Any more inf on that? I've got 3 Pentax primes and a 60-250 zoom. If I could adapt those to a Canon body I might just get one to go with my GX20.

I bought my GX on the basis of the DA primes available - camera bodies always seem a secondary consideration to me.

If Pentax's market share was 30% of Canon's, as BMW's is of Ford, Pentax would be as viable as BMW.

Also, Pentax's problem is that Canon and Nikon are seen as more prestigious in the market place. Through brilliant marketing, BMW, in reality yet another European mass car producer, is seen as more prestigious than many other makers.

How about giving up your Pentax for a Ford, then?

It's a shame and I hope Pentax (really, the Pentax lens mount) can survive.

I bought into the range because it offered a more professional take on reasonably priced cameras, tilted towards the serious rather than consumer market, and a series of neat prime lenses.

Since most people prefer zoom lenses and are happy to pay for face recognition, video etc, the raison d'etre for Pentax/ Samsung seems to have been undercut.

It looks as if serious phographers wanting new cameras might have to pay more and buy a prosumer Nikon or Canon instead. Any engineers here? Would it be technically feasible to make a Pentax lens to Nikon/ Canon body adaptor?

I have the 35mm f2.8 DA macro (which is now horrendously expensive).

It works as a good standard lens and is nice to use plus it has the versatility of a true 1-1 macro. And it's quite compact, too.

The downside is that for insects and things, a longer focal length would be better. On the other hand, as I said, this functions as a good GP lens as well which the 100mm wouldn't.

I don't think Canon need your guess - they manage to grab 40% of the total market by themselves

I had a good program called iView which was more or less perfect. Unfortunately, iView sold out to Microsoft who have effectively tripled the price and sidelined it.

My legacy version gets left behind by all the new, silly, proprietary RAW formats.

You could drag and drop multiple images onto a keyword, all kinds of useful functions and much more logical to use than Bridge (for my taste), which seems to have an unnecessarily complex and muddled interface. And, of course, not all software interprets IPTC tags in the same way.

Like Peter, one day I will have all my stuff archived and findable in a few seconds. Honest!

If Samsung cease all development of 'their' DSLR range, it gives them no reason to develop the larger and higher quality sensors and electronics these cameras require.

I'd have thought that must call into question the long term viability of Hoya's Pentax badged DSLRs, given that they are all produced in the same factory, as far as I know, and Samsung's decision would lower the overall output of that factory.

Fi, some people find a bit of robust to and fro on a forum too much for them.

They are sad creatures who, unable to compete by argument, like to climb on their high horse in order to escape the rigor of proving their point.

Don't let them worry you, it only encourages them. Perhaps you could ask other forum members to contribute towards sending the person a bottle of smelling salts?

Something fishy here because with my GX20, the 60-250 locks on focus impressively fast.

Could this be a lens rather than camera issue?

I take that point and I didn't intend to imply that it was random. But when you alter the jpeg parameters, you alter and jettison certain things immutably, before you make your picture, as a choice of film does.

With RAW it is as if you could alter the film after you had shot it.

I can see all kinds of reasons for using jpeg and I do so myself when taking pictures for eBay, for example.

But a RAW file in the library is always there in its nakedness, ready to be tailored to the task at hand.

And at my age, a RAW file is about the only thing I get to see naked!