For those interested, these are relevant extracts from Ricoh's warranty policy:

'All PENTAX cameras purchased through authorised bona fide photographic distribution channels are guaranteed against defects of material or workmanship for a period of twelve months from date of purchase.... If your PENTAX was purchased outside of the country where you wish to have it serviced during the warranty period, regular handling and servicing fees may be charged by the manufacturer’s representatives in that country.  Notwithstanding this, your PENTAX returned to the manufacturer will be serviced free of charge according to this procedure and warranty policy. In any case, however, shipping charges and customs clearance fees must be borne by the sender.'

Like many warranties, it is less than crystal clear on some points. But it seems to boil down to the necessity of buying from an 'authorised' dealer, wherever located, and the expectation that having the warranty met 'may' cost money if you deal with the matter outside the country where the purchase was made. It goes without saying that you lose any of the regular protections of UK or European consumer legislation.

None of this is an argument against 'shopping around' for the best deal; but these drawbacks do need weighing in the scales, particularly since the biggest savings are often available from dealers not authorised by Ricoh.

As with most 'grey' imports, it looks attractive -- and is, unless anything goes wrong. In that event (at this point you have to weigh up how lucky you feel), you'd be sending your camera back to the US to make a warranty claim. The likely bother and delay involved has a cost that might shrink or even eliminate the apparent saving.

Sometimes 'going public' is the only way to put some traction behind a complaint. But I'm inclined to agree with the comment above that the best recourse now is to pursue the issue with SRS. It is not then a warranty issue but subject to consumer legislation. Timing is important since after 6 months the onus is on the purchaser to prove that the fault was inherent. Not that you'd want to get all legalistic, but it's as well to have these matters in mind when pursuing a discussion. At least your conversation will be with a retailer that evidently has some concern for its reputation. Not all do.

I hope it's a happy outcome for you.

There's no short-cut to the slog of reading what individual insurers will offer and what their exclusions might be. There's quite a range out there and it's not invariably so that a higher premium means better protection. But, as others have said, the right household policy is much better value - for amateurs - than bespoke camera insurance.

It's worth paying attention to the excess and how it's calculated (and whether it can be reduced by a worthwhile amount by paying a higher premium). If each item is counted separately and there's an excess, say, of £200, it's easy to see that the loss of camera bag and contents might be rather poorly reimbursed.

Very interesting (I'd missed the original thread, Gwyn). As might be expected, the paper itself carries some caveats that are not prominent in the journalist's summary; but even so, the possibilities are intriguing. I see the research was sponsored by NASA -- always good to hear of a potential new entrant into the world of photography

Read this thread with interest... I've always been impressed by Sigma's persistence in trying to improve on the familiar Bayer arrangement. It's persistence that hasn't yet paid off, in terms of delivering a camera that can be used as flexibly as any Pentax or almost any other camera. Its technical achievement is real -- the quality is there, if the circumstances are right -- but its usability is restricted. The following review is knowledgeable and balanced (it also has some complimentary words about the Ricoh GR in passing!)
http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/02/12/review-the-sigma-dp2-quattro/

Thanks for the technical info, Bill. Comforting somehow to have confirmation that the wonderful palette of colours in the picture owes everything to Mother Nature and nothing to the Adobe Corporation!

I didn't get round to opening the paper until this evening, and there in the centre spread instantly recognised your 'Rainbow Falls'. A wonderful shot that richly deserves its win. The shutter speed is just right to get that sometimes elusive balance between detail and abstraction.

What is the technical story behind the shot? Is the lighting solely natural? Did you adjust the colour balance in pp? Of course you may want to keep these things to yourself. Every photographer is entitled to a degree of mystery.

Congratulations on the result.

Chris

Thanks all for your good comments. Smugmug offer a variety of designs, so I'm not stuck with the current one -- though inevitably none can have the individual character of a bespoke design.

I wonder, John, whether the opening slide show has muddied the waters? It only lasts about 40 seconds (though as you say, the poor punter has no way of knowing that). I'm left wondering whether it does the job Smugmug ascribe to it of whetting the appetite(?). The galleries are the heart of the site and those provide thumbnails and an enlargement for any photo that is selected. They can be gone through manually or (if wished) played as a slide show. I wonder whether knowing what Smugmug's rationale is for the design has perhaps hidden from me that it's not entirely obvious. I can certainly add some text to reassure people that the slide show isn't a marathon!

More content is, indeed, needed. I plan to draw that from future work rather than plundering the past too much more!

Thanks again. Very helpful to have the feedback.

I'm in the final stages of setting up a website (link) to display a selection of my photos and would greatly welcome your view of it -- what works, what doesn't. There are some limits to change since it's based on a Smugmug platform (I don't have the knowledge to code a website), but let's see ...

I've set the website up mainly as a way of sharing photos with family and friends. I know there are simpler ways. In fact I started off intending to subscribe to pbase, but in the trial period found the required routines confusing and reckoned that if I was going to struggle to get my photos online, it might as well be for a website that I could persuade myself was 'mine'. Whether or not that was the right decision, I'm now not sure, though I do also see the website as serving as an 'off-site' back-up for high-resolution files (not something, I believe, available on the likes of pbase). I don't have any illusions about attracting outside visitors to the site: there's little to drive them and my grasp of search-engine optimization doesn't go beyond knowing that it exists. Nor do I expect to sell prints, though the facility is there.

Any thoughts most welcome, positive or negative (the latter possibly more helpful ... if less gratifying!).