My Lubitel 2 (with glass lenses, it was an early model) produces surprisingly sharp images! I'm always pleasantly surprised.

I question whether corner to corner biting sharpness is what is always needed? How many people use their cameras for copying artwork or photographing stamps? I often add vignetting and corner softness to images! Half the fun of using older glass is seeing the different rendering they give. I appreciate for some types of photography sharpness across the entire frame is necessary, but it is not the be-all and end-all, and to be frank, until we were able to zoom into images on a computer screen, most of us were blissfully unaware it was a 'problem'.

There is a wonderful episode of the "Big Bang Theory" where Bernadette says that they "discovered twitchy-eye syndrome and invented a drug to cure it all in the same week.... kerching!" I sometimes feel the same way about photography...

Cheers, Kris.

I'm teaching on the Monday so that is out...

Probably be the Saturday despite the crowds.

The British Museum is fine with photos (but no flash), whereas the National Portrait Gallery is a definite no-no. Shame, as I quite like taking images of people looking at pictures... they can be quite fun. It took me several days to get permission to photograph a Roman tap in Italy because it was in the on-site museum. If it had been left where it was found there would have been no problem. Go figure... In Germany, I wasn't allowed to photograph the Roman ships in the museum in Mainz, which is a pain as it would have been useful for teaching. In other words, the policy across museums is very inconsistent.

K.

The two K series lenses are great glass. If I didn't already own both I'd snap them up. K.

PS I know nothing about the other ones, they may be great too.

Thinking about it but it depends on work commitments etc. K.

I disagree. I never have problems focusing my MX which, obviously, has none of those features. The "proper" viewfinder is something big and clear, it can be optical, it can be electronic, but it shouldn't feel like staring down the wrong end of a telescope.

K.

Only if you shoot jpeg, Not usually an option for raw.

I am not complaining that the new camera is 36 megapixels, I was just pointing out that for me, I don't need it and that it won't be a selling point. I may well buy a K1 at some point, but for me, how it handles with legacy glass will be the deciding factor, along with the size of the image in the viewfinder. Everyone has different needs and desires, and no one camera will meet them all. For example, I very rarely use the "motordrive" function on my camera (let alone worry that it is only 4.4fps!), but I am happy it is there for the one time a year it might be useful to me, and I appreciate that it is important for some people for the type of photography they enjoy (although I'll admit to being baffled as to why one needs more than 4.4fps at a wedding unless the groom is making a dash for it before the service). The K1 looks to be a very well specified camera, and I (a) hope that it sells well enough to justify the expense and (b) heralds the introduction of further models which meet a wider range of people's needs.

K.

I'll keep an eye out for that...

Lovely set. No. 4 is my favourite. K.

TBH, for me, 36 megapixels is the least attractive part of the package. The 24 megapixels of the K-3 is far more than I need. I managed to print a lovely 12" x 12" image from less than a 1/3 of the frame... I don't, personally, ever need to print a poster the size of the side of a van. My hard disk is rapidly clogging up with raw files to the extent I am looking at a multiple terabyte wifi enabled external hard disk.

When I go to Watford next week I'll be taking some of my old legacy glass as what I am interested in is seeing how the K1 handles it. It would be great to have my K15 and K17 lenses uncropped, and I'll be carefully checking how easy manual focus is.

K.