Horrible isn't it, John? esp. as it's very much a buyer's market rather than a seller's one!

I've got a few items that I really ought to sell but I don't want to let them go and I'll probably end up virtually giving them away - at least they'll be getting some use I suppose

Indeed.............unless you consider the Auto 110 and those tiny lenses and accessories

Well John, I currently have 3 SLRs (SFX, Z1-P and *istDL) and a reasonable selection of lenses. For me, photography is like fishing - I love both and have the gear and in the case of fishing, I buy a licence every year but hardly ever go!
Most of my photographic kit spends months without use but I've decided to make a point of swapping things around and taking a different selection each time I go somewhere.
If I had to dispose of most of it, much as I appreciate the quality of prime lenses and the up-to-date 'convenience' of digital, I'd keep the Z1-P and FA 28-105 power-zoom.
For me, this combination epitomizes the blend of modern sophistication, quality and flexibility with the option for fully manual operation.

I'd be sad to see the rest go but would be particularly upset at losing my F 50mm 1.7 and Tamron 24mm.

For most people, most of the time, our current 6MP sensors will be more than adequate esp. as the majority of users will concentrate on producing jpegs.

Sorry if the hifi analogy is becoming tiresome but it is still relevant - simply using audio instead of visual senses.
Music CDs produce 'perfect' quality sound and yet 'they' try to tell us that DVD audio is much, much better because DVDs can store so much more information that we cannot hear............well if you want to pay a premium for something that you can't actually hear, then be my guest!
If on the other hand the DVD offers significantly more usable features, then it becomes a different matter and if an 8MP+ camera gives the same low noise levels that we see in today's 6MP models but allows true predictive focussing etc. then that would certainly be worth considering.

There is a reason why pro models are faster, are more sophisticated and more expensive. They are designed and built for the rigours of pro use and most people can't afford or don't have a need for such equipment.
Many true professionals however prefer simplicity and I feel that the current Pentax range suits many pro's and amateurs, with just the right balance between price, sophistication and quality but let's not forget that digital photography is still very much an emerging technology and there are many more advances to be made.

I did use the word 'relative'

Comfort isn't a priority for Ferrari owners, as speed isn't for drivers of Rollers, my analogy was purely to show that a car (short for carriage) is for carrying people from A to B and they are all equally capable of doing that despite the differences in specification and price.
You don't NEED a luxurious limo to travel in comfort, you don't NEED a car capable of 150mph+ to drive at 70mph, you don't NEED the most expensive hifi for perfect sound and you don't NEED more than 6.1megapixels for perfectly good digital images!

............unless you do, in which case you're perfectly welcome to pay for it

Yes, we're into the realms of discernable differences and we've achieved near perfect results with sensible file sizes from user-friendly equipment.
There always has to be a trade-off somewhere but I think Pentax have found the right balance.
It's a bit like hifi systems, even if you are lucky enough to have 20:20 hearing (20Hz to 20.000Hz), if you think that a £1000 system 'sounds' better than a good system (with the same speakers) costing half as much then frankly you're kidding yourself.
There'll always be some people that are taken in by the hype and undoubtedly some other manufacturers will produce equipment that is better suited to certain applications but as a general purpose tool for the photographic enthusiast, the current Pentax range takes some beating and even satisfies most professional uses.

If a Rolls Royce, Mercedes, Ferrari and a BMW were all travelling from Coventry to London at 70mph and I joined them in a Mondeo or Vectra, we'd all get there at the same time in relative comfort, so irrespective of price and prestige, is any one of those cars 'better' than any of the others?

Thanks for the update Teal, let's hope yours is an isolated case and I trust the repair was under warranty or at least covered by the fact that it was an unusual case.

That's very interesting, a number of people have recently posted queries regarding flash issues and it sounds as though Pentax may have addressed some of them.

Perhaps we can find more details?

'subtle' indeed, the only difference that I'm aware of is the DS2 has the slightly better LCD monitor, as introduced on the DL.

When multi-point AF was first introduced for 35mm, everyone made a big song and dance about it and how wonderful it was that you no longer needed to point the lens directly at the subject - it could be off-centre but the camera would still know which part was the most important and focus the lens accordingly. The more points you have and the smarter the programing, the better it works but it's really a gimmick for the point and shoot brigade.
Most serious photographers prefer to set the point of focus themselves and the easiest and most foolproof way is to switch to single-point - just like the first AF cameras used to have!
Multi-point AF generally works very well but quite often you'll need to override the camera's decision and to be honest, when it comes to 'point and shoot' ie. a fleeting moment that you need to capture in an instant, you tend to point the camera directly at the subject anyway - it's natural instinct and the subject ends up in the center and you don't have time to worry about composition.
Multi AF can undoubtedly help when you are taking consecutive shots of a moving subject but if you're at a sporting event for example, it's often better to switch to manual, pre-focus and determine the depth of field by selecting the appropriate aperture.

I personally value multi-pattern metering more highly than multi-point AF.
Modern metering systems are virtually foolproof and we don't always have time to take the considered approach needed to use average 'centre-weighted' metering. Average metering maybe more predictable but most of us take shots under varying conditions and multi-pattern metering is considered to be around 98% accurate (much more than multi-AF).
It is quite astounding when you think that a camera can accurately assess an image in a fraction of a second. The algorithm used by the micro-processor is based on literally thousands of 'correctly' exposed images and the camera finds the closest match to the image it is confronted with and depending on it's level of sophistication, also takes into account other factors such as the characteristics of the lens being used.

So to sum up, multi-AF is nice to have but you'll probably end up switching it off

Well it sounds as though we've gone full circle on the question of filters and to sum up,

1) minimise the possibility of image degradation by using good quality filters.
2) if you're not trying to correct for a particular lighting characteristic, then for maximum image quality you're probably better off not using a filter.
3) however remote the possibility of damaging the lens, it's usually cheaper to replace the filter.
4) if you don't have the filters in the first place, you'll not be able to experiment and will never know.

Ok so it's fairly easy to simulate the effects of most filters on the computer or during film / print processing but I for one enjoy setting up the camera in order for it to convey my intentions, rather than just firing away at 125/sec at f8 and adjusting everything afterward - a half-decent 'point and shoot' can do that!