Hi HarisF1, you have a message.
Derek

For Sale

All in excellent condition with original boxes.
All lenses clean, fungus free, unscratched, with original lens caps and rear caps.

Pentax K5iis camera body (shutter count less than 1400) - £300
Pentax DA*50-135 zoom lens (with original soft case) - £400
Pentax DA10-17 fisheye zoom lens (with original soft case) - £150
Pentax DA18-55, mk1 not WR - £40
Pentax DA50-200, mk1 not WR - £60

Postage extra or collect from Horsham, West Sussex.

Derek

Thanks John, I am pleased you are happy with your purchase. Let us all know what you find out about the sensor please.

For anyone who's interested, I will be selling a DA* 50-135 and a DA 10-17 fisheye, but will post a separate ad.
Both are also pristine - I do take care with my kit, but also these lenses are not getting the use to justify keeping them.

Derek.

*istDS and K1000 sold.

K10D body and D-BG2 grip sold.

Pentax K10D body (2007) - excellent condition, ~4543 shutter count, with battery and charger, £80

Pentax D-BG2 grip (2007), as new, no extra battery, £20

Pentax *ist DS body (2005), excellent condition, ~4246 shutter count, no batteries (takes 4xAA), £30

Pentax SF7 film SLR body (~1990), excellent condition - £20, includes fitted Pentax case (good condition apart from edges which are starting to break down)

Pentax-F 28-80 3.5-4.5 full frame zoom lens with macro facility (allows close focus at 80mm) (~1990) - £30

Pentax K1000 film SLR (~1979), pretty beat up, scratches but no dents, needs a good clean and new light seals, screw-in battery cover is stuck so might need a new bottom plate (I took the plate off and removed the old battery, which had leaked a little but no corrosion inside - camera was stood upright, presumably why battery cover is stuck) - £10, for an enthusiast who likes a challenge or doesn't mind paying for repair. (Check this out: http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00SVtt?start=0)

Postage extra or collect from Horsham, West Sussex.
I have based prices on what I can see around the web - if you are looking at an item and believe it is overpriced, please say.
If you are looking at an item and believe it is underpriced - lucky you, go for it!

Thanks for looking,
Derek

I rather like the way you have framed this shot. I suspect that you did not think about the rule of thirds and instead went for symmetry around the horizontal centre, which is equally valid - the areas of sky and green grass balance, the areas of hills and yellow grass balance and you have the water in the middle. Portrait was the correct choice for this.

I think the picture does a good job of conveying the remoteness of the building's situation and in this respect is more successful than you might think from the other posts. If the building was larger in the frame, the viewer may well start to focus on the building rather than its location.

What could you have done to improve the picture from the shot you have? Crop out that pale blue at the very top. Try cropping in a smidge on the left and right so that the top of the water line has high contrast to the foothills even at the edges (there is something greyish rather than green on either side at the moment). I know that the top of the water is not the horizon and you may well have had the camera dead level, but have you tried levelling the water, to emphasise the geometry of the framing - does the building still look okay?

How could you have taken a better shot at that time? Maybe waited for a more initeresting cloud to occupy the middle of the sky? Maybe panned a bit to the right so that the house is on the left third line - I rather like the S-shaped curve made by the path which runs from the water past the buildings and which is continued by the mud in the grass. The shot doesn't look that sharp to me - are you sure you had a fast enough shutter for the focal length? Were you being buffetted by the wind?

I also think that, quite often, shots like this do not fulfill their potential when viewed so small. I suspect it will look a lot better when printed on A4.

Others have already pointed out the potential in this location, so if you make a trip back, maybe you want to be there at dawn or dusk. However, if you are like me and you examine every shot you take with the questions "How could I have made it better? Why isn't this shot worthy of a National Geographic cover?" then sometimes the answer is "actually, not a bad job, it's just not that great a subject/view", but don't let me put you off going back - with good light and some interesting clouds, there could be a stunning shot here and of course, if you have access, there are all the shots with the building as subject, filling much more of the frame.

Derek.

I have had a number of occasions when I have logged in to add a comment, started typing, been distracted by real work , typed the rest, then previewed/added and lost the lot because I have been timed out. Actually, I think it has also happened just when typing a long comment (which I tend to do )

I've gotten used to typing into notepad and pasting in when I am ready to post, but it would be nice if this problem could be addressed - perhaps disable or increase the timeout when the comment field has something in it.

I don't think it's just me who has had this problem - I seem to remember others mentioning it.

Derek.

George, leaving legal interpretation and disclaimers aside, I'm talking about how people, particularly those browsing, who may not have subscribed and read the terms, view such things - there is a link to this site on
http://www.pentax.co.uk/en/Photo_User_Info.html.

It's not hard to image that, if I was a new customer wanting to buy my first Pentax DSLR, I could start at pentax.co.uk and pretty soon end up at Simply Electronics, thinking I am getting a bargain, completely unaware of the grey import issue.

But you are right - a clear statement accompanying each advert may suffice.

Derek.

I have just noticed that Sponsor posts appear as the second post in every thread when I am not logged on.

Would it be helpful to mail you a screen shot?