But the other side of the coin is that if you sell the pic to the man in the street (who isn't VAT registered) for £50.00, then you will keep the whole £50.00 if you yourself AREN'T VAT-registered. If you ARE VAT-registered, you'll keep only £41.25. Since the cost of producing the print is mostly your time (on which you've paid no VAT), then you'll be significantly better off than your VAT-registered competitor.

Moral of the tale: It pays to be VAT-registered if selling to businesses (which are generally VAT-registered), and not if you are selling to private individuals. You HAVE to register if your turnover is over £50 odd grand a year, but you MAY register if it's less.

VAT was introduced as a simple tax in 1972 (approx). It is now the most complex legislation on the statute book, and a total minefield - made greatly worse by meddling nitwits like a man who has been much in the news recently. I strongly advise anybody to get proper advice on the subject, rather than listen to people like me (and others who know even less) pontificating on this board.

G

Brian,

This is a photographic board, and a great place to ask photographic questions.

It's not quite so hot on the subjects of Sanskrit, Nepalese birthing rituals, diseases of the thyroid, and why Gordon Brown was a lousy chancellor.

Moral of the tale: when it comes to VAT, ask the Vatman:

http://tinyurl.com/259vgb

G

I think you need to change your brand of whisky.

G

Jeffrey Archer, whose strict regard for the truth is legendary, was described by his fragrant other half as having a "gift for inaccurate precis". I can see you must be a fan. Nobody said anything remotely approaching "what a wonderful and fantastic thing this was".

Actually I have long suspected that Viewfinder WAS Ricehigh, and you are just another and more terrible manifestation.

Don't be hypocritical. It takes two to argue, and two to maintain an argument. Now help yourself to a large Scotch, then go to bed and wake up in a more cheerful frame of mind.

Over and out.

G

What nonsense. You went totally over the top because Pentax had the temerity to release an upgrade to an existing model.

Should they not have done so? Should they have just left the existing model to become increasingly uncompetitive? Should they spend millions developing brand new cameras every year, instead of wringing as much value as they can out of existing designs?

You said: "it's the same camera body, several years on" but actually, it's one year on. (Sorry for bringing facts into the argument.)

Your original post, and your numerous follow-ups, failed to provide any concrete suggestions as to what Pentax might have done differently. You just whinged on.

In fact, I wonder if you are not Viewfinder, come back to haunt us.

You also completely missed the point about DPReview. It is populated by hand-wringing, pixel-peeping, whining, fault-finding, nit-picking, suburban neurotics with nothing better to do than moan.

Lighten up and brighten up. The rain is getting to you.

G

Yes, for a moment I thought I was reading another forum. No need to mention which.

G

Of course! The killer feature - PDFs instead of PEFs.

G

Every manufacturer need to update its existing range periodically, so I can't see what the fuss is about. Had this been a new camera, they'd have called it by a new name.

K100D Super tells me it's essentially a K100D body with some enhancements. Actually, it's got several worthwhile enhancements, so I say "Well done, Pentax".

Pentax's problem now is how to improve the K10D. A higher top shutter speed and flash sync would be good, but apart from that I'm not sure what they could do.

Of course, there's the new Samsung CMOS sensor. 12MP anyone?

G

Postage is offered only to the USA.

By the time you have factored in VAT, duty, shipping, customs clearance charges, and so on, you won't be much better off than if you had bought one from Park Cameras for £529.00

G

Found it now. Thanks.

We REALLY need that manual!

G