I think not using a tripod (or at least a beanbag) introduces a lot of issues to overcome in those situations. If you want to shoot wide open then I would go for the 1.4, I think the extra light gives you more adcvantage than an extra 2mm. You can always stitch photos for wider. I would use the 12-24 in those situations (on a tripod) with a fast prime in the pocket for limited dof shots.

"We realize the need for Pentax to better monitor prices across our distribution channels will likely result in higher lens costs to you. Therefore, once we’ve established this program, we will consider running lens rebate promotions in the future. We tested this program successfully several years ago and these type of rebates offer a good value to consumers and increased traffic to our dealers."

In other words, don't buy any lenses yet!

Backed up. Made all the difference in the world.

Good point. Due to some very recent dealings once I learned of the price rises I can attest to the integrity of SRS as a retailer. I have had no better customer service, anywhere, ever.

That's a good point foneypony. It may well be that lens prices have simply been too low. However, my point is that Pentax would do well to offer that explanation. The Nikon 105mmm f2.8macro is £639, the 300mmf4 £1000. That would offer a different perception, and I'm sure we can all do our own comparisons and consider ourselves lucky to have amassed a good value lens collection already. Sudden unexplained increases though are not good for customer relations.

I think it's an attitude that you just have to accept. Regardless of the legal position, some people don't mind being photographed, some enjoy it, some don't want to be. Dealing with objections just goes with the territory.

This is the place for discussion of the theme, etc.

I thought it was as Sterretje says, same size image on the capture medium. I thought manufacturers altered that (unofficial but generally accepted) definiton so they could assign macro capabilities to compacts.

George, I am from the UK too. I have A levels in Mathematics and Further Mathematics, both grade A (before A* was introduced) and I am a Chartered Accountant. I am also fluent in my mother tongue. In the UK margins are generally taken to mean sales revenue less cost of sales. That depends upon sales volume not just mark-up. An increased margin is something earned rather than just dreamed of (or forecast, which means the same).

Problems with Ricoh are not largely caused by events outside their control. There have been problems affecting all but Ricoh's main problem is competition in their core business, aka rivals' products and lack of innovation. This has been compounded by other events. Cash reserves mean nothing without product development/marketing as they merely serve to prop up the share price for a while by maintaining dividend expectations. Ricoh makes office equipment and the trend is towards paperless, where Ricoh don't have much presence. Companies during a downturn find ways of economising and those are maintained during the upturn, that's why Ricoh must innovate rather than acquire, which has been the previous growth strategy . The quake happened way after Ricoh's profits were hard hit.

A deferred tax asset (a moot point and I would argue the initial capitalisation was imprudent) should of course to be written down, but what exactly do you mean by a write-down for the quake? Sales may have been affected and through demand and prodcution issues but what was the asset impairment? There are of course provisions to be made for the staff reductions but there should be mitigating immediate cost savings too as it is a rolling programme. I can't see how a write-down would apply here anyway since employees aren't capitalised.

Let's hope that Ricoh's results improve to what you think they are.

No, it just doesn't work like that. The tsunamis/Thai floods may have affected the the ability to produce but not the cost of production. If so you would see overnight 40% cost increases with similar goods, TV's, computers, other brands of lens, etc, etc. Plus you would see similar price increases with all Pentax lenses, but the rises are not like that.

This is pretty much a unilateral decision by Ricoh. It could be that they have analysed Pentax prices and found them way too cheap compared to the competition, past strategic errors by Hoya that they are 'correcting'. That's my best guess.

This works out very well for me as I am now satisfied with my lens collection and I can sell some surplus lenses at higher prices. My only concern is Pentax going bust.

You can't always just trust big companies to get it right. There are many examples where their decision making is risible. I hope this isn't one.