You would have drunk the beer and it would all have been gone, but you'll still have the lens to re-sell on eBay if you don't like it.

The lens is OK on film, but you'll have to try and see on digital.

Well Sue was an Assistant Manager for Jessops at the Trafford Centre, so you might know her, but then they made all the AM's redundant and lost a lot of expertise. She didn't feel like re-applying for a job at a lower rate, and who could blame her.

However, what I can tell you is that at the time the team at Jessops had a lot of very good people on board, full of knowledge and very enthusiastic because they were photographers. There were those who did weddings, even a fully fledged cameraman unable to get TV work.

Unfortunately it doesn't take long to take the heart out of a good team, to the detriment of those who go and indeed those who stay.

But I do have a lot of time for the good people at Jessops, so we shouldn't tar them all with the same dismal brush.

I think many people, including the guy from Pentax who appeared in an AP video at a show, miss the point of the Km.

The market it addresses is the market that potentially would have bought a bridge camera such as the Fuji S9600 and similar products. It's as light, as small (I know there are smaller ones than my example) and adds the advantage of interchangeable lenses of higher quality.

It then gives a platform to grow and expand into other lenses, and maybe to then upgrade to a better body. And of course once having Pentax lenses then the choice of that upgrade is probably Pentax again.

All this without sacfificing the quality advantage of the APS-C sized sensor.

The advantage over other marques include the SR, the quality of the lenses, the excellent ergonomics and the quality of pentax construction. In other words, all the things that attract us to the elegance of Pentax products.

I would disagree too. I was referring to the final image looking right, regardless of anything else. The image looks right when it conveys what the photographer intended.

You certainly can't properly judge exposure from the camera's screen.

Did no-one have a New Year's Eve party?

You're not from Blue Peter are you?

I'm sure they don't. But what they do is find a manufacturer they approve of, purchase a product that fits their specification and label it accordingly. This amounts to an endorsment that the product is compatible.

To be honest, comsidering the life of the batteries, the cost is minimal compared to the damera and lenses and I'm not going to economise on a critical component. It would be a bit like buying a top class camera only to use cheapout of date film that was processed and printed by a cheap processing company. I wouldn't do it, some would.

I've learned the hard way that other manufacturer's products are not always cheaper in the long run, so the principle is now OEM only, be it lenses or accessories.

We all do what we're comfortable with.

The subject choice is fine, but it meant that there was only one time slot for the photos to be taken and many people will have been busier celebrating, so it probably cuts down the options.

Perhaps some are just emerging from their various parties now...there's time yet.

Great lighting, great expression.

If you try a really tight crop that eliminates all the bright light on the chair you end up with a superb portraiy shot, full of life and , as you say, personality.

The brightest areas of an image grab our attention, so eliminating the chair entirely really makes this one zing!

Well Mike-P is doomed already, but doesn't know it yet, and it's just one of those things with photography. There's always something to want...

The more expensive lenses are worth it if you have the need for them (you make big prints, shoot weddings, have a specialist area you need the kit for) or if you can afford it and just want them.

For snapshots and/or small prints the kit lenses and low cost zooms are actually very, very good.