It looks like Sony and Olympus have effectively abandoned the DSLR sector, leaving Pentax in third place by default. Lets hope that 7.5% share increases rapidly!

I remember my John Hedgecoe book of colour photography, where 75% of the images were shot with Pentax gear.

I don't think many high ranking pros use Pentax DSLRs (for day to day work anyway, they may still own Pentax kit) although I think Pentax medium format is popular.

What is the copyright status of those shots? Is it possible they are in the public domain - I think it's unlikely she would have been so naive as to put herself at risk of being sued... There's nothing to say permission hasn't been sought either. However I think when an image becomes so iconic as some of those, artists should be able to take that image and use it as they see fit without fear of being sued... this certainly seems to be the case with the self-immolation image...

Not that this woman is using the images in any sort of 'artistically justified' way really....

The 77 seems to hit a real sweet spot in terms of size and speed. Hasky's shots in the gallery make great use of this lens and the rendering wide open is sublime. I can't justify buying one, but I'd be tempted by the 85/1.4 or the 70/2.4 and compromise on size (the Samyang) or speed (the DA70).

Can't really complain about my Kodak all-in-one, least frustrating printer I've ever owned, not particularly thirsty in my experience, and the ink is really cheap (£16.49 from Amazon for a full set). They claim 40% lower printing costs than the competition. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was about right! I got it for general printing needs, but it actually makes very decent borderless A4 photo prints. The future of the Kodak company would be the only question mark in my mind if I was buying now.

I'm not going to comment on the things other people have said previously - they're entitled to state their opinion however they see fit!

Shot 7 is by far the best shot - the eye contact and moment of tenderness captured is indeed almost magical If I had one criticism, it would be that the bright areas on the reclining tiger's pelt are very bright and almost burnt out, and it would have been better to expose for these areas and then lift the exposure on the standing tiger in PP.

The other shots are OK but lack the special qualities of shot 7 which make it a definite keeper... IMHO.

I guess if company A uses a distinctive colour-popped image of an orange on all their branded goods, and then company B comes along and uses a similar image, that might be an issue. If company B used an apple they would be fine... as you can't compare apples to oranges

Is this issue something that should worry photographers per se, or is it more a concern for people who decide how they use images in marketing etc?

I am on the verge of PM'ing you, as I have really nice copy (new non-crinkle finish) of the 30/1.4 to exchange, but I also have the Samyang 85/1.4 on my mind!

Exactly, although the wording of some of the Judge's is a little bit worrying, as he tries to define whether a photograph breaches the copyright of another photograph if it is taken from the same point of view, processed similarly etc. To be honest, I don't think there should be an issue with a photo breaching the copyright of another providing

a) it is not simply an electronic copy used without permission of the copyright holder

b) it is not attributed in such a way that it is confused with the original (i.e. I cannot say that my picture of a Toys 'r' Us supermarket on a dreary day is a real Andreas Gursky, but I can say it is an homage) or

c) that it is not being used for marketing purposes and is not designed to emulate the marketing material of another company....

Time for a new ad campaign with the old vintage advert on the left, namedropping David Bailey's ES, Mick Jagger's Spotmatic etc, and a modern version on the right, with David Attenborough's K7, Paris Hylton's Q, Bear Gryll's K-01 etc....