It is hard to do that by legislation since often a manufacturer will be outside jurisdiction. And the manufacturer is not always the same company as the company with its logo on the product. No, I think the legislation is a major improvement in buyers' rights -- after all, as John points out above it does not offer a six year warranty, but certain protections within a period of UP TO six years. The retailer in practice will often be able to charge the cost of a faulty product back to the manufacturer if involved in a continuous relationship with that firm. In this case (and many others), Amazon have essentially chosen to ignore the law, aware that their size and deep pockets hinder the prospects for redress. That is unhealthy.

Wonderful! Many following this thread will draw their own conclusions about the wisdom of buying expensive, sophisticated electronics from Amazon, which has behaved in a shameful way. And likewise will take heart from Pentax's thoroughly reasonable treatment of a user of one of their cameras.

Exactly.

Absolutely. It's good practice to print names alongside the photographs; at a minimum, to include them in an acknowledgements list. But slips occur, so it's only a problem if done deliberately or (if inadvertent) repeatedly.

Mmmn... I'm not viewing it on a full-sized screen, but Image 1 has kept a better distinction between different colours -- see the front of the boat eg. And it is the more pleasing result -- though whether it's 'accurate' is anyone's guess. It's possibly safe to say that some of the colour rendition in image 2 is off-key. But I do think the premise of the exercise is a bit cock-eyed. I'm not sure what we're meant to deduce -- or what it's safe to deduce -- about the different software being used. As someone has already said, it's likely to be as much about human decisions as anything else.

Batteries are a bit like printer inks in the sense that they carry a very nice margin for the 'authorized' sort and it is in the interests of the printer manufacturer to persuade us that we risk loss of quality (or worse) if we use cheaper substitutes. Sometimes substitutes are truly dreadful, but not always. Sadly, the analogy is not perfect: printer manufacturers do, after all, sell their machines at rock-bottom prices to get us hooked on their inks . And I confess that I'm so far too much of a coward to ditch Epson's inks, whereas I'm persuaded that some 3rd-party batteries are fine and will happily use them!

You might try the Maxsima battery available on Amazon. Unlike some of the others offered as 'replacements', it has the same capacity as the Pentax branded battery. I've used one for two years interchangeably with my Pentax one. In terms of performance the two seem indistinguishable to me.

This link is instructive, though the headline is rather misleading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/may/01/amazon-luxembourg-improved-consumer-...

The news item is two years old, which indicates how difficult it is proving to effect change or even compliance. One of the items highlighted is a Canon camera that failed after 18 months, which (like Charlotte's camera) Amazon washed its hands of.

The moral is, where you can, buy expensive stuff from a UK retailer (which Amazon.co.uk is not) unless you are confident there is little risk of failure or you enjoy Russian roulette.

You should perhaps add to your pondering that Amazon are likely to be relying on the following clause in their terms and conditions, which you will not be surprised to hear almost certainly works to your disadvantage:

'These conditions are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and the application of the United Nations Convention of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is expressly excluded.  We both agree to submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the district of Luxembourg City, which means that you may bring a claim to enforce your consumer protection rights in connection with these Conditions of Use in Luxembourg or in the EU country in which you live.'

In other words, Amazon.co.uk is, legally speaking, sitting in an easier place than if it had chosen to administer its UK activities in the UK. The 'co.uk' part of its title means little: it is sailing under a flag of convenience. You can use the courts in the UK to pursue a claim, but it will be under more restrictive legislation than the UK's SOGA.

Pentax may be more concerned about losing a customer than Amazon.co.uk, which is much more bothered about not submitting itself to the consumer legislation that exists in the place where it does almost all of its business. So, an enquiry to Pentax may be a good idea. You are still covered by EU legislation, so don't dismiss the idea of pursuing a claim if you have the stamina. But you'll want your camera sorted out sooner rather than (much) later.

It is perhaps a warning to all of us who might consider buying an expensive camera from Amazon (and I appreciate that in some areas there are precious few alternatives). This retailer is evading its responsibility by taking the narrowest view possible of the SOGA. It looks as though it may take court action, or the issuing of a summons, to get them to budge. They'll hope you'll give up and accept their very inadequate offer -- I suspect many people do cave in, which they probably regard as a vindication of their stance. I try only to buy things from Amazon that won't break or are relatively inexpensive.

Good luck...