Some years ago Magnum made a comment that supports Ben's point. They said that you should be able to give a Magnum photographer nothing more than a rangefinder camera with a 50mm lens and have that photographer come back with a set of prize-winning photographs and the basis of a book and an exhibition.

I suppose it has always been the case that there were people who bought cameras for purposes other than photography, but there do seem to be so many more of them now.

Thank you. I'm always impressed by your generosity.

Its always helpful to see someone putting cameras to the test in this way, especially for those of us who don't have access to one of the other brands. I suspect we are not really going to lay this argument to rest until some scientific testing is done along the lines of the work done by the French magazine "Chasseur D'Images" mentioned by forum member Ben. The methodology they appear to use (if I have read the comments correctly) is quite strict and, interestingly, goes against the wisdom of the reviewers who base their scores on how an image looks on a computer monitor.

David Kirlady - a Scottish engineer who tested materials to destruction in order to get hard data on them (calm down, I'm not advocating anyone tests their K10D to destruction) - liked to use the phrase "Facts not opinions". Some of the methodology used by reviewers is a bit suspect and we will never get to the bottom of this problem until the methodology is sorted out. At present there are too many opinions and too few verifiable facts. If anyone finds an English translation of the "Chasseur D'Images" test results I think we would all benefit from seeing it.

Everyone will have a personal preferance on filters, and on that basis all I can offer is mine. I do not dispute anyone else's choice.

I have not used a skylight or UV filter for 25 years or more and never regretted it. I see no sense in putting a piece of glass in front of my Pentax glass that has not been designed for it and offers no benefits for me I have been able to find.

Skylight may offer a crude warming effect, but shooting in RAW offers considerably more scope for control over colour temperature than a faint colour filter. A combination of Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop gives me everything I want

That said, many excellent photographers do not use Photoshop. There is also a line of argument that a filter provides some protection against sticky fingers or worse. Again I think you can only be guided by personal experience. If it gives you peace of mind then it is a cheap investment and money well spent (and you always have the option of unscrewing it if you want to).

For whatever it is worth my opinion is that skylight and UV filters were more appropriate (if at all) for film than digital in terms of visible effect. Mechanical protection for the front lens element against slight damage is possibly more relevant, though I have never come close to damaging any of my lenses since putting away my skylights for good in the early 1980s. Not having a filter does make you more conscious of the potential for damage however, and I don't think that is a bad thing.

At the risk of going slightly off-topic (though still on the protection theme), a colleague of mine was rather pleased with himself recently for investing in a Canon 400D. He then got very excited over the fact that he could purchase body armour for it from a third-party company - the justification being "it protects the camera from hard knocks". Frankly, if you are planning to subject what is in many respects a delicate electronic instrument to the kind of knocks that need body armour, I do wonder if someone is being a bit casual with their camera. I also wonder if a touch of fetishism is creeping into it. In any event, he seems thrilled with the armour and that is what counts in a treadmill world - even though the camera looks to me like an odd-shaped hand grenade now.

Frequent use of a Whibal (white balance reference card) has solved all of the white balance problems I used to have. I can either set the white balance first manually or include the Whibal in one photograph and then use it to apply the correction in Adobe Camera RAW to any photographs taken under the same lighting conditions.

But Pentax will have the sense to build in a manual override so that, like the Mig 29, you can stand it on its tail whether a computer likes it or not.

Thank you Ben. We're very lucky to have someone of your standing to speak to pentax about things like this.

Best wishes.

It would be nice if someone could convince Pentax to re-introduce the x-sync socket while they are about it. I'm a wholehearted advocate of the sensor cleaner, shake reduction, and all the other useful innovations, but adding a little x-sync socket surely wouldn't give the designers and engineers more than they could cope with. They managed it with the *istD. I'd much prefer that to sticking an adaptor on the hotshoe. Obviously I can stagger on without, but Pentax usually think things through very well - particularly on their high-end models.

Thank you. That is a vendor I will consider seriously for my next purchase (probably a lens). I was a little uneasy about purchasing from the far east, but your experience is reassuring. I wish I'd had the nerve to try them with the battery grip. Thanks again.

Its great if it slips through, but I don't see how they can promise there will be no duty. If customs get hold of it they may not pay attention to the description (as I understand it Digitalrev mark the goods as a gift). Good luck though. I am sick of the way we are swindled in the UK.