By that token, you'd be buying film for your K7 ....

I disagree with you. I question the narrow limits you want to place upon both the possibilities of Pentax's development and the ethos/purpose of this forum.

I haven't been keeping a tally, and I'm not sure whether what you see as 'negativity' might not be someone else's healthy criticism. All cameras are compromises. Show me one that does not suit some purposes better than others. I am very content with my K5 but even when it was fresh on the scene and technologically up to the moment it was possible to evaluate its many strengths and few weaknesses. Why would any thinking person object to that?

And those strengths and weaknesses will be weighed differently by different people. Divergent opinions, expressed with civility, are no threat.

By the testimony of reviewers and (more important) its users, the K3 is a fine camera, up there with the best. But any balanced evaluation will find it ahead of its direct competition in some areas, behind in others. It does it a disservice to place it on a pedestal and those who want to discuss it should be free to do so without feeling constrained to be merely celebratory.

I have never until now visited a Nikon forum, never having owned a Nikon (and in fact choosing my Pentax in conscious opposition to its Nikon rival). But given John's comments above, I was intrigued to see how discussions of rival cameras were treated, whether indeed they were even permitted to get off the ground.

I know nothing about the pecking order in the Nikon world, so at random I just picked Nikonites.com and entered Pentax in the site's search box. One of the first threads I found was on the subject of the Pentax K3 v. the Nikon D600 (picking up from the Digital Camera Review comparison of the two). The merits and demerits of the different cameras/systems were discussed calmly and Pentax was held in some esteem. All in all, even if not all the points carried weight, it was a pretty rational discussion. I don't think I'm permitted to provide a link, but it's easy enough to find, if you're interested.

Ultimately, the policy of PentaxUser is not determined by its contributors. But I was pleased at first dip, as it were, to find some evidence that contextualising a brand need not open the gates to the forces of darkness.

As you know, I have not made the suggestion that something has been 'disallowed'. I was, rather, indicating an extreme that might legitimately be objected to.

Using your test, why wouldn't I, on a Nikon forum, mention the new K3 and say something about its features -- particularly if I felt one or more of them might be an asset on future Nikon models?

Credit where credit's due: you have not improperly disallowed anything on this thread. But I cannot help but think it would have fizzled out long ago if there were less inclination to try to head off or even close down discussion. I know your antennae are sensitive to chaos -- you are after all a moderator -- but the nature of this thread has generally been good-tempered. If people start attacking one another rather than one another's ideas, by all means exercise zero tolerance.

There is a simple but sharp divergence of view between those who believe Pentax matters should always be considered in a vacuum and those who are willing to see that in some discussions only a broader context can provide a full understanding of the issues at hand.

A focus on Pentax is the raisin d'être of this site, but I continue to find the need to see the world exclusively through a Pentax lens both unnecessary and unnecessarily limiting to a few of the discussion threads. By all means disallow any proselytising on behalf of another marque, but I cannot be persuaded that there is some sort of existential threat to PentaxUser in occasionally discussing Pentax within the wider world in which it in fact exists.

The numbers could flash ... though not in unison with the remote indicator.

You've had a good year! No.3 is wonderful: I hope it's printed large and hanging on a wall somewhere.

A good set. For me, no.1 stands out -- the figures on the bridge make it (whether their presence was fortuitous or premeditated!). I also particularly like the A466 -- were it not for the tarmacadam and white lines, it might almost be an C18 or C19 oil painting.

I don't think the lack of clarity is all that surprising on one level, since beyond the simple enlargement of the sensor the implementation of 'FF' will vary between camera-makers -- their decisions on pixel size/density being just one of the most obvious. It is these possible variations that make cut-and-dried pronouncements a bit pointless. If we were talking about film, there would be little discussion to be had. No serious photographer would select APS-format film in preference to 35mm.

But what I would anticipate with digital FF is what I can already see if I compare some of my APSC shots of landscapes with those taken on FF cameras: more detail. For reasons of quality alone, my preference would be medium format when shooting landscapes: the difference is striking. But, for me at least, there has to be a compromise. FF is large enough.