I come to this thread a bit late, but I would like to clear up one common misconception: that retaining copyright is the be all and end all. Copyright is a pretty threadbare possession if you have given away an exclusive licence for the normal period of copyright.

My understanding is that he was suggesting that for form the camera got an alpha, but for function perhaps only beta or possibly beta plus. Many photographers spending that kind of money might be happier were it the other way round, no?

I have no special insight into the camera business, but there do seem to be some parallels with the way companies making printers operate: sell the initial product (printer/camera) at an acceptable but not handsome margin and then supply the follow-on materials (inks/lenses) at significantly higher margin. Not an exact parallel: you will need inks to get a result from your printer, whereas lenses (after the first) are in theory optional! But as a business model it's sound. I wonder how many first-time buyers calculate at the outset what their full package (camera plus desired lenses) will cost. The risk, if the pricing is misjudged, in that existing owners could begin to calculate that they might be better off decamping -- though the misjudgment would have to be pretty serious for that to happen on any scale.

But I've shelved plans to buy a Pentax lens I was considering, and may opt for a closely comparable Sigma. So that, I suppose, is a partial decamp.

Here's a difference I hadn't thought about: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=38524433
-- not sure it's a clincher though!

Sellers sometimes try to impose conditions that the law does not support. It really does repay reading the web pages of a site such as http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Consumerrights/Yourconsu... which offers a simple explanation that should show anyone who has to return a faulty item what they can (and cannot) expect.

Thanks JulesIt would indeed.

And Paul -- thanks for reassurance about the fa 31

Chris

Thanks Paul. Like you, I have an uv filter on the end of my lens. I'd almost forgotten it was there -- hence my belief that the Lee adapter would fit on the da15 without trouble. Of course it won't, without those extra few mm added by a filter. Two of my favourite lenses create 'Lee problems' (if no others) with their built in, undetachable hoods -- the other, an fa 31, with unretractable hood, is even more of a problem than the da15: no chance of getting a Lee filter remotely close to its end glass. Thanks for passing on what you learnt from the Lee people and for the tips about a cpl -- along with the warning about the fit of some of them. As always, caveat emptor!

Chris

Interesting. B&H in NY don't seem to know this. Eg they'll charge $1200 for a K5 body and calculate 'duties and tax' for the UK at a whopping $500 (VAT would of course account for only $240). Oh, and then there's shipping ....

Money aside -- and there's no temptation in this particular example -- for a complex piece of equipment like a dslr, I'd be chary of buying too far distant or from too impersonal a source ... to echo John, potentially such hassle when things go wrong. I'd feel a bit happier buying a 'grey' lens (or some of them, anyway!).

Thanks both. Yes, I must agree that polarisers can be problematic on a wide-angle unless care is taken with where they're pointed! A thin-frame polariser would (or should) work, but then I wouldn't be able to use ND filters in front of it. Or so I believe. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the polariser had to go in front of them.

It is beginning to look as though I can have a polariser or a filter - my impression is that the built-in hood wouldn't impede an adapter, or step-up rings come to that - but not both.

This is not a problem as such, more a wish to avoid buying something that I can't use quite as I'd hoped.

Does anyone have experience of using a Lee filter holder (or similar) with filter and a 105mm rotating circular polariser on a DA15 ltd. Can it be done without vignetting? I understand the need to get a wide-angle adapter to screw on to the lens; but is that enough .... or will 15mm be just a bit too wide? Be v glad to hear from anyone who can offer me advice on this.