That's what I like to hear. I've had a couple of occasions where I've had to remove the battery to 'unlock' my K5 -- no big deal, but it makes you aware that the circuits may not always play ball. It really isn't like the ruggedness of a film camera -- I never gave a second thought to the reliability of the film cameras I had: there was precious little that could go wrong.

I switch lenses a reasonable amount, because I tend to use primes; but I don't mind that at all (usually) and in any case I try to predetermine what focal length I'm going to use when I go out and stick to it whenever I can. I wouldn't like to be carrying around two dslrs, even with the advantage of each having a dedicated lens. I see the attraction but it's not for me. As it is, I feel sometimes that I'm carting around everything bar the kitchen sink.

If anything, protection in the UK is even stronger -- up to 5 years under the Sale of Goods Act, dependent on the nature of the article, its value, and reasonable expectations.

Charlotte -- many retailers try to avoid their obligations (I've no reason to believe that of Amazon), so you may need to be persistent and firm.

Charlotte -- if you've had it from new, from a European retailer, you should be returning it to the retailer! No? The law gives you the right to expect such a product to last beyond 18 months.

Say the tooth fairy in a burst of charity gave you £500 without wanting the customary tooth in exchange, but on condition you spent it on photographic gear, would you buy a new lens (and if so which?) or a second body for the occasion when your first camera body malfunctions hours before a holiday or important shoot (and if so, which body?).

Since I've asked the questions, let me declare my indecisions. There is of course always another lens I'd like, but I'm the original Mr Glass-Half-Empty. I can easily convince myself that my K5 will let me down at the worst possible time -- not because its given me any cause to think ill of it, but these electronic marvels simply aren't in the same reliability league, over time, as their mechaical predecessors. £500ish might almost get me a second K5, 2nd hand, but that would make the 2nd body insurance pure and simple. I'd like a smaller camera so it could get used on occasions when the larger camera is more than I want to carry. It would not be the same quality, but it should be a 'proper' camera and produce good results. There's a lot of choice, and the Pentax Q is part of it, and now very attractively priced. But I'm swayed by the seeming quality of the Sony RX100 -- not least because it won't involve me in hankering after another set of lenses to match my Pentax ones.

Sadly, all this is in the realm only of the imagination -- but I'd be interested to hear of others' choices, real or (like mine) illusory.

I haven't any objection to someone new to the site using it just to sell gear. It's not what the site is mainly about, but it's a useful service to everyone involved. If someone had clearly joined just to sell, I would be even more careful than usual about any transaction. But that's a long way short of saying such sales should be discouraged, much less banned. My only objection (in my earlier post) was to the sale column turning into a scarcely disguised commentary on the seller's probity or sometimes on the price they are asking. None of us is naive: it really is up to the buyer to be satisfied (or not) on these matters.

Am I the only one who finds this kind of insinuation off-key? This is the second time (at least) in a few days that new sellers on the site have effectively had it suggested that their credentials are not what they might be. In the case of the guy from France, we now have incontrovertible proof that he's kosher. It's up to each potential buyer to satisfy him/herself that the trade is genuine. If there's evidence against a seller, that's another matter ... but if I were selling I know I'd be miffed to have these gratuitously unhelpful comments.

[quote:3496ace15f="Frogfish"]The 5DIII hasn't been hailed by the photographic community as a resounding success because it doesn't even match the K5 .... it blows the K5 away and your argument with it

At a slight tangent to the main discussion, is this really so? The Canon is a v good camera (as it should be at the price), but it seems just hyperbole to say that it 'blows the K5 away'. What is impressive is that the much cheaper camera performs against the 5d iii as well as it does. The DP Review of the K5 allows a direct comparison http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk5/21. Some of it is subjective of course, but the reviewers are not grinding any axes. It seems reasonable.

Probably my FA31 Ltd. It has the widest aperture of any of my lenses so should get a fire going soonest. And not a bad lens for photography.

.

And you have to admire the quality of the clothes pegs, too

Most monitors, as Algernon says, are set much too bright out of factory. The brightness calibration is an attempt to match up the intensity of a backlit screen with the much lower intensity of reflected light off a photographic print. Otherwise, there's a risk that what is bright and vibrant on the screen will be dark and flat on the print.