The beauty of these old things is that, being mechanical, they won't crap out on you after 2 years (unlike most small digi-cameras these days, in my experience).
I have an old Zorki (Russian copy of a Leica 1, so it's not a mini, but it is old) which I bought years ago. Every now and again I shoot a bit of film with it... but tbh the ubiquity of digital cameras (on phones esp) means that these days the old camera just sits on my bookshelf looking rather magnificent as opposed to ever getting actually played with.

If you want to check out old mini-cameras, you might like to have a look here:
http://www.subclub.org/shop/175mm.htm
or even drill back to the homepage for more general info:
http://www.subclub.org/

i wouldn't say that mechanical cameras are more reliable. I had an olympus trip 35 which i bought new and unused, it broke within 3 or 4 months of use, i only got to put 5 rolls of film through it, which is a shame because it was quite a nice camera to take about. My OM 40 is still going strong though, maybe i just got unlucky.
I found my Lubitel 166b medium format camera the other day. Anyone interested? i don't have the time to use it anymore!

My Nikon D70S has been very good. It is now on over 38000 shutter actuations and I've abused it. It has been on building sites and lies around in the workshop.

I lost all my film cameras a few years ago. I was staying in a hotel in France and came back to find my room burned out. The mini bar caught fire and my camera bag was sitting on the desk above it. The camera bag then caught fire, the fire brigade hosed it down and then threw everything out of the window. I went out and cheered myself up by buying the Nikon (I should also have bought some toiletries etc, all I had was the clothes was wearing and my car keys) I doubt I've shot more than 3 rolls of film since then.

My point is that with digi, you really do get what you pay for. My Nikon D100, which I bought 2nd-hand 3 years ago, is a very reliable camera. However, since turning to digital in 2004 I've got through 3 of the small ones (Nikon, Olympus, Kodak). The only compact that stood the test of time was a Canon that cost a small fortune (and which I then sold in a fit of madness for £100 on Ebay a couple of years ago).

I'd love a D300, but the "shoppers' remorse" I'd suffer after buying one would be too much to bear, I fear.

I too had an Olympus Trip. It was fine until I accidentally dropped it into a urinal (which knocked the lens barrel clean off!) at a wedding whilst inebriated... and weed on it! Understandably, Jessops decided that it was a write-off without sending it for an inspection.

I totally agree, and of course your D100 which was state of the art in 2002 when it was launched is comprehensively outclassed by the D300. Like you I really fancy a D300 but haven't quite been able to justify it to myself.

I keep thinking I really "want" to start shooting film again, but I don't actually do so. Perhaps I'll get something simple like a Pentax K1000 and step back a generation.

There again thinking about the Minox the other evening made me lust after a Minox DSC just to carry round all the time. I used to use my Minox C all the time. In my heart of hearts I know I've been spoilt by the instant gratification of plugging the camera into the laptop or PC rather than sending off the film and waiting for the results. I'd use the DSC, I don't think I would use a Minox C.

I've got a D200 which I use a good bit. A while ago, I decided I wanted to take more film shots and I bought a Nikon F100 for a hundred quid. Great camera, but I found film massively inconvenient and expensive to use after digital, so I sold it after six months or so. It seemed silly to say "right, today I'll take the film camera out" when it only really did teh same job as the digital camera but with twice the hassle.

Agreed. I have a friend who convinced me to buy a CD player when they first came out as the sound was crystal clear etc etc, today, over two decades later he is once more extolling the virtues of vinyl.

Film cameras are inconvenient and expensive. The only thing I miss about them is that the actual photographs were much better than those done on a printer.

I am Billy no mates at the moment. Janice has swanned off for a week in Cyprus to see our daughter. Fortunately my neighbours took pity on me and I have just returned from a very nice evening of good grub, red wine and French conversation.

So I now know why the French can have a 20 minute discussion about mushrooms. Whilst in English we generally have just two words i.e. mushrooms [you can eat] and toadstools [that you can't].

It seems that the French have loads of words for mushrooms, in fact when I asked how many we got to 20 very quickly.

We know how to have a good night around here.

Sounds fun. My French is pretty good, but it is topic specific. I love being invited into people's homes and chatting, but once the topics start to wander it can get pretty difficult.

I have two words for mushrooms.

'Inedible' and 'foul'

Food shouldn't be grey.