K5IIs, how good then?

Said it before Nigel. We should have a square format sensor. You'd never need to switch between portrait and landscape mode. The camera body would be bigger to accommodate the taller sensor

[quote:3496ace15f="aliengrove] Personally I don't get the whole thing with grips; I just don't see the point of making a camera bigger than it needs to be to work..[/quote]But they should not be smaller than is optimum for use by humans - the 'man - machine interface'. IMO the camera + grip combo is near to an ideal to meet this requirement.

I find carrying a few spare batteries far more convenient than turning what is a great reasonably sized camera into a heavy, bulky monster. I shoot a lot in portrait, and personally don't find any problem with the controls rotating the camera. I've even been tempted to switch completely to mirrorless cameras; my IR converted Nex has the same sensor as my K5, and is half the size and less than half the weight. I do like the size and weight of the K5, though, but would not want it any bigger. I'm hoping Pentax is going to come out with a full-frame camera with the size and ergonomics of the K5. If it comes out looking and feeling like one of those bulky FF Canikons with a grip welded to it, I won't be buying one.

Yeah, I've seen pictures shot in this format - is it the Hassleblad that uses it? Sure, resolves that issue, but not all types of subjects benefit from a square format, and we'd end up cropping a lot I'd have though, so throwing pixels away.

And the other benefits I listed would still be missing.

But they should not be smaller than is optimum for use by humans - the 'man - machine interface'. IMO the camera + grip combo is near to an ideal to meet this requirement.[/quote]I can't see who you can can credibly claim an opinion on what is optimal for use by someone else. Many people find the addition of the grip makes the use of the camera less optimal.

Although I use a grip most of the time I prefer it to be an add on rather than built into the camera body. On the odd occasion I try street shooting having a small unobtrusive gripless K-5 with a LTD prime is preferable to a hulking great brick of a camera.

Quite a few Twin Lens Reflexes use the square format. Presumably you'd be able to select the output format like we can now; even the Q offers a square output format! For optimum use I'd guess most would keep the image as large as possible (i.e. square) and routinely crop as desired.

John K

No problem cropping. We all do that anyway. Can't see what other benefits are missing. If the camera had to be bigger to accommodate a taller sensor then there'd be room for double sd cards and an extra battery

if the square sensor was equal to the longest side of the current rectangular sensor then you wouldn't be throwing pixels away by cropping in terms of composition becuase you wouldn't have wanted that in the scene anyway. Im' sure a camera with a square sensor would allow landscape, portrait and Square modes anyway.

If I had such a camera I'd always shoot in Square and crop if necessary in PP.

I really don't think it would have to be that much bigger at all. I wouldn't complain at a square sensor, but I have no problem rotating the camera 90 deg still using the regular controls.

Trouble is a square sensor with sides equal to current rectangular sensor will require a larger image circle and hence potentially a new set of lenses and/or reduced corner performance.

Whatever sensor shape you have you can always crop to different aspect ratios and a sensor shape is only going to be optimal if its aspect ratio matches that you usually crop to. The old TLR cameras being the exception, as it's pretty impractical to use them anything but upright a square 'sensor' made sense for these.

I'd quite like something along the lines of a 4:3 ratio sensor myself but I'm quite happy cropping from 3:2.

Many DA lenses are full frame compatible in any case, and as has just been demonstrated by the Q v Q7, there may well be reasonable leeway built into DA lenses which aren't FF compatible

I wouldn't either. I hate those monstrosities !!

I've no desire for a smaller body than the K-5, although it wouldn't be a deal breaker. however I do NOT like bodies with integral groups ( like some of the Canon and Nikon Bricks. I had a grip for my K-20D. I never used the portrait controls and always carry spare batteries in my pockets anyway. Getting 2000 shots from one battery I rarely change them on a shoot anyway.

No idea bout Japanese customs of bad luck but K-7, K-5.... K-3 seems the next logical progression.

True, I only have first-hand experiences of my own 'man-machine' interface... the 'man' part that is .... but as I own the BG-4 grip I have used the camera quite a bit with and without it.

I would really recommend to all users of compatible Pentax DSLRS, if you can get the chance, to try your camera with the Grip - it really does alter the whole feel and handling of your camera for the better, and you may not want to go back