Well nobody's forcing you to buy a 645D, if you like the Hartblei then buy one - I'm sure it'll be an excellent camera for those who need something like that and I'm also sure Hartblei would be grateful of your support.

I just don't get why you think Pentax should build something like that though? There's a lot of R&D budget gone into something that would make a negligible (if not negative) return to Hoya's coffers. If Pentax is to survive as a brand then it needs to make populist products and with as low overheads as possible - as long as the quality doesn't slide and they keep bringing in innovations now & again then I'm happy to believe Hoya knows best.

Thanks Mike for your considered judging and congratulations to Dr Mhuni for an excellent winning photo. A tough choice and some really good quality entrants again this time

And yes I do have a couple of tripods but I liked the noise / low light atmosphere, ultimate sharpness wasn't my aim. Although I agree that my focus was a bit off - on the back of the camera it looked like I'd nailed it but on the PC it was a different story. Oh well...

Yes, Pentax really took their eye off the prize there.

Imagine if only they'd come up with the idea of a camera that costs 5,000 Euros (without lens, back or viewfinder), has no AF or continuous shooting and can only be used on a tripod. People would have been queueing around the block to get their hands on one!

Let's face it, once you're into the realms of spending that much money on a camera you might as well buy a Leica S2 or a Hassy (or the upcoming 645D which should be a match for either).

Thanks for the offer Tony but I've already got too many camera bodies taking up room.

Enjoy the lens - I'm sure it'll give you many years' good service

No.

No it's not. It doesn't make any difference to the product's ability to work as it was designed to (ie. take pictures) and so is not any sort of defect, let alone one of significance.

If a mushroom was growing inside it then I would expect it to impact upon the performance of the camera (at the very least it would be probably blocking the mirror). A smell is not a mushroom - see point above.

eBay works on the basis of caveat emptor. The only things you should ever surmise from a listing is what is written therein. If a nasty odour is something that means so much to you then you should ask before buying, not after the event. The seller has (presumably) advertised a working camera and has supplied same - any smell cannot be classed as a defect as it in no way renders the camera defective as a photographic tool. If the object in question relied upon a particular odour as part of its make up (like a perfume) then the "wrong" odour could indeed render it defective. Last time I looked cameras are not sold in bottles and squirted onto your neck.

One lens with fungus cannot cross-contaminate another without fungus - this is an old wives' tale.

The fungus spores are present all around you all the time (you breathe in millions of them every time you inhale) and every single lens that you own already has them inside (and probably have since they left the factory).

The spores will remain dormant until they are given the conditions they require to grow in - damp and warm as a rule which is why lenses in tropical climates are more at risk. They also require food - lenses from the 1970's and earlier used a form of Canada Balsam to glue elements together and fungi tend to enjoy this particular organic compound. Since the 1980's most lenses have been assembled using synthetic glues which very few fungi find palatable, hence incidences of fungus in modern lenses are almost unheard of (and are of a different strain to those that damaged older lenses anyway). If you don't want your newer lenses to get infected (which, as mentioned above, is highly unlikely to happen anyway) then store them somewhere dry and airy and give them some exposure to daylight now and then.

All of this is moot though as you say yourself that the lens has no fungus in it. Any mould that may be on the leather case would be yet another different strain and incapable of cross-infecting a lens.

Which brings me back to the point I was trying to make originally; given that the camera is in perfect working order and free from defects (I do not accept the smell as a defect as pointed out several times above) then I cannot see how you could even consider sending it back for a refund. You say the seller has owned it since 1979 so he's obviously not a trader, so what you're asking is do people agree it's fair for you to pick his pocket? I certainly don't and I'm saddened to see that I appear to be in the minority on this.

Did you ask the seller if the camera had an odour before you bought it?

Did the seller specify in his listing that the camera was "odour free"?

Does the smell make any material difference to the operation of the camera and/or lens in their intended use as photographic instruments?

If the answer to all of these questions is "no" then you have no recourse to return the camera as you cannot claim it is "significantly not as described". PayPal will back the seller in this instance and quite rightly IMO.

Sorry to sound unsympathetic, but (with my eBay seller's hat on) I don't see why the vendor should go through the hassle of taking a return, coughing up listing / final value fees and stumping up for the postage just because you didn't ask the right questions then changed your mind about the transaction.

Keep the camera and give it a good airing for a week or so. Somewhere outdoors that gets a draught (but obviously not water) is ideal - I use a passageway at the side of my house for such things. Jack's suggestion about using Fabreeze is a good one too but make sure you apply it with a cloth and don't spray it directly onto the camera or you'll end up doing more harm than good.

The curves on the lens go round and round...

[IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd37/hefty1969/competition%20stuff/IMGP2946.jpg[/IMG]

08 December 2009

K10D | DA35 | ISO1600 | f/4 | 1/6 second (hand held) | Daylight WB

I think they turned out very well indeed!

Great action shot of the Porsche bouncing off the kerbs - love it

I must admit I'm also a big fan of QS, but the DA40 was just a little *too* small for my porky fingers. The FA43 is a very nice size to handle IMO, if it had the 40's QS it would be pretty much perfect.

The aperture ring also means you can use the 43 reversed and on bellows for macro work