Faster AF than the K10D?

For weddings and portraits, who cares?

Is it definitely PRA, Matt?

I've noticed that if I leave mine connected via the USB port the battery runs down very quickly... regardless of whether I'm using PRA.

You and most of the others, John. I thought I'd get in first

Well I certainly can't complain about the theme not being specific enough.

Funny you should say that. I had a change in mindset earlier this year when I went past about 5000 frames with the K10D (after about 6 months).

The context is my ME Super which I've had for about 20 years, and put about 10 rolls a year through, on average, maybe a bit more.

With the K10D, I found myself wondering if my far more profligate rate of button-clicking was likely to be a problem until I realised that even at 10,000 frames a year, it would still take me ten years to get through its nominal 100k shutter life. Of course, who knows if it'll break down electronically before then.

Ten years? I can't imagine not buying its successor, or maybe the one after that, within that time frame. I've had my PC about 4 years now, since I built it, and it feels very old and clunky...

This would be worth having if it also came with significantly higher, low noise ISO settings.

Otherwise it's only a marginal increase - it would have to be nearly 17 MP for it to be the same proportion more than the K10D, than the K10D is more than the K100D.

It'll also be interesting to see if the image circle really is Ok with a 1.25 crop factor and the DA lenses. If it is, then lenses will all get a bit wider, which would be quite handy in a way, if I could get my head round remembering two crop factors.

This would be worth having if it was also predictive and worked well.
This would have to be much better for it to be significant. The K10D SR is already pretty good.
Not a big deal, really.

Overall, it doesn't add up to something I'll be desperate for when it comes out. Even the 'worth havings' aren't worth having at any cost, so the price will be important.

You sure about this, Dan?

Wikipedia seems to think it's another 3:2 format - about a 1.25 factor compared with 35mm, rather than 1.5 for APS-C.

It won't make barrel distortion any more pronounced, will it?

I'm aware of the old converging verticals problem when you point the camera half way up the tall building, but this is a different issue, isn't it?

Yes, I absolutely take this point. It's a mindset thing - I haven't quite got it yet

I don't have it - I've only seen some of the review pics taken with it. The one I had in mind was the building at the top right of the table of examples at the bottom of the page here (beware - big file if you download the whole thing), with architectural lines very close to the edge of the frame.

It put me right off, but I'm wondering now if it's actually not bad compared with other wide lenses. I've noticed a bit of horizon curvature with the DA 18-55, for instance. So for something much wider, like 10-20, maybe I'm expecting way too much.