Hi Bill, I am a bit late to this party but have just placed my order! Looking forward to it.

Sounds like something sticking, try a blower inside with mirror up and then put on a lens and use multi-shot for a bit and see if that helps.

For some extra pin money, which I believe is non taxable up to £2000 pa in the UK, you could monetise your photography if you have time on your hands. As many stock photo sites are US based you will need to download a form to avoid the US Government deducting tax at source but it is a one-off and pretty simple. Stock photography doesn’t justify the amount of effort in any commercial sense but uploading your back catalogue to two or three sites is a way of filling a wet winter. I have a piddling portfolio on Shutterstock, Alamy and Adobe Stock, and there is no predicting what will sell but getting key wording right is crucial - there is plenty on YouTube to advise. Shutterstock has reduced its commission level so I haven’t bothered since June but I still get several a month there, sometimes three or four a day, and next month I might just start again. For a reasonable income you need a good quality portfolio of many thousands and short video clips pay more but the odd few quid dropping into my PayPal account is nice to see.

Well that's where you made your big mistake! My wife worked part time jobs, sometimes two or three at a time, up to retirement but only gets half a state pension whereas those who never worked get a full one.

You are right, but the author of the piece and editor both give the impression they are very knowledgeable about the subject of the magazine. However Jon Bentley’s bio shows him to be a tv presenter of Top Gear (that’s roughly to do with motoring) and no mention of any photographic applications at all. The problem is that readers would assume they have some authority on the magazine’s subject and are influenced as such, but I cannot imagine AP would put any disclaimer to inform their readers otherwise.

I have the same response when reading about the wonderful new IBIS systems in mirrorless bodies whereas previously this was dismissed as less effective than stabilised lenses, but I suppose if you have blown your budget on a new mirrorless system then you are bound to try and convince yourself it was the only way to go. I have a Leica mirrorless pocket camera but it’s “helpful” viewfinder features can be a pain: e.g. in manual focus it automatically zooms in but how do you get it to zoom out again? But back to the topic, you would expect so-called experts and the editor to have a wide and impartial knowledge of all current brands and systems but despite denying it I guess their strings are pulled by who has the biggest advertising clout. When Sony first came onto the serious camera market they announced their goal was to be the biggest in the market, they are now second to Canon and having got Canikon to suspend their DSLR developments can now compete on their own terms. I simply don’t trust Sony with their long track record of destroying opposition and then abandoning the technology - does anyone else remember the video recorder wars? I see the same thing being repeated here but the pundits cannot or don’t care.

According to Jon Bentley in the latest edition of AP you can now use both APS-C and FF lenses on the same camera, “the rise of mirrorless technology is vital to this of course”, and Sony’s brilliant idea of having the same mount for both! Canikon digital bodies do the same but you might need an adapter but even so a revelation apparently. Can anyone here be bothered to enlighten him that the Pentax K1 introduced this what, almost five years ago? And funnily enough it doesn’t require mirrorless technology!

Can’t you use Amazon.nl?

Hello and welcome!

I love the colour shots, they just go to show it is always best to have a camera with you; as a rule they only appear when you have left it at home.