I'm always glad to have comments on my work, though so many factors affect the level of response: the time/day a photo is posted; whether or not a Pentax+ member uploads a number of images shortly afterwards (getting bumped off the opening page reduces casual viewings hugely); whether the subject/treatment can communicate its interest at thumbnail size; the nature of the subject (some have a larger following than others); and so on... I am happy to comment if I have time, though I don't browse the Gallery with any regularity, and I'll usually only chip in if I think the photo is exceptional in some way, and if I feel at least some affinity to the subject. So, in answer to your question, no, I'm not troubled by the lack of response to a photo I think well of. Equally, I'm delighted on those few occasions when someone points out a flaw or a way in which a photo can be improved. I've never posted a pic in the Forum, but having seen others do it, that might be a better way to get more extended c&c.

In theory and mainly in practice, I'm a purist in photography. I'm against misrepresentation, as would any right-thinking person be. And while it's not necessarily misrepresentation, importing a more 'pleasing' sky into a picture goes against my personal grain. But where are lines drawn? There is just one photo in my gallery on this site that has been 'Photoshopped' in an extreme sense (ie more than levels, sharpening etc). It is the photo of the interior of St John's Wood tube station. When I got the image off the camera and on to screen, I noticed that the large London Transport roundel showed up in parts a yellowy orange -- where the bulb was closest to the red Perspex front. I didn't like the effect, so filled the roundel with red of the same shade as the unaffected part. Was I 'wrong' to do that? It doesn't feel wrong, and I think it improves the image, but I'm aware that it is not a million miles away from changing a sky or eliminating (as someone wrote earlier in this thread) an unwanted castle, though I must say I'm usually in favour of having castles.

So, I think it is not and easy matter at all and by no means black and white: more yellowy-orange and red....

Welcome to the site. I hope you get a satisfactory resolution. It must be almost inevitable that some consumer-grade underwater cameras (in particular) will malfunction. However annoying, to the individual who has such a faulty camera, it may be just one of those things. If the camera has been treated well (as I'm sure yours has), you might reasonably hope for some understanding - though it's a puzzle that the seals are intact yet water got in. Col55.. suggests trading standards. that's extreme at this point.

I looked into this last year when I first bought Eclipse fluid since I had no idea whether Pentax sensors had a tin-oxide coating or not (still don't). I found out eventually that E2 wasn't made any longer because it had become clear (in further testing, presumably) that the original liquid was OK after all for tin-oxide sensors.

I don't have the source to hand (it may well have been the manufactuer of Eclipse); it convinced me at the time. And I still have a functioning sensor ...

What you say is unexecptionable, but greater sharpness isn't hard to conjure in the output of the older camera. I quite accept that that must also apply to the k5IIs, and that a sort of leapfrogging is perfectly possible. Beyond a certain level, though, it would be interesting to see whether the difference observable in the shots supplied would be so clearly maintained in, say, an A3 print, viewed normally, after a journey through Lightroom. A difference would be there. Seeing its degree would be interesting.

The 5IIs does seem to offer greater sharpness -- and I'm happy to take David's evaluation of that via his own monitor and printer. There is bound to be some difficulty in demonstrating it definitively without the full file given the useful but still relatively small degree of difference involved. The issues for me would be whether i) the in-camera difference can't be all but eliminated in PP without much cost in terms of noise/artifacts; ii) the current price difference merits upgrade from K5 to the later model. I have no answer to the first, and I think the answer to the second (for me) is 'probably not'. There are other considerations and those frustrated by the K5's autofocus inadequacies will add that to the scales in making a decision.

If Pentax had launched the MX1 and offered the same IQ as the Sony, I'd be right with you. It does handle better, in ways I'm familiar with to boot. (Like you, have tried both cameras in shops, though not on the same occasion.) Unfortunately, its IQ doesn't come close, really. It doesn't disgrace itself, but ....

It doesn't invalidate the numerous points he makes in the Pentax's favour (or in the Sony's). Up to that point, quite interesting. But, within reason, most serious photographers will be swayed, I suspect, more by quality of output than ease of handling. From that perspective, the Sony wins hands down, as this review makes clear. The sleight of hand is in the conclusion, which gives the Pentax a place in the sun largely because of a greatly exaggerated price differential. If your budget stretches to £399 and no further, it's clear the Pentax is a fine camera to own; but just another £50 will buy a camera with much greater quality of output, which is a conclusion he does not want to offer.

I find it soft at the edges, as others have said, wide open - though it doesn't often matter to me. I have found there is some risk of vignetting with filters. But I forgive all that because the 15 is a versatile lens and capable of great shots.

Yes, and that speaks for the convenience of digital. But excellent as digital is right now, even the best does not yet quite match the quality of some film in some hands. Those hands will be greatly more experienced than mine ... but I can judge the results with my eyes readily enough, and digital still has a distance to travel, if indeed it will ever match the tonal qualities of film.