As I understand it (not as well as others, I'm sure), you don't check that on a photo-by-photo basis. It's simply the measure of the brightness of your monitor, which your monitor may (or may not) display when you adjust the brightness control. A calibration tool such as Spyder will certainly urge you to adjust your monitor in that range.

Thanks everyone for your helpful posts -- I'm going to take a punt on the Belkin data copier, because it seems to do what I want and it's cheap. (I know, I know ... but just occasionally you get *more* than you expect for the money.) Its speed doesn't trouble me, provided it'll enable me to back up in the space of a nighttime! Admittedly, Smeggypants' estimate of transfer-rate makes it seem that I'll have to have a long lie-in! We'll see ....

Thanks Gwyn. The reviewer was claiming that the device was fine with Windows XP but not with Vista or 7. But sounds as though he had a dud copy. I'll do some scouting around ... thanks for the advice.

Thanks all -- I suppose the two links provided by Mat and JohnX are the closest -- but one is expensive and the other seems (if reviews can be trusted) to have problems with any version of Windows beyond XP. Hey-ho. I really don't want to hump even a tablet around with me but that seems to be the lightest, practicable option now available.

Most of the time I take my chances and fail to back up when out and about -- I don't want to get too neurotic about it, and after all the loss of a day's-worth of my shots is not (even for me) going to be a disaster. But sometimes it's more than a day and sometimes taking a notebook or similar is not really an option and any online storage is not feasible. So far I've just made sure I have multiple small-capacity SD cards. What I think I'd like (but I could be wrong!) is a simple, compact device that would allow me to back up my RAW files on SD cards to some other memory. I found such a device on a US site that allowed transfer from one SD card to another, bigger one -- but it was no longer available. The only other devices I've found cost a few hundred pounds which (for my purposes) is way over the top. What a pity the K5 doesn't write to two cards... perhaps the K3 will have that feature.

I'm sure this matter must have been discussed somewhere on the forum, but the latest I can find is a 2004 chat, which technologically is almost another era. Be glad to be pointed to a link rather than rerun a conversation that's already been had.

Chris

Generally, not a good idea to give up your copyright. There are many fairer ways to reward the owner of a site for sales made through it (a percentage of revenue e.g.). The request for (c) seems disproportionate. I'd be wary.

Before you consider either lens, to pick up Pentaxonian's warning, take a look at http://photo3-tech.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/slr-hut-reviews-sales-of-cheap-ipads.h... There are plenty of similar cautions around. The fact that both lenses are in the Pentax section may not, in fact, tell you very much at all.

Not an opinion I share. I have no brief for the NT, but their acquisition of land has - in the instances I know of - stopped commercial interests serving their own ends and despoiling or 'shutting off' areas.

unless you've given up your rights in the picture, the Copyright Act is on your side and you could choose to take action against those infringing those rights - or at least, as a first move, let them know that they are at fault. But if your photos are being downloaded from a site where you've chosen to host your pictures, it's as well to ensure that you haven't (inadvertently) given up your rights by agreeing to the site's small print. Such conditions might be challenged as being unfair, but that's another hurdle. I'm afraid infringement of (c) is a continuous battle, and understandably most individuals stay clear of it unless their livelihood is being put at risk.

I'd second that, about the DA15. it is one of my favourites, so versatile, and such rendition. I was thinking of buying the 12-24, despite the duplication, and I know at least one other member had both and sold his 15 because he found the zoom fittled more occasions. But the price of the 12-24 in relation to what it was in the not so distant past is hard (for me) to come to terms with. Perhaps in 10 years' time I'll be reconciled to it, and in the meantime with the DA15 and DA17-70 I don't feel too impoverished at the wider angles.