Probably nine out of ten aspiring amateurs and semi-pros would have additionally thrown in rights to their grandmother to get published.

They should have no trouble getting plenty of free shots to chose from if they are featuring say the Guggenheim, Louvre, etc..

But perhaps nine out of ten people have no idea where Doha even is, and I would have thought theses guys are precisely after the more esoteric locations to appeal to a self-styled exclusive clientele.

As such you probably have a fairly rare commodity, and I would have thought you could have squeezed a bit more out of Amex, but if you’re happy that’s the main thing. As long as your giving them **non-exclusive** rights.

You have to be a bit careful with the legal meanings here; you would always retain copyright unless you sign this over explicitly, but the key question is whether you grant Amex a limited or unlimited license to use the image.

To me this suggests that they really want to use the picture but have read a book on negotiation tactics that says always to low-ball your offer.

I would reluctantly lower the ask to rock bottom $250 and be prepared to settle for $150-200.

Or propose $75 just for limited usage in the campaign mentioned.

Very droll.

If you honestly believe lack of ownership is a hindrance to objectivity you really need to look into cognitive bias eg The Origins of Cognitive
Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys

That statement simply isn’t true John.

Firstly there are without doubt duffers still within the distribution system as recent events demonstrate, and secondly almost certainly further samples in customers’ hands where they have for one reason or another failed to conduct the tests necessary to identify the issue.

I find Pentax’s behaviour in this matter lacking. They state it is a manufacturing problem, but provide no official information whatsoever regarding the serial numbers of batches affected; that is left for forum posters to try to cobble together.

Further as I understand it there have been plenty of reports of stains cropping up after initial tests were ok - how does that jive with the Pentax explanation?

If Pentax were serious about clearing this up they should have identified the serial numbers potentially affected then mopped them up from the distribution chain. This is a simple task if they have any kind of computer based ordering system.

And Smeggy, to state that it is incumbent on Retailers to ensure duffers do not leak out - I’m sorry to say - betrays an almost total lack of awareness about how they operate. Do you really think Amazon or Jessops should be doing this in their central distribution facilities?

Furthermore, if I were a retailer put in a position where customers are rightly getting upset with me as the point of contact I believe I would justifiably feel I was being dropped right in it by Pentax. Not smart when distribution is already such a glaring weakness for the business.

As it stands, there is so much uncertainty I certainly wouldn’t buy a used K5, and with the problem so well publicised, I think this is bound to depress prices on that model permanently.

I honestly believe Hoya would have managed this differently if the business hadn’t already been sold.

Doug, you raise a number of interesting points I wish I had the time to comment on at greater length.

But since I am ridiculously busy I will limit this to my opinion that one of the key reasons we find ourselves in the serious socioeconomic predicament we are in today, is the extent to which spivery has become the norm.

Doug, you seem to be arguing on favour of the law of the jungle principle that the smart should be allowed to take advantage of the less well informed.

But contrary to widespread perception law of contract actually contains a variety of measures to guard against this.

In fact I think this is fairly clear cut.

In law a contract may be voided on the basis that a mistake has been made by one or both of the parties.

Here the circumstances are that a reasonably desirable F/1.4 lens + some old body is priced on a BIN basis at the equivalent of a decent bottle of wine.

Is it reasonable to assume that the seller made a mistake in setting this price? The answer is of course.

Just goes to show that the term ‘the madness of crowds’ is something of a misnomer.

That said I recently participated in an auction where I am fairly sure my last minute winning bid was around a tenner more than I had indicated as the maximum. Buggy system or did my fingers/keypad through unknown transcendental means mysteriously acquire foreknowledge of the required bid?

Who knows, but I am in any case delighted with the item.

With respect, I question the logic of using your old machine as a fileserver. Assuming it is something like a Pentium/Core 2 it is likely to be drawing at least around 80-100 watts of continuous power.

With electricity prices where they are this is not an inexpensive solution measured over a few years, especially compared to the alternative which is to buy a new computer - as already decided - with plenty of scope to add disks internally.

And not only does this save on electricity, it also gives you much better transfer speeds for backup.

I would suggest 4 hard disks in a Raid 10 array (a mirrored set of 2 disks), backed up onto a single disk either internally or externally. Although this is not the optimal use of disk space, it is supported by many onboard controllers natively and does not consume excessive processing power.