I have the 15mm f4 and I really enjoy using it. It feels like a quality item, smooth to operate and solid to hold. It's small and I find that for that reason it's often the only lens I take out with me. I then let the lens dictate what pictures I can take which (as previously mentioned) causes you to think more.

If sharpness wide open is more important to you than anything else it's not a lens for you. But at f8, it's beautifully crisp right across the field and the freeedom from distortion makes it special. I can't personally see much need for extra speed. Such a wide angle is easily hand held at 1/8th without SR, let alone with it.

This is one of my holiday snaps with it - it just makes lovely pictures.

I took this yesterday at Eastbourne. Went for lunch with a friend who lives in Sovereign Harbour and while we were sitting on his patio I heard a loud roar.
I'd been showing him the 60-250mm and I pointed it at the sky when I heard the plane. I had time to add +1 to the exposure as the Lanc appoached and then just pointed the lens at the sky and fired away.
I've just checked and SR was on. I can't imagine it'd look any different with it on or off. The problem with all this sr on or off and all the other adjustments is that by the time it's all done, the picture's gone if you're not careful!
The Lanc is banking here as it readies to fly up the coast, so the pic almost looks like an air to air shot. The Lanc fills about 3/8ths of the frame. I had the camera on aperture priority, lens at f8 as I always leave it and exif tells me shutter was 180th. I'd have opened up to f4 ideally but then I'd have missed the plane!

If Pentax can't market their cameras properly that's down to them. It's not any magazine's job to do it for them.

Incidentally, a friend of mine, a Nikon user is quite convinced that magazines give Nikkor lenses a harder time than they do other makers.

I personally interpret this as meaning that the tests don't reflect his own enthusiasm for Nikkor lenses and his perception that they are always better than everyone else's. Thus, he thinks they are biased and I think they are objective!

That's very funny. There would actually be a very entertaining competition with this. A bit like those funny sentences where a spell checker was allowed to make its own substitutions.

I'm thinking of the most unlikely face found by a camera. Maybe in clouds or a manhole cover or preferably something really bizarre.

I wonder if any face recognition has ever detected both faces on a politician?

If someone wants my work they can ask my permission or pay me.

If they take and use it without either of those things they have stolen it, in my opinion and in law.

Any rationale for justifying that or in any way seeking to say it doesn't matter, on cost or any other grounds appears to me to be unacceptable.

I am perfectly happy for someone not to mind if their work is ripped off but I do not want that rationale applied to my work. That's it.

Maybe you should put your argument to Adobe, as I said. I think you will find they argue it. It is the usual argument put by pirates to justify pirating anything. Of course it has a cost. And it does have a moral dimension.

Where we differ is the word cost. You think that cost means only money. It does not. Take a look at the OED. Cost is time and effort too.

I used to get asked to photograph weddings a lot and always refused.

With a normal pro job, it was a client and if anything went wrong, well you lose some business.

But with a friend's wedding, there's a much heavier responsibility. If things were to go wrong, you've upset friends and possibly lost a friendship.

It is not totally flawed. Theft is theft. My objection is to someone taking and using, without my permission, something that is mine. If they came back later and replaced my camera, I would feel the same.

But what about my Photoshop analogy? Is that OK? Adobe still have copies, after all.

I make cartoons in my spare time. They are hard work and I've won a few awards with them. Every now and again, I get an email pointing out that they are appearing on someone else's site. These people invariably pass them off as their own work - sometimes explicitly, sometime by lack of attribution.

I have lost no money and I still have my copy of the cartoon. But for some reason, I object, even if others would not..

Its only a software feature so presumably wouldn't waste physical space on the camera body. Therefore you could switch it off permanently.

It's an example of bloat really. If you have no useful ideas, chuck in a few gimmicks, cheap to implement and it looks good to the marketeers, like on those chav style 'hi-fi' amps with flashing frequency lights.

Personally, I'd prefer Pentax spent the money on improving their quality control but that doesn't appeal to the mass market.

And for people who don't recognise a face when they see one on the screen, it would be a huge bonus.

I didn't know - so thanks!