Now that I can understand!

What made you go with Pentax then?

Perhaps source another dead one for parts? Or just get another good one (there's some on eBay which aren't overly expensive) and keep the one you have for spares.
I understand there's no longer a ready source of spare parts for these now but if you could supply what's required I'm sure there are other repair companies that specialise in working with old cameras and would look at it for you. A Google search for 'camera repairs' throws up quite a number of specialist repairers.
Might it not be cheaper to get a good replacement rather than pay for a repair when the outcome is that the part required is no longer available?

To be fair with any comparison here, this isn't comparing like for like. They're two totally different systems and the only thing that matters is the image they produce. One chooses whichever system works best for them to achieve that. If the camera becomes more important than the image something's gone awry. Some can produce a stunning image with just a shoebox with a hole in it! Hence saying my camera is better than yours is purely childish playground banter when it's what one does with it that matters.

If its the camera choosing the focus point your photos have the potential not be focussed to one's satisfaction, it isn't psychic!.[/quote]No the camera isn't psychic but, it does have a touchscreen which you can select the desired subject to focus on in Live View and when looking through the EVF you can select the appropriate AF point using a little joystick.[/quote]

Who chooses which point is used. It would take quite a while to cycle through 693 focus points manually!
If its the camera choosing the focus point your photos have the potential not be focussed to one's satisfaction, it isn't psychic!
The only way to achieve focus on the desired point is to use centre spot metering and recompose (or fiddle around selecting a focus point and miss the subject altogether.)
So my view of hundreds of focus points? it's a headline grabber, not a useful function. Just one focus point is sufficient!
Other things like eye detect etc are fallible gimmicks and do nothing to improve one's photography.

It all boils down to whether you prefer an electronic viewfinder or an optical one and what system you've already bought into unless you're prepared to change.
The Pentax has a much higher resolution sensor (and that's before pixel shift is taken into account) but this and a flapping mirror for TTL enables the Sony to manage a higher frame rate if you like that sort of thing.
Then there's the element that is quite personal, the handling and feel of the cameras and the look of the images.
I'm not sure why anyone would change from one system to the other. Sony are basically an electronics company whereas Pentax an optical one. Given Sony supply sensors to Pentax isn't it likely they share knowledge?
Do I presume the OP thinks Sony are catching up?

You could try resetting your K-x to default and see it it puts it back to normal. As to the OH's Olympus Trip, Isn't that a 35mm film camera?

Less than six months? Any warranty on the repair? Clearly what they did hasn't worked.

CPLs don't work well with utrawides as only part of the subject will be polarized. Only a picture taken in a direction at 90 degrees from the sun can take advantage of polarization and an ultrawide covers well outside this limitation. Should one try just part of the sky will be polarized and some not. Whether that works or not would depend on the subject matter.
The dynamic range of modern DSLRs often means great skies can be achieved in post processing without the need for filters at all.
Where polarizers come into their own is to reduce reflections on surfaces such as water.