Thanks to everyone who replied. I chose a Lowepro Classified 250AW for its versatility - camera/overnight bag, laptop/work/overnight with the camera sections removed, and camera/laptop hand luggage. It looks big but fits the Ryanair/Easyjet hand luggage dimensions.

Stan

Also neither: the K20D's my first digital SLR. It gave me enough over to buy a decent lens compared with the obvious competition.

Good summary - really useful. Strangely enough a friend asked me at the weekend about buying a DSLR to replace his Fuji something-or-other: rather than do a long email I'll send him a link to this if you don't mind.

A couple of thoughts:

Brands - as this is a Pentax forum, I think a real plus for Pentax is that the DSLRs will take all the old K-mount glass, crippled mounts notwithstanding.

Lens recommendations - I wouldn't argue against anything you say, but not sure everyone will find this exactly right - e.g. most of my photography is landscapes, 'things' in land/seascapes and buildings/townscapes, and I rarely feel the need to go outside the 16-90mm that my two main zooms give me (on DSLR).

I'm not convinced unless there's a massive improvement in the quality of electronic viewfinders over what I've seen so far (Panasonic semi-SLRs). Screens are fine for point & shoot and perhaps indoor work, but outdoors apart from the normal glare issues I have to use my glasses to see the screen image properly - and if wearing sunglasses it means swapping glasses over, and something usually ends up on the ground.

I've not tried focusing manually using a screen or EVF, and wonder how well it would work.

I love my little Panasonic FS5 for snaps and might consider a VF-less mid-range camera to replace my old Olympus 5060, but for good quality images (and photographic enjoyment) I want to look through a proper optical viewfinder with split screen focusing.

I don't see a problem photographing a group, unless they make it clear that they are uncomfortable about it. It's easier for me as I'm unlikely to publish the results (unless, possibly, they are part of a shot of a building or streetscape where the people are incidental). I could argue either way for Dr Mhuni's image depending on the context it was published in, e.g. more acceptable as a general street-scene outside the community in which it was taken, less so in the local paper.

However I am conscious that what's seen as OK in Europe etc may not be elsewhere. When I was in the Gambia there were people who were not at all comfortable to appear in a photograph; children on the other hand would either run off or pose, usually demanding a pen or a few pennies. I either asked permission (a gesture was usually enough) or make it obvious what I was doing so that anyone in the foreground could move away or show their displeasure.

A slightly different subject, but sadly I'm also very conscious of not putting shots with identifiable children in them anywhere in the public domain. Yesterday I took a few portrait pictures of my friends' 5-year-old, who was keen to 'model' and have me change the lens just for her. The results were very pleasing and could be used to show off my limited skill with K20D and 50mm prime, but there's no way I would upload them anywhere even with her parents' permission.

There are some good intentions behind this proposal - for instance it will allow museums and archives to display and publish images that are of unknown origin, and stop press photographers printing a close-up of me emerging from the local hostelry on a Friday night. The danger as I understand it is that it will also provide an excuse for unscrupulous publishers who haven't done more than checked whether there's a name on the image file, and allow paranoid members of the public to challenge any photographer who points a lens vaguely in their direction.

I'm reminded of an incident a few years ago - a couple with a little boy approached me and only half-jokingly said they could sue me for taking a picture of their son. They were about 200m away at the time in a rowing-boat in the middle of a river, the boat forming a small punctuation in the overall scene with the people in it far from identifiable (I was using an Olympus C5060WZ at the time, not 'compact' but a lot smaller than my SLR). I told them as much and they seemed happy enough, but there are the argumentative sorts who would insist it's their 'right' under the new legislation or an assumed privacy law not to be photographed at all.

I have a 24-90 which is my favourite lens - I've found very little to fault it apart from looseness in the barrel when fully extended (though it doesn't affect optical quality). They're like hen's teeth now apparently - the last SH one I saw was £400. However you may prefer the overlap a 17-70 will give you.

Stan

Thanks Photomonk for posting.

I haven't read the original proposals, but this has some interesting implications.

If a professional photographer can't take non-consensual pictures of people it presumably rules out pictures of passers-by, demonstrations, gatherings etc appearing on the news and in the papers. Except of course if they are taken by amateurs, posted on the web without identification, and legally pirated by the publishers/news organisations.

As an amateur who has had a few pictures published (and paid for, or contributing to my own profitable activities) in magazines and books when do I become a 'professional'? Presumably when I attempt to sell a picture of Peter Mandelson. But if I post it anonymously on the Internet, it can appear in The Sun the next day.

Plus of course are the international implications that a couple of posters have already mentioned.

This looks a complete mess and very poorly thought through.

I'm pleased I bought my K20D last year - £650 new with 18-55, filter and Lowepro case. Much better value than the Canon/Nikon alternatives. LXs seem to be doing pretty well on the used market, too.

There are a couple of (related) earlier threads that discuss this among other lenses, if you haven't seen them already:

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/which-lens-would-you-choose--17800
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/i-have-died-and-gone-to-heaven-------1793...

I've just been making similar decisions - I have an FA 24-90 which is excellent and I wanted to get something to complement it but with a wider angle. I opted for the Pentax 16-45 over the Sigma or Tamron, using the logic that for its main use (city walkabout) the 2mm wider angle is more useful than an extra f-stop.

Stan