You mean a visible watermark? You can embed copyright data with the K-7/K-5 and i'm sure there must be software (link) to add it to image files retrospectively with other cameras, but this would have no effect on screengrabbed images.

Unfortunately there are people out there happy to grab images without permission, and who have a use for small / low res images, and who bypass the image libraries altogether and go straight to flickr. You might as well give up the fight against that. But if your image was published, and you saw it, you would be able to make a copyright claim and it should be easy to prove the image was yours if you have the original file.

Hopefully the DAL 35mm shows Pentax moving in a more 'budget conscious' direction.

Well, if the green cast is in a black and white shot it would be unlikely to be caused by the lens

The sample images posted by Frank seem pretty good to me. The resolution chart images show the lens keeping up with the other two and certainly the FA.

I've voted yes, because I don't see the harm in this proposition. People already post leads-to-deals, but the threads soon get lost because they do not fit within 'Classifieds' and so they end up in general chat etc.

Sponsors such as SRS are as likely to benefit as anyone, provided they toss us the odd deal from time to time (and they frequently do offer some bargains, like the recent unboxed 18-55 WR lenses).

Hit the exposure lock button and the exposure will remain fixed.

It was on PM on radio 4 last week. English Heritage tried to make a photo library pay a fee for using images of Stonehenge. But English Heritage had got it wrong! They can however charge photographers fees to take pictures on their property. But images of sites like stonehenge can't be copyrighted.

False dichotomy, perhaps?

No. 1 is impressive, but needs a levels adjustment (IMO) so the highlights in the clouds etc are properly white.

These are great Mat. With scenes like this on tap, I don't blame you from goinf back there time and time again! Going further afield would make it harder to get excellent early morning shots like no.2.

The WR version is the same (optically). The DA16-45mm is noted for its low vignetting (and distortion) compared to similar zoom lenses. My experience with the two lenses backs this up.

It's available second hand for a fraction of your budget, or you could try the DA17-70mm which I think has similar characteristics - slightly more distortion at the wide end, but more 'reach'.