Sadly, there's only one solution to this problem.

It's buy two of the things so that you're only without one at a time.

Actually, you're supposed to have a backup aren't you...

Thanks John, I meant more in the lines of 'preferential' service.

Thought: does being a member of Pentax User count for anything in terms of service?

But the guarantee will run out.

Last time I got something fixed at Pentax (I forgot what it was) they did it in only a few days.

That was years ago though. In the days of customer service and stuff...

I'm amazed.

I would go mad trying to put up with that.

This is precisely why I don't think the sharpness of normal shots is at all a good measure of whether the camera is working right. DOF would mask focus problems, not reveal them.

I'm not sure about this either. Unless the SR mechanism moves the sensor forwards and backwards (which I believe it doesn't) as well as up/down, left/right, and rotationally, the point in focus wouldn't change.

Also, if SR was causing shake on the tripod, you'd expect no part of the picture to be sharp. This isn't the case.

Take a look specifically at the large version of focus_IGP7303xx in DXG's pics.

Either he is not focusing correctly, or the camera isn't. This picture shows a huge error.

Edit: removed a bit that was at best confusing and at worst b******s

I'm not sure it does, in itself.

Although the calibration on the chart won't correspond to reality (it's only right when it's straight and at 45 degrees to the vertical), I think a marker behind the middle will still be the same distance behind, as the corresponding marker is in front, provided the chart is flat.

But it is faintly suggestive of potentially poor technique in other areas.

However, it's his last example, focus_IGP7303xx, that is most noteworthy.

If the camera is telling him that the middle marker is the bit in focus, I'm struggling to see how there isn't a problem.

I'm very interested to see how this all turns out..

[my emphasis]

This is a good point. Getting the result that confirms the expected result doesn't, in itself, make it any more likely to be right or wrong, just more believable. That's been the problem faced down the centuries by scientists responsible for overturning the accepted wisdom of the day.

Check out the manual, p136. Also p134, section 2. Also p131, section 2 (at the top).

It's the only reliable way of knowing when the camera thinks it's in focus. You'll also get it at the bottom of the viewfinder when it's in AF and it thinks it's focused.

I'd disagree with this, John. If there's a problem, it will be worse wide open, which he'll often not be. So some shots will come out Ok. But on another example, opened up, it's not sharp - is it subject movement, or the focusing problem? Then one's sharp - maybe as a one off, subject movement made it so, and the uncertainty eats into your confidence in the equipment.

It would drive me completely nuts if I had this situation. I was hugely relieved to get a result for my camera that convinced me that it's set up Ok, to a precision higher than I'm able to measure.

The thing about the test charts, is that they give you confidence in the machinery's behaviour under controlled conditions - so you trust it when the conditions aren't so controlled.

If his chart was even close to straight, and the camera said he was focused properly on the central marker in his example focus_IGP7303xx, something is well wrong. That one is at least (root 2) cm (ie 14mm) wrong in a meter - hard to imagine that much experimental error.