Wouldn't you expect the Nikon D800E to show the advantages of removing the anti-aliasing filter even more clearly -- because of the larger sensor -- than the Pentax K5IIs? Unless Pentax engineers have outperformed by some way their counterparts at Nikon.

Yet Ken Rockwell (see http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d800/vs-d800e.htm), a clear supporter of the 800E, writes: 'The D800E is for tweaks and professional lens testers like me. I wouldn't spend my extra money on it unless I either was a tweak, or really had my technique down and printed larger than 30 x 45" all day. If you're shooting at f/8 or smaller, or not printing at least several feet or meters wide, you'll never see the extra sharpness of the D800E, but you will see the D800E's moiré at any print size if it happens on fabrics or screen windows'.

He's essentially suggesting that for most people most of the time in most circumstances they will be spending extra cash for very little if any benefit.

Anyone can sell a camera. That's comparatively easy. Selling it at a profit is trickier.

Developments such as removing the aliasing filter (and other changes consequent upon that) are highly unlikely to produce more than a marginal improvement in IQ. Even so, that slim margin may be worth having in some circumstances. Reviews of the Nikon D800E make it apparent that the real benefits of removing the filter are genuine, but need use of the best lenses in the right circumstances to realize the potential.

The real disproportion is between the prices of both the K5 (particularly) and the K5II and the K5IIs. But photographers, particularly first-adopters, have long been used to paying handsomely for useful but incremental improvements.

I've had good results from Blurb and Albelli, the only two I've tried. Albelli has a 30% discount on photobooks at the moment (use code PMT673UK), until 1/1/13.

Pages means just that, as in a book: a 64pp book is made up of 32 leaves of paper.

There are practical problems, though not insurmountable given the will. But if the site would prefer not to participate the idea is much more difficult to get off the ground. What also counts against it (at least for 2013) is that the idea has surfaced too late. Calendars ideally need to be available in September of any year.

I started off with both PS and LR. Both are powerful programs. I have the intimidatingly long Martin Evening 'manuals' for both, but of course followed the male habit of plunging in and then looking up what I couldn't fathom out. LR, by this experience, is much the more intuitive of the two programs and I felt comfortable with it very quickly. PS, by contrast, has a more forbidding interface and I use it only when I have to -- ie on those occasions when I must make a substantive change to an image. I will need to read that manual some time, to unlock the full range of its versality; meanwhile LR (3.3) is pretty much the bees knees for me and keeps me (or rather my photos) organized, which is a minor triumph. I particularly appreciate the way it prevents me from messing up the original raw image

Ah, a text-only man! I don't disapprove, but an unusual view to find on a photography website

Me looking into my grandfather's henhouse. My daughters tell me it looks as though I'm wearing a dress; little do they appreciate that those coats were then the height of fashion for a (?)3-year-old. Family legend has it that I so scared the hens they didn't lay for a week.

I'm probably not the person to ask since I watch very little television, but 'none' is plausible. A point I'd make in response is that no company will wish to spend more than a certain percentage of its revenues on marketing, and that if you are a small player in the field, you have to be especially clever in the way you spend that percentage. A television campaign for Pentax cameras would decimate what is available for spending elsewhere and any surge in demand would be quickly frustrated by Pentax's limited market share and limited exposure in various sales channels. This is not a despairing observation. Pentax has by and large to conduct itself in the manner you'd expect of a division its size and hope incrementally, by sound judgement and good, sufficiently differentiated products, to nudge ahead -- and as it does so marry its expansion with additional marketing. Quite simply, I think those who write of 'terrible marketing' may mean limited marketing, and that it is limited for largely obvious reasons.

Really? If only business life were so simple...