Memory is cheap, memories are forever.

Do I get a prize for Worst Pun of the Month?

As far as the shutter count goes, most cameras have a couple of hundred activations from testing (I can't remember how many my K20D had, I'll dig out the shutter count on my first shot). However this normally doesn't show in filenames (ie you only discover it by using Photome).

Double-check whether the card was used in your previous camera. Also use Photome to discover the shutter actuation count on your first image - if this number is less than 753 then the file numbering issue definitely is not because of a pre-used camera (the shutter actuation, unlike the filename counter, can't be "clocked back").

If these fail to prove that the camera is in fact new, then you're quite entitled to return the camera for failing to conform to the seller's description (ie if it is in fact ex-demo/used). However: how long ago did you purchase the camera? Some stores have policies requiring any faults to be notified within a specified time (e.g. 48 hours) to be rectifiable. I don't know how legally enforceable these actually are, but it would certainly mean more hassle (ie probably getting your credit card company involved) if Jacobs have such a policy.

Some of it was as a matter of fact - and most of the rest of it was made of metal

Just to say that I of course meant wider aperture, rather than wider in focal length terms

I was on a trip today [EDIT: well, yesterday by now] to the Transport Museum here in Glasgow (not as an exercise in photographic skill, but really just to snapshot the place since it's shutting down in a couple of weeks)

My issue is that for some unknown reason, the combination of my K20D and Metz 48 produced some very underexposed images (by 2 or 3 stops in some cases). Now this wasn't a case of me asking the flash to do something unreasonable: if I used the on-flash exposure compensation, or manual mode, there was enough power to produce a correct image at the same aperture/shutter speed. The other point is that it wasn't a consistent thing.

Whether because of the slightly odd lighting in the place, sometimes it needed +3 EV and sometimes that would produce a very overexposed image almost blown out because of the reflectiveness of a lot of the stuff - this difference could be taking shots in different directions standing in the same spot. Is this something to do with my technique, the equipment, or just a freak occurrence in a weirdly lit museum?

Mixed reviews on FredMiranda, but most of them seem to be Canon folks complaining about Sigma's legendary problems with EOS AF.

The Sigma is probably your only bet under £500 - the only lens Pentax made in this bracket was the 35mm f2, which wasn't as fast as you need and is in any event out of production.

For the sake of another suggestion, the Sigma 50mm f1.4 has a reputation for being notably sharper/more contrasty wide open than manufacturer own-brand equivalents - you'll already know whether the focal length is useful, and this has both the ability to go wider than your existing lens and also has HSM (silent motor) autofocus. If you are interested, make sure that you buy it from a retailer that pays return postage on faulty items - your chances of getting one that DOESN'T front focus are less than 50% according to one estimate.

The Tamron is supposedly slightly sharper wide open and near to it, while the DFA (both varieties) is supposedly slightly sharper stopped down. However any image quality differences between the two will likely only be discernible in pixel-peeping mode.

I went for the DFA because of quick shift (which is very useful), and because Park had them on offer at £270 at the time (turn of the year). To be honest all three macro lenses (ie Tamron 90mm, DFA 100mm, and Sigma 105mm) are very well regarded, so buying the one you can get at the best price is a very decent plan indeed.

True, but (much as The Sun et al seem to be convinced otherwise) the judiciary's commitment to the human rights of individuals is inconsistent at best. There is also the potential for the government to apply for such an injunction where the potential infringement is of Crown copyright: Wikileaks, for example.

Technically, whenever they like.


[quote="Digital Economy Bill, Clause 18"]The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the granting by a court of a blocking injunction in respect of a location on the internet which the court is satisfied has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright[/quote]The emphasis in that quote is mine by the way. 'is likely to be used' is the key here - there is no requirement that the website in question is actually used for copyright infringement. Thus any website with the potential to be used for copyright infringement (ie any which allows user-contributed content - message forums, Flickr, Wikileaks, etc.) can be blocked. Bear in mind that the Secretary of State in question is Mandelson, who allowed the BPI to draft parts of the Digital Economy Bill.