After I bought the K-5IIs, I certainly became moire-aware in the sense that I was hyper-vigilant in looking for it.

In spite of that, I hardly ever found it, and in the odd case that I did it disappeared during printing (A3+) and downsizing (for projection and the web). In about 60,000 shutter activations, a few thousand in the studio, it has not been a problem.

I don't deny that it can occur. I am simply saying that despite extensive use of my K-5IIs this year, it has never become a problem. I will never buy a camera with a fixed AA filter again, and very much doubt if I will use the AA-effect on my K-3 much, if at all.

In what way does its effect vary across the image? The pixels have a consistent spacing, and the movement of the sensor during the AA-effect is consistent across the image.

(I've taken about 60,000 shots with my K-5IIs, including many in a studio, and haven't been troubled by moire. I'll be running with the AA-effect off except in specialised situations).

In a studio, where lighting is under my control, I use manual. Although I have a good exposure meter, I no longer use it. I take a test shot and look at the histogram.

I've also shot an entire airshow (about 6000 DNGs) using manual. I took occasional test shots and use the histogram. For example, test shots of the public address loudspeakers against the sky. This means the camera isn't getting confused by different colours and shades of plane against changing skies and clouds.

(I am more likely to use center-weighted metering in those conditions in combination with TAv mode. I still take occasional test shots and check the histogram).

Since that has been my main lens for those sorts of shoots for over 4 years, I will be using it.

I hope I won't be disappointed!

I think there is a case for a genuine crop, (perhaps to 16 MP), rather than a down-size. In other words just throw the edge pixels away. This is, in effect, why some people use K-mount lenses on the Q - for "reach", typically for birding.

Why crop rather than just capture the whole 24 MP and let the photographer crop later? To reduce the size in kilobytes. This might increase the number of images in the buffer, the speed at which the buffer can be cleared to the card at high fps, and would obviously increase the images per card, reduce import time into Lightroom, etc.

But there isn't the slightest hint in the specifications that the K-3 has such a feature!

I agree that the K-r and K-30 don't have a useful place in the range. (And I'm pretty sure the K-r officially doesn't). They don't add anything significantly different.

I think there is a case for the K-5II(s) because of the large difference between the K-50 and K-3, as you say. (After all, the K-5II(s) and K-50 coexisted in the range before). But only if it doesn't interfere with sales of the K-3. I think Ricoh/Pentax will want to sell as many K-3s as possible.

So have I.

Although people who only want FF are vocal, I suspect they are a minority. After all, it is also a matter of having or getting the right lenses too. Those people may have mostly older primes and/or non-Pentax lenses. People with any of the more modern Pentax lenses, especially zooms, would face an expensive lens purchase to accompany an FF camera.

And this lens problem is part of what makes this cropped camera a more achievable goal. Pentax need a number of its own FF lenses, especially zooms, to accompany an FF camera. It isn't sufficient to rely on old primes and non-Pentax lenses.

Yes, I'm getting it for better airshow performance, (AF-C, fps, etc), among other things.

(I was disappointed in the Saturday of the main Duxford airshow, and I'm giving the Autumn Show a miss).

I've been using a K-5IIs all year, 58,000+ shutter actuations. I've been building up a wish list based on problems I've had, things that would increase the number of keepers, etc. (The K-5IIs was a welcome improvement on the K-5, which itself was a nice camera).

The K-3 leaked specifications exceed pretty well all parts of my wish list. If they are accurate, (and since they are typically in the form of screen shots I'm pretty confident they are), I'll buy this camera as soon as possible after I've confirmed them, perhaps Wednesday.

OK, so my wish for switching between 10 fps and 5 fps isn't met, but realistically it was never going to be! But switching between 8.3 fps and 4.5 fps is close enough for a while.