For me the point is to be able to view/asses images on a good screen. Unless you're an awesome pro, chances are, some photos are keepers but a lot are not. I find myself shooting with the 'trial and error' approach a lot when it comes to ideal exposure.

Establishing a comfy work flow as you go saves time and headache of going through millions all at ones when you get back from a trip. It's usually hard to judge a photograph just by looking at it at on an lcd screen of your camera.

I like being able to pop it on my tablet at the end of the day. Share some with family and friends online, delete those that are just beyond embarrassing and simply waste of space, have a laugh at the captured moment while sipping the drink; have someone else look and give some c&c and tips for making it better should I be in a position to go back and re-take.

Granted, it may all be down to my not so great eye-sight. Can see bugger all on those lil camera screens, especially during the day

You could just buy a cable/adapter like any of these http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=otg+cable+sony that allows you to hook up almost any sd card reader to your tablet . Now, some 'no name' card readers can be stroppy with tablets, so its a good idea to check the setup to make sure everything works, or browse through some reviews on Amazon/ask questions before spending money and an adapter/sdcard reader combo. If you already have a card reader than all you need is the adapter.

Phone for email etc, and few sd cards. Ipads are lovely, but if shooting raw, you can just about fit 1-2 days worth of pics on the lower priced versions; unless you're doing jpgs only, it won't be much of a backup solution on it's own.

SD cards are cheap nowadays, 32Gigs from a decent company for 10 quid, you can just keep on swapping them out, doing nothing but per-eliminary clean up every evening removing those shots that won't even stand a chance developed from RAW

If you'd still rather go for a tablet, any android based with sd card slot that allows for expanded storage will do the trick for backup. That includes supermarket grade tabs. They work just fine and cost peanuts though stylish they are not.

If you'd like to preview your work on a decent screen then your choices are more limited and pricier.

It really is a matter of personal preference.

On a budget I'd grab a Google Nexus (either by Samsung or Asus) - 7 inch so light, decent display and battery, well priced. It does not have an sd card slot, but it's possible to buy an sd card reader that's compatible, so for a total of GBP 200 you have a tablet, a bunch of sd cards and a way to review your pics comfortably.

If you can spend more, A Sony Xperia Z3, 8 inch, is lovely and has a micro sd card slot (up to 128Gigs). You'd still need to buy a card reader for it unless you have a FluCard. It looks good, it's durable, has a great display and you can take a bath with it should you fancy The price and quality is that of an Ipad, however expandable storage, beats it hands down.

Very true. If it's not too much hassle, some feedback would be appreciated i rarely print photos for display at home. Yet to find a solution that comes close to a professional printers.

Manufacturers can only void a warranty for using non branded ink if it's an extended warranty provided by them. For the initial duration of the warranty - so 2 years in the EU, and 1 in the US, any anti competitive clauses are not valid. Don't have the number of the EU directive at hand, but you can Google it.

Now, what they can do, is try to blame the fault on the non branded ink, in which case it's considered misuse. That said, they are obliged to prove the ink was the cause of the failure which involves much higher costs than actually replacing/fixing an individual printer.

You obviously need to be careful when buying non original ink. I personally only buy from a well enough established company. That way, should the ink container 'spontaneously burst' rendering the device unusable, you have someone to hold responsible I buy mine from PCWorld, they are well priced and efficient with good colors, at least for HP printers.

Ha. I don't find it awful, except the leds. But than, being a woman, I can quite happily wonder around with the silliest looking gear with out attracting much attention to it. Threatened my other half to send him to the shops with it hanging around his neck if he is 'naughty' - oh the look I got! Totally worth it

Looks aside, it's compact and quite looking forward to taking a few shots with it before mom heads back home.

http://www.selfridges.com/en/pentax-ks-1-digital-slr-lime-pie_695-10044-PENTAXKS...

Can only assume the left over girly colors of the not so popular design are the reason for the great price. Either way, got one for my mum She's not only happy with the performance, she's liking the weight and looks. Doesn't get any better than that.

http://shop.nodalninja.com/lens-foot-1-replacement-foot-for-pentax-da-60-250mm-a... Not a massive difference in height but nevertheless looks like an improvement. You'd probably want to ask for exact dimensions. Maybe it would give your thumb enough wiggle room?

http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server4200/ycnrxu/product_images/uploaded_images/unn...

Everything around us in cities is someone's else, more or less creative 'product'. Has been for centuries. We'd have no street art, no recollection of how things where beyond our memory's reach, if we had that sort of business attitude towards it all along. Or, we'd have a skewed view - as presented by a few privileged individuals.

There is also the term of 'public domain'. Eiffel tower is an example of a structure that falls within that category. The work of art that the lights supposedly are, has only been possible due to benefiting of someone's else creativity in the first place. Doubt Mr. Eiffel's descendents received any sort of enumeration. In fact, due to copyrights being limited by the past, I'm most certain, they did not.
This is a slippery double standard. Since everything nowadays is copyrighted, from now on, 'public domain' ceases to exist.

Now a generic example. You're a young art student that fancies street photography. Selling images to stock websites for less then pocket cash. Say your photograph will be purchased 5 times in a year for 10 dollars a pop. After the agency's cut, your taxes , you are most likely left with 2-4 dollars at most. That, times 5, is 10-20 dollars of yearly profit per photo. A fee payable to copyright owner x, say - 25 dollars to keep it low - for one single building/sculpture/whatnot. Even assuming you only captured one 'copyrighted' item in your photo, that's a massive loss.

You're heading straight to apply for a job at McDonalds, talented as you are.

Another example - photo journalism; be it corporate or individual. Your last concern in the heat of a moment, is where you are. Your primary interest is in what is happening. You shoot, you transfer, you send it to your paper/TV station/upload to your ad powered blog etc. With that policy in place. Not so fast. You shoot, you take out your laptop and spend 10 minutes blacking out everything you hope you know is copyrighted else, no one will pay for your photograph? Or even better, I guess, you 'donate' your work and let the paper/station worry about the fees? If it's a small commercial blog, than you're just out of luck.

That's visual news gone really. Time to dig that old radio out of the shed.

Not to mention what would happen to the price of hiring a photographer for an urban wedding session.

I am very respectful of other people's work. I do like to get paid for what I do and extend the same courtesy to others. There are however, common sense limits, beyond which, copyright becomes a farce aimed solely at maximizing profits while negatively affecting the progress of a society.

I strongly doubt this policy has any chance of passing any voting. But just the thought, of commercializing that last bit of public access is scary in my eyes.

https://medium.com/@owenblacker/freedom-of-panorama-is-under-attack-6cc5353b4f65

I wonder if this would also apply to paintings/drawings or is it a photo exclusive deal. Either way, I find it disgusting and short sighted; lets squash creativity further in the name of a little profit. Not to mention the ridiculous bureaucracy ladder that would accompany the process. Most copyright holders would not be able to deal with the requests for permission, leading most likely to a creation of some new 'middle man' agencies, further inflating the fees.

Sad thing is, despite it being in a gray zone legally, there are already institutions that govern certain 'public' treasures, that try to enforce that policy.

Recently, English Heritage chased a photographer that sold a picture of Stonehenge to a stock site, claiming he was in breach of their 'copyright policy'. Only they do not own any of the sites they manage - not the structures, not the land.