From the above comparison: Is this just a (very poorly thought out) generalised comment, or are they actually implying that either the 5D or the K-5 could be considered an :

Having just spent about 5 minutes on their site it's one of these irritating websites that quickly sends me looking elsewhere in frustration anyway. Since they apparently decided to make their site annoying for their customers I'm guessing their reasons for making any other odd decisions could be pretty arbitrary and unfathomable.

They even had the supreme condescension to mark the 'close' button on their pop up 'offer' demanding you enter your email address, 'No thanks, I don't like saving money'. How about 'No thanks, I don't like giving my email address to an organization who has offered me no indication whatsoever that they won't fill up my inbox with irrelevant spam'?

It also states: ... which implies they don't accept cameras not on their list.

Recently came across the following advert for a photographer. See the parts I have highlighted in bold. I don't normally read these sort of ads, I just stumbled across this one. Is this kind of restriction normal?

---

Oyster.com (http://www.oyster.com..., the best hotel research and shopping website, is expanding and we are looking for a freelance photographer in Glasgow or Edinburgh to join our team.

As a photographer for Oyster, you will visit hotels across the country and take hundreds of high-quality photos at each hotel. We are seeking experienced photographers who are dependable and responsible.

Founded in 2008, Oyster.com combines exclusive content and commerce all in one online location. The website publishes its own objective, in-depth hotel reviews documented with thousands of photographs, and expert editorial opinions. Based on a strict set of criteria and ratings, Oyster’s curated content is designed to give users the best and most accurate way to research, plan, and book their holidays. Oyster’s goal is to ensure that customers have the most enjoyable vacation experience possible. They accomplish this by providing objective, extensive critiques of hotels around the world.

Oyster.com is financed by Bain Capital Ventures and The Travel Channel, and has been repeatedly praised by the best and brightest: The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, Economist, USA Today, CNN, ABC 20/20, and many others. You can see all of our press here: http://www.oyster.com...

Watch our recent segment on the Today Show: http://www.oyster.com...

Your responsibilities will include:
• Taking a high number of photos at each hotel you visit
• You will be expected to be quick at answering emails and phone calls from Oyster
• You will be responsible for foldering/organizing all photos and sending them to Oyster

Requirements:
• Must be based in Glasgow or Edinburgh
• Must have prior photography experience!
• Must have an online portfolio to send us
• We strongly prefer that you have one of the following DSLR cameras: Canon 5D Mark II, Nikon D700 or Nikon D3s. We will accept the following cameras as well: Canon 1Ds Mark III, Canon 1D MK IV, Canon 7D, Canon 60D, Canon 550D (also known as Rebel T2i), Nikon D7000, Nikon D5000, and the Nikon D3100
• Experience in architecture or interior photography a plus
• Must have a flexible schedule during the week (candidates with full-time jobs will not be considered)
• Must be willing to travel throughout the country
• Professional writing experience a plus

When applying:
**Please send a link to your online photo portfolio
**In your cover letter, please specify the camera with which you shoot. APPLICATIONS THAT DO NOT MENTION A SPECIFIC CAMERA MODEL WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED.

Actually, I agree with you. The K-5 does have other fine qualities which we love - but what I was really referring to is it's image or reputation in the eyes of the non-Pentaxians out there. For those who aren't Pentax users, in general if they know anything about the K-5 at all then they know it has 'great high ISO performance'. By and large they don't know anything much else and if they do the next thing on the list is probably 'sensor stains'.

My point was if you get rid of the one thing the K-5 actually has a good reputation for (outside the world of Pentax users) then it would have no reputation left (except, possibly, for 'sensor stains').

I believe you are correct here John. I work for a company that provides financial products and due to the EU compliant money laundering legislation you refer to we cannot accept transactions over a certain amount without having to verify the identity of the payer. Ownership of a credit card is not considered proof of identity.

Not as far as I am aware. They have made some improvements recently to their compact sensors but their latest top of the range NX-series camera, the NX-11, features an ASP-C sensor with a top ISO setting of 3200, and produces a fair amount of noise at that setting. To be honest going by the review I read I didn't even like the look of the noise it was producing at 1600. This might even still be the same sensor that was in the K-7, though I don't know if that's the case. The K-7 at least offered a 6400 ISO setting even if it wasn't that great. Anyway in the current market that's lagging way behind the competition, and not just Sony either.

As I've become used to being able to shoot at 8000 ISO with confidence (the noise produced by the K-5 at this level can be handled rather easily by Lightroom) and enjoy shooting in low-light conditions, I would not buy an NX-11 (or a "K-5" with the same sensor) even if it did the dishes, washed my car and took the garbage out twice a week.

I think it would be a mistake to put the "K-5" label on such a camera, the K-5 having quite successfully built up a reputation for outstanding high ISO performance. That reputation rests primarily on the sensor (although Pentax's firmware plays a part too they would never get anything close to the K-5's performance out of a K-7 sensor!). Bring that tumbling down and it's just another average DSLR that's inconveniently not made by Canon or Nikon.

...And some programmers get paid very handsomely to do it. There are certain open source projects which are vital to the Linux community - without them the Linux user base would diminish because Linux would no longer be able to provide the functionality users need. The Linux Kernel itself and OpenOffice/LibreOffice are the biggest, most obvious examples of this but GIMP is definitely up there too - it fills a gap for which there is considerable demand.

Companies who make their money out of Linux such as Canonical, Novell, Red Hat and others have a vested interest in making sure these projects continue to thrive. If a major project like GIMP is seriously flagging some corporation - possibly several corporations - will understandably get a bit nervous and start throwing some money at it. They will either have their own developers work on it or they will pay existing developers who have had to reduce their input to the project due to the fact that it doesn't (or at least didn't previously) pay for a roof over their heads. And they will make damn sure that not just the Linux version, but also the Windows and Mac versions get maintained because they know very well that hardly anybody - especially the business users who are their bread and butter - would migrate to Linux unless they've had the proof that the software can cater for their needs on their existing platform first.

Even companies who do not make money out of Linux - who are merely users of open source software - contribute to certain projects. One major reason for businesses to use open source software in the first place is because they can customise it and add features to suit their own needs. Once their developers have completed such enhancements they then tend to contribute them back to the main project - in fact most open source software licences require them to do so.

...And believe it or not, some programmers do it because they genuinely believe in free software as a matter of principle.

---

As far as safety concerns go, developers cannot 'hide' spyware and other nasties in open source software because because the source code is open and available for everybody and anybody to see. In fact that is what 'open source' means.

Any 'nasties' in open source code would therefore be discovered and made public far more quickly than is even possible with commercial software.

Which means - yup - open source software is almost certainly far safer than software you paid hundreds of pounds for. Do you really think commercial software companies don't include things in their packages you probably wouldn't like very much if you knew about them? Their source code is secret, they do not have to disclose it - in fact there are laws against attempting to 'decompile' or reverse engineer it - so they can put pretty much anything they damn well feel like in there.

If you want to take a picture of a featureless blue sky it won't matter whether you're in focus or not. It will look the same out of focus as it will in focus.