I am no lawyer but this comes across as speculative, for instance claiming that the fault occurs in a high percentage of the cameras listed (really?) and also that the fault renders other equipment like lenses as useless. I am not defending Ricoh in this but the aim is obviously to get a quick out of court settlement by bringing noisy publicity, which could in turn create long term damage to the company’s reputation and ultimately impact on all of us.

Thanks very much!

This normally comes as part of the Photoshop subscription so for the same price you might pay for your website with other providers you get Photoshop, Lightroom, and some other software thrown in. The package includes five Portfolio sites so I have one for photography and just recently the provider for my work site has ended so that is now on another Portfolio site, which makes it very cost effective. Compared to other sites it is quite limited but I have found I can get a nice looking site and once you get used to it is quite easy to manage. The only limitation is you cannot use Portfolio as a selling platform. You are welcome to check my site out:
link

I’ll second that, a refreshing change from gear obsessional stuff. A large part of the mag is photos submitted by readers of high standard, often including Pentax users.

That’s interesting, is it because the new mounts are larger? I seem to recall that the Canon and Nikon DSLR mounts are smaller than K-mount and also adding an adapter would put the lens at the right distance from the sensor. Or maybe they are filling gaps in the mirrorless line-ups.

I too love the vibrancy of the last two. Poppies are good too but on the second there is a halo effect around the fringes, maybe down to desaturating the background in post processing?

I follow a couple of photographers on Flickr who keep to one genre and just use two lenses, 50mm and 85mm, almost always at apertures around f1.8 frequently in challenging lighting. In that situation the large and expensive *lenses would be justified. Ditto for pros doing portraits etc., but for those of us who are less specific then the balance is likely tipped to light weight and compactness. Whilst I may not buy them I am glad that they are there.

That’s the reason I bought some primes, not the new * ones but the traditionally sized ones. So I have a 35mm, 50mm, 77mm and 100mm macro, all of which take a 49mm filter. They are generally faster than the f2.8 zooms although not so snappy on autofocus. All with the K1 without a grip but an angle bracket instead. These cover the majority of landscape requirements and I find compact and lightweight enough to be ok. The zooms I keep for particular assignments and events and because I cannot bear to get rid of perfectly good kit and you never know when it is needed!

Personally I think it is a mistake to get rid of the full frame body which has such outstanding qualities when there are other lens options available, and I have never found the need for more than one spare battery so a grip would be redundant unless I were a portrait or wedding photographer, which I am not.

I went off AP when they started getting manufacturers to do articles for them such as Rotolight. Whatever happened to independent journalism? I get it as free downloads from the library but tend just to scan quickly, otherwise I wouldn’t bother.

The editor of Amateur Photographer (an increasingly irrelevant title) has just concluded a long analysis of Olympus’s demise saying he hopes they don’t go the same way as Pentax which exists in name only and is now better known for glasses than cameras. A view doubtless helped by Pentax products no longer paying for ads in his shrinking magazine or anywhere else for that matter.