it takes care of picking the right exposure comp on each image to get the balance right, and saves me time. Plus one can see the results immediately and use this feedback to tweak the next shot.

Be sure that setting multi-exposure is the last thing you do, since otherwise it will get canceled. Also, it will cancel after each use, so going back to the menu will always show it's off. Kind of tricky that!

Otherwise, just set Auto EV Adjust on and choose the number of shots, say 3. Tap Menu twice to get out. Then take 3 shots. At that point you'll get the image to preview. That's all there is to it.

With the new lens prices I wouldn't blame anyone going FF with Nikon. Here's a comparison I posted over at Pentax Forums.

Art kit A: K-7 + FA 50mm = £1640
Art kit B: Nikon D700 + 50mm F1.4G AF-S = £2100

Wedding kit A: K-7 + DA* 16-50mm + DA* 50-135mm = £2950
Wedding kit B: Nikon D700 + 24-70mm F2.8G ED AF-S + 70-200mm F2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR = £4550

That's not much of a premium for FF, a professional supply and support network and all the other advantages of a pro body.

In any case, all the best with your new kit!

Wow, that's bad luck or something! I can see how that would burn you, but as a systematic error it's not likely to happen with a reader you've already tested on non-crucial data. I would hope!

Let us know how that works out.

The issue with these devices, as with blind USB host drives, is that one has no real confirmation that the file copy has worked properly. There is no reassurance a screen would provide and no way to view the destination storage area.

There are more expensive devices with a screen, but they are way more expensive. At that point you may as well take a netbook. Or, my preferred solution, a normal USB HD one can plug into any old computer one may find along the way.

I prefer being very sure my files have copied to being able to copy them quickly. Besides, I would always want a second, off-site copy (say, on DVD) which is going to require a computer anyway.