Is that right? Eclipse used to do a separate fluid for tin oxide sensors, but seemingly discontinued it after coming to realise that the original fluid did such sensors no harm.

The 3880 inks are at least better value than their smaller brethren, and the inks don't all finish at the same time (which helps with cash flow). If you have a high throughput, CIS can make economic sense, but if your printing needs are both modest and irregular, I'd stick with the Epson inks. They are expensive, but they seem to have a good tolerance of occasional rather than continuous use. I enjoy doing my own printing, but the economic case for it is poorer than it might be -- and what happens when the printer breaks down, as it will in time? Well at that point, rather than buying a replacement, I might just decide to transfer my printing to one of the many good companies that specialise in it at reasonable prices. That would spread the investment, transferring the initial capital costs and the bother to them.

At least some of those people (however many or few) who have had SDM pack up would welcome the option of using screw drive as an alternative to spending nearly £200 to have SDM fixed. Some Pentaxians apparently already manage it by altering the firmware themselves, but why restrict a relatively easy fix to those used to dabbling with lines of code? Corporate embarrassment (if you're right) is a poor reason.

That may be because, however much we like our cameras and admire the technological achievement they represent, they are different from their close competitors in the photographs they allow us to take only in marginal ways.

What are these unique controls and customisations that are so significant, and (by implication) absent on other cameras? Perhaps I need to return to the instruction book, but I can only think of a very few, as often as not balanced by 'innovations' on other cameras that are not on Pentax models.

Pleased as I am with my current Pentax equipment, I certainly don't consider myself shackled to the brand. I bought my K5 because at the time it was by fair consensus the best dslr of its kind, better than the Nikon D7000, its close rival. If I was buying now -- assuming I had not been seduced by 'full frame' -- I might go for the Nikon D7100. If I were buying at the end of 2013, it might be the fabled Pentax K3. But actually I'm not sure any of these camera-centric decisions is/would be 'right'. At least as important is the lens line-up, including the willingness of third parties to adapt their lenses to a particular mount. Pentax's offerings suit me fine, but I might have reservations if I needed long lenses. And it is always a little troubling to be with a brand that is in other than the top two slots, for (as Pentax has seen) consolidation is a likely fate, with the instability and disruption to planning it entails in the short term, whatever the longer-term benefits. I am happy to shoot with Pentax equipment, but it is not in my DNA

I can only speak (highly) of the DA 15. Its edge sharpness wide open (f4) is not the very best, though in the centre it is pin sharp from the outset. As usual, the edge sharpness improves on stopping down a bit. With the right light, the colours are superb. To have it all in such a neat lens (with an equally neat inbuilt sliding hood) is a bonus. It is not my most used lens, but it is my joint favourite.

Online surveys are not necessarily meaningless, though they have obvious shortcomings. The survey I referred to actually seems to indicate some healthy participation by the 'unconcerned majority'. I agree with Dr O's sentiments and that Pentax might have done itself, as well as its customers, a favour by greater openness. Anyone looking to acquire an SDM lens, immediately comes across a litany of woes about the motor on the internet, which only one source can authoritatively counter.

Frogfish kicked off the year with a report of a failed SDM, so, yes, we are still getting notifications from time to time.

But I do think that with a marketing statement is as strong as that quoted earlier in the thread, the warranty should live up to it ... or the marketing claim should be qualified. They are out of kilter, and in my mind I have little doubt that the marketing message has become too exuberant, offering an implicit guarantee that would probably horrify the Pentax engineers.

If you haven't already, take a look at http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/83743-sdm-silent-a... It can scarcely be called scientific; but so long as manufacturers keep failure statistics to themselves, it is impossible to know the truth of the matter .... and to stop rumours, unfounded or not, spreading. I have two lenses powered by SDM, so I'm amongst those hoping for the best. On at least one of those lenses (50-135), there is a slightly terrifying firmware 'fix' that will permit the camera's screw drive to operate the lens. It is not for the faint-hearted, but if the SDM motor were to fail, I might try it. The lens itself is extraordinarily good for a zoom.

Axel -- so sorry (selfishly) that I won't be seeing more of your work here, though fortunately your own website is just a click away. Like others, I've admired your photographs and your inventiveness.
Chris