It depends entirely on the policy. The past two policies I've had have included my camera equipment for a very modest addition to the premium, without any onerous restrictions. Stand-alone camera insurance is best - in the sense that it covers the broadest possible range of eventualities - but the cost (as a proportion of equipment value) is high.

This thread is less a thread than a cat's cradle. It started with an innocent question, though I'm still a little surprised that the OP didn't hear the snorting of the bull as he dropped his red rag. The differences under discussion are small -- not necessarily unimportant, but not fundamental either. We have had discussion that ranges from quasi-scientific to humorous, with a few aspersions cast into the mix. I will not say anything about a few mangled meanings along the way because that always lights the blue touch paper.

So, the important thing is: have I said enough to get us onto page 11 of this illuminating discussion?

BTW, I should nail my colours to the mast. On the basis of what I've seen, I'd say it is incontrovertible that there is a difference in output between the II and IIs, but as those bird's feathers linked to in the last post suggest, it ain't large. I suspect the only way to get a difference that many people could agree is truly worthy of the term 'difference' is to work with a larger sensor ...

It seems an ideal solution if you are restricting your use to the smaller Pentax lenses. It does, though, lack versatility if you should ever want to use ND grads on the larger diameter lenses.

For that reason, I use the 100mm Lee holder, along with their wide-angle adapter rings on my wider lenses, but opt for Hitech ND grads ... which are cheaper and perform well. The size of the Sev5n set-up is enviable (and judging from the photo above the filter holder actually looks as though it might be more robustly made than the 100mm variant), but for my purposes size isn't too much of an issue.

Now, that's PU service: three responses (for once, agreeing with one another) within 30 minutes of posting.

I have a K5 rather than K7, but I think you have discovered dark frame subtraction. With long exposures the camera makes a second exposure in the dark and uses the noise pattern on that to subtract similar noise from the final image. Exposures take twice as long while the camera goes through this process. So, nothing to do with your card (though 30mbs can no longer be considered fast, it's certainly adequate for single-frame shooting).

That surprised me. I missed that change. But you are of course right. The Adobe site makes it apparent that you have to have the immediately preceding version to qualify for the upgrade price. Well, I'm happy to continue with 3.6 in that case.

Amazon do not, so far as I can see, mention this rather important restriction, so despite their mantra about the non-returnability of opened software, Andrew would be justified in getting a refund -- assuming LR5 won't load and 'replace' his 3.6.

The warranty is as robust (or fragile) as the warranty-provider. So would you be spending £90 on a warranty you can have confidence in? There doesn't appear to be a link to any terms and conditions for the warranty; and the description is sloppy (eg 'The Authorized Warranty provides complete coverage across all 48 contiguous states'). The site's general T&Cs do make it clear, though, that 'Extended warranties which are purchased are strictly non-returnable and non-refundable'. So, if you find you don't like the small print, tough. SLRHut are not subject to the Distance Selling Regulations.

This is an American company you'd be dealing with (they don't hide that but the website '.co.uk' might mislead). You'll be getting a grey import, will not have the statutory safeguards that protect transactions with any UK- or EC-based company, and should read in detail their T&Cs to be sure you are comfortable with their undertakings. You might find it useful to quiz Pentax UK on whether they'd undertake any warranty work; if not, you might be faced with returning the camera to, say, Hong Kong.

It's a good saving if all goes smoothly and the camera works as it should. My concern would be that the saving could seem paltry, if only in terms of frustration, if the K3 has or develops a fault.

Google, as you know, is just the search engine. The offender is the website that Google has turned up in its search. Contact the website and point out that they are using images that are in your (c) without authorisation. Ask them to take them down.

Whether anything happens depends in part on where the hosting server is located. If Europe or the US, eg, it should be straightforward.

Mountain and molehill spring to mind. This 'debate' is manufactured out of next to nothing and (as usual) Smeggy's views are held with tremendous tenacity. But on this occasion it's hard to see that they've earned his energy.

If the publisher follows a system that requires percentage scores, the reviewer has to have a stab at it.