LOL, there are FOUR here in Leeds none of which have customers most of the time. The largest one is the one with least people in as it is tucked away round the back of a shopping arcade in a dodgy spot.

Talk about positioning yourself into the market.

I think either that or have a little more money than sense. Unlike the Nikon user I spotted at Glastonbury (not the festival) taking all his shots on auto on a D200. That is one expensive point and shoot... If you have money to throw away and think it will make your photos better...

I'd suggest you get an SLR camera book (doesn't matter if it is film as the principles are practically the same). This will tell you how the camera works and how to get the best out of it. It is no point and shoot and you can get a hell of a lot more out of it by knowing what you are doing.

Samsung flash for £180!!! It is rather annoying that Samsung stuff is so much cheaper. Are they subsidising it (and making a loss) or selling it at minimum profit? I mean they are buying it all from Pentax to start with...

I'm waiting for the native P-TTL version to get a whole new flash.

I'm waiting to see how the new Metz P-TTL flashes perform before deciding on anything. Generally I hate flash photography because in the past it has always blow out detail. My K10D seems to handle flash rather well though so we'll wait and see.

Like the Sigmas for the price, the Pentax ones for compatibility but I've got an old Metz hanging about which is quite impressive (even if it is 20yrs old).

I see no burnt/clipped bits

There are various de-mosaicing algorithms which look at extended areas beyond the neighbouring pixels. This still produces some errors and if you are processing 16 points to produce one you will get quite a few aliasing problems especially with specific colours. I can imaging some banding at 100% and a few other problems. You really need more pixels for the new array to work well.

On a Bayer every vertex meeting point of four photoreceptors is an imaginary pixel which needs information from a RGB, adding a fourth colour or just a 'white' to a standard array would be a good step as well without diminishing resolution and it can be used for noise reduction purposes, just not as effectively.

I think changing the shape of photoreceptors to better stacking hexagons and working on new pattern and algorithms would be better. You get less aliasing (if implemented correctly), more input for each pixel calculation (because you have more vertices) and therefore more 'imaginary' pixels. This part of the way FujiFilm deal with the problem and look at shots from an S5Pro at ISO1600 or even 3200, quite clearly superior.

I can imagine some CA problems due to the arrangement of photo detectors of different colours. From looking at the diagram it takes 16 photo detectors to generate one pixel, where as currently you only need 4. This means you'd need a 40MP sensor to get the same resolution as a current 10MP sensor. Surely the extra density would completely undo the noise reduction?

They are fixed to the surface of the CCD, CMOS or LMOS. Exchangeable sensors would be rather expensive, but it would be possible. Imagine having it as an exchangeable back, but then you'd be in a whole new realm where you could choose a nice Pentax body and load it up with a FujiFilm CCD