In case anyone is interested, I've just put my Pemtax 70mm 2.4 and Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 macro zoom up for sale on eBay.

In case anyone is interested, I've just put my Pentax DA Limited 35 2.8 Macro up for sale on eBay.

I seem to get an ill humoured reply to various things that I have written here from one particular gentleman who has a bee in his bonnet about something I didn't say.

It gets a bit boring but I don't think I can kill file him and I don't like the feeling that someone is waiting to pounce on everything I write, so I'll knock this forum off my bookmarks.

More my loss than the forum's but life is short (especially at my age!). And thanks to everyone with whom I've had enjoyable exchange of views.

Well it certainly didn't ruin me - I was able to retire in my mid 50s on the proceeds of my photography.

The remark about the tax allowances was light hearted. But I'm a bit fed up with the finger wagging and lack of humour of a few here.

This forum seemed a good one but ill tempered and childishly emotional reactions to a post that I considered carefully make it less enjoyable than it should be.

As the Dragons say, for that reason, and that reason alone, I'm out.

I did a car boot recently and one of the things I sold was a box of 24 assorted Cokin filters, graduates, polariser, star, etc, etc, all in immaculate condition. I found them in a cupboard and they'd been forgotten for ten years or more.

I priced them at 50p each just to get rid of them. A guy came up and gave me some spiel about how they were useless and he'd give me a fiver for the lot. I felt like telling him they'd earned their keep many times over in pic sales so they couldn't be that useless, but what the hell, I couldn't be bothered! He was pretty rude, though and said if I didn't sell them to him now, he's come back in an hour and only offer me £3. I said ok.

Two minutes later another man came along, looked through the filters and gave me £12 without any query. Bit of a bargain, those, he said. I know, I replied.

Five minutes later, the fhe first, forceful bloke came back. Where are the filters, he said. Sold, I said. He looked really *****ed off.

I'm not malicious by nature, but I have to admit it made my day.

Do such histrionics and uncivility advance a point at all? The weaker the case the more emotional in its expression.

It does underline why one or two people have quit this forum lately though.

Couldn't be more straightforward. Pentax are as good as any other in terms of lens and body performance in their chosen market.

However, they do not offer a professional service system, range of camera bodies, lenses or ancilliaries. What if you require a 24mp sensor or need to hire a 2000mm lens?

At major sporting events across the world, Nikon, for example set up camera service and repair facilities. If a piece of your vital equipment packs up, they will lend you a replacement until yours is repaired. You can have your cameras set up for desert or arctic use by Nikon service.

As a professional travelling all over the world, Nikon (Canon, if you prefer) was a no-brainer choice. As an amateur, Pentax is a better value buy and that's what I chose when I flogged all my Nikon, Hasselblad and Mamiya gear.

There seems to be some sort of chip on the shoulder of many Pentax users about professional use. Professional photography has little to do with cameras, they are no more than tools of the trade. You can earn your living with a Pentax, I'm sure plenty do. But if you were going to cover the Olympics, which would you choose? It's that simple.

To answer Mattox's question, for the kind of basic photography you're talking about, 'pro' camera ranges will gain you nothing. If you were to up your game and found you needed to shoot an action poster of Lewis Hamilton for McClaren, you'd almost certainly be forced to change.

And since it's all tax allowable, your accountant would almost certainly recommend it too

Thanks Mike. Yes, you're right, there are some awful images out there. I don't know how they do it, you would almost have to wilfully work at making them so bad.

A mate of mine has a little £79 camera from Tesco. Stick it on auto everything and it's almost impossible to mess up a picture. But, as you say, people do.

One thing I notice with compacts is that people frame their pic on the screen on the back of the camera, holding the camera more or less at arms length. Then, when they press the shutter, they 'stab' at it and because the camera is held in such an insecure position, it visibly moves, tilting sharply downwards on the shutter release side.

I've advised my daughter to put her Canon compact on the 2 second delay when taking pictures and it has made a tremendous difference to her holiday snaps.

Selected the leg with Photoshop, cut and pasted it to a new layer and then just painted black in the hole left by the cut leg. Free transform the layer through about 90 degrees and move the leg layer until it appears to be roughly where it orginally but now at the new angle. Finally, flatten the image.

it's a rough and ready job if you look closely but I've had no complaints from the subjects so far!

Luckily for the gull, I don't fully share the the gullist sentiments of some here or I might have been tempted to just rip the gull's leg off and tape it back on in the new position, saving myself a few hours over a hot computer

I'm in complete agreement with PeteThat's pretty much it! I don't mind the paps, though. All the time there are morons who want to see some thick bird sliding drunk out of some night club, there will be people to take the pictures.