You may be happy to accept such sloppiness in QC but I don't think most people spending a great deal of money on a camera would be quite so forgiving. Neither should they. If everyone took that attitude Pentax could turn out any old rubbish they wanted and get away with it. That would do them no good at all.

I don't use AF as much as most people but I still want it to work properly when I do. Surely that's not unreasonable.

I had that as an intermittent problem with my Samsung GX20 (K20 Pentax)when the batteryy grip was fitted. Never got to the bottom of it.

There is no question that the sensor staining has caused some damage to Pentax's reputation. I know personally of one person who has not bought one because he knows of my experiences and 5 week wait for a replacement.

For him, the price of a K5 is the most he has ever spent on a camera by a large factor and he is nervous about making a mistake. I have shown him what a nice camera it is but, understandably, he will go for, as he sees it, a more mainstream choice, a Nikon or Canon.

It's a shame but if Pentax had kept their QC up to scratch, it would not have occurred and people here would not have to get annoyed at people mentioning what was a pretty serious problem. It takes a long time to build a reputation but very little to time to damage it.

An exhibition is not commercial use, neither is editorial under both English and French law.

The size of the camera body isn't the main thing. It's the lenses. That's where the 4/3 scores over the APS-C. Just as lenses designed for APS-C can be smaller than full frame lenses, so can 4/3 be smaller than APS-C for given angles of view.

It's all a compromise and only you can set the limits. From personal experience, I regularly use my 14-140mm zoom at f11 on my Panasonic gf2 and I can say that diffraction is not a problem there or at f16. My agency, whicth judges images carefully at 100% has never rejected one of my images on grounds of softness.

That does not alter he fact that my K5 is a 2 stops ahead in terms of noise quality. On the other hand, my gf2 fits in my pocket with it's superb 20mm f1.7 and a camera you have with you is always better quality than the camera you don't

I wanted 001, at a pinch 007 would have done. But 6796....After all I've done for Pentax. Even the square root is a nothing number.

Well, they'll be sorry because I've been down to the crossroads and got my own number.

Lemmy (no.666)

I had it good then.....oh dear

Anyway, if I have to have another replacement I bet it'll take longer than your second one, so there

Gwyn, they don't develop staining, staining is the term used because that's what it looks like. They are marks on the sensor caused by sloppy manufacture and even sloppier quality control. They are there or they are not. If you have them, Steve has the record for time taken to remedy the problem. Your goal is to beat that time.

My K5 had the sensor problem and it took 5 weeks to get it replaced. That's not what I would call readily addressed - I only got an exchange camera after I told them I wanted no further communication and I would pursue the matter through the small claims court.

Suddenly they found one I could have. I dread another problem with that kind of service in the offing. especially when I recall the excellent service that Nikon gave in my pro days. Whether they are as good now I don't know but at least I live within cycling distance of their HQ

Asking £5000 for a picture, as you say, is responding in a facetious and unprofessional manner. For all you know it may be the first time that person has approached a photographer and he or she simply doesn't know the ropes.

Whatever the situation, the £5000 response just serves to assure the first unprofessional person that you are as unprofessional as he is.

There was one well know picture editor that I personally couldn't stand the sight of. He was boorish, often a bully and liked to offer silly fees. He did work for one of the largest publishing organisations in the country, however, and had a large budget. I worked for him extensively and pride myself on, firstly, that I never let him get to me in a personal sense, because he was a picture editor, not a mate.

Secondly and most important, he never knew how I felt about him.

I tried both and saw no difference in optical performance butt he Sigma felt better built. I bought the Sigma because I can't help feeling the Pentax price is based on being reassuringly expensive rather than any reasonable profit margin.

Incidentally, I tried out the Pentax and Sigma 50 f1.4 s too and again bought the Sigma. The Sigma is pretty bulky but the optical performance is in a different league from the Pentax and the price is much, much less.

Slightly different, I have the Pentax 60-250 zoom which I love but recently bought a Pentax 200mm f.2.8. I love it so much, I'm in Paris at the moment shooting some stock and I've not even taken the zoom out of my bag. The 200 is a real peach.