It's all just friendly banter... I think.

Actually we have a 27" iMac - though only because it was available through a scheme at work on a tax-fee, interest-free basis which made it much better value for money than it would otherwise have been. However considering the price a 27" PC monitor with the exceptional resolution of the iMac screen would cost, it isn't bad value in the first place if a really large and very high resolution screen is what you're after.

As for other iThings, I have a Cowon Audio MP3 player - much nicer than an iPod in various ways I could mention, thanks very much. For my phone I have a cheapish touchscreen model on which the only 'Apps' I ever use are the calculator and (very occasionally) Google Maps. I can't seen that changing if I had an iPhone - it would just end up being a ludicrously expensive phone/calculator/map. I also have a Samsung Netbook - 90% of what I use it for involves a lot of typing, making it far more appropriate for my needs than an iPad due to the fact it has a proper keyboard.

Actually I'm surprised Apple haven't come up with an "iCam" yet. Presumably it would have no exterior controls except a power switch an a shutter button - everything else would be controlled by a large touch screen occupying the entire back of the device. You'd also be able to play games and surf the web on it. In other words, yet another portable multifunction device, only with the emphasis on a different function - just like every other "iThing".

Or it could be the well known Harry Enfield character, "Loadsamoney", a particularly noxious example of people who have more money than... any other quality. Now I'm really off to work or I'll be late.

Don't worry, I probably didn't express myself very well in my first post to this thread.

I won't bore you with the details but I'm far from rich. I just don't let it stop me getting what I really want (eventually) because if I did, life would suck. Now I'm off to work, see you later.

Sean, if I was "that type" I would have had the money when the cashback offer was still on, or even when the camera was launched back in October. As I clearly pointed out I didn't, I don't know why you would compare me with the character depicted. As it happens I saved for six months (originally for a K-7), cutting out a lot of the usual 'small luxuries' to maximise savings. When I had the money, I bought the camera.

So my point is merely this - if you want the camera, and have the money, buy it. If you don't want it, why complain about the price?

If the camera is worth money at all, then more time with the camera is worth more money. Nothing in life is permanent, so the cost of any luxury item we buy amounts to money spent in exchange for the time during which we enjoy that luxury item. The likelihood is that the longer you wait to buy your K-5, the less value for money you will get out of it.

I didn't have the money for the K-5 until the 25th of January, just after the cashback offer ended. On the 25th of January I had the money so I paid £975. Okay I could have waited for the price to drop to £900 but then I still would not have the K-5. As it is I have had the use of my K-5 for a month. A month's usage for £75 is well worth the price of entry in my book. In all honesty I'm guessing it will be at least another couple of months before it comes anywhere close to £900, if then. By that time I'll have had 3 months use of the camera for £75. That's £25 a month. Absolute bargain.

No regrets about not waiting, as you may have gathered. My advice - if you can afford it, buy it. Quite simply it is a lot more fun than waiting around fretting for the price to drop, by which time you may have been hit by a bus, savaged by a ravenous bugblatter beast, or just fretted yourself to death waiting for the price to drop.

I really like these, especially the first one.

As colour quality and how this varies between Canon, Nikon, Pentax etc. has come up a few times it got me thinking about how sensors work and what role the camera might have to play in colour quality above and beyond the role of the sensor itself. It occurred to me that colour interpolation must play a large role in this.

I'll explain for anyone who isn't familiar with the terminology.

Most digital cameras, Pentax included, employ a sensor which has what's called a 'Bayer pattern'. To simplify, each sensel ('pixel') out of however many million you have on your sensor measures only one of three colours: red, green or blue. (There are twice as many green sensels as there are red or blue, but that's by the by). A/D converters convert this data into a digital form and then, as I understand it (I'm sure somebody can correct me if I'm wrong), it is the job of the camera's imaging engine to perform some form of colour interpolation on this data. This means each pixel in the final image is made to represent the full range of colours, not just the red, green or blue value measured by the corresponding sensel.

However precise and mathematical this process might be, essentially it still includes a degree of guesswork. The camera is basically making an educated guess as to what the true colour of each pixel should be. There are many different possible algorithms which could be used to perform this colour interpolation and - I'm speculating here - it strikes me that different camera manufacturers might use quite different and distinct methods. If so, this must play a significant part in the colour quality of the image produced. Another Pentax link in the chain?

Coincidentally enough I got one just a few days ago. The purchase was motivated by the fact that I have found the range of the A 35-70mm F/4 very useful but the lack of autofocus is frustrating in many situations. For something with a similar range and aperture but with autofocus, the FA 28-70mm F/4 AL fit the bill and was a really cheap option compared to almost anything else. It doesn't have nearly as good a close focussing ability as the 'A', but the situations where I want autofocus are not when I'm focussing very close up anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

An extra 20mm over my Tamron 17-50 might not sound like much but already I have found it very useful in practice. It's nice and sharp and the autofocus is very fast, in fact it seems quicker than the Tamron to be honest. I'll post some samples when I have the time to resize them etc.

I picked it up at a local camera store, second hand of course but serviced by the store with a 1 year warranty. It does have a hairline crack in the part of the lens barrel that extends outwards, prompting the store to knock £20 of the asking price (reduced from £59 to £39). It was probably the result of being dropped at some point. It does not seem to have any effect whatsoever on the performance.

Eventually I'll probably sell it on and replace it with a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, but until then I think it's going to see a lot of use.