Thank you. I guess you're right
I'm getting the distinct impression that if people don't see a work of pure genius from the Zed, they just right the post off as all the gear no idea without considering the wider picture (sic).
I haven't had a lot of work recently, really slow month. So I am tending to just mess about with it!
was meant to be at a proper shoot today but the model has only just woken up (11:30)! So she has just blown it and I am kicking my heels again. grr.

The Zed can't do the tracking without a mechanical tracker, so at the moment the K is winning.
People seem to think the Zed can work miracles in low light, but it is just not true. The new FF will likely be the same - unless they specifically make it for high sensitivity. I'm just putting real-world, honest examples out there.
I still love it and I'm actually taking it out as a walk-around camera now, which says it all really. incredible quality in tightly controlled situations, right up there with any MF system and still versatile end user-friendly enough to walk around with.
Have you got your mechanical tracker yet? I'm not sure I can justify that here, the weather and light pollution being what it is.

For what it's worth, here's one of the high iso/short exposure shots (single exposure) from the Zed. It is an almost exact comparison with the selfie at the top of the thread, which had more or less the same settings, but on the K5.
You can see that even crunched down from 51MP, the high ISO is technique is no good (even stacked to average out the noise, which I didn't do on this one).

Wow, that's a lot of lens for 150 quid.

I ran over my old one and got this on the insurance, but by then I had bought a 15 Ltd so I don't need both.
The 12-24 is probably better than the Ltd in every way, but I am loving the bag full of tiny limiteds so the zoom is a bit redundant.
So here's a chance to pick up a brand new, pristine, boxed 12-24 for £280 less than new!
£499, plus postage. No offers please.

Princetown yes. But I think that is Beardown Hill in front of me.
Thanks for the comments Doc.
Btw, the saturation on these is essentially 'normal'. The sky was simply beautiful.

That all depends which Nikon he upgraded from, he may well have seen a massive improvement or he may be one of those photographers for whom the larger format really works.
Upgrading from a K5ii or K3, two first class cameras at the top of their respective classes is a different story.
I love that Pentax are doing this; it's the right move and will bring lots of people from other marks who currently think so called 'full frame' is the be all and end all.

Who are you referring to Horst?
I certainly wasn't being negative; personally, I am simply concerned that people think this will transform their photography or don't really understand (judging by the comments) what this simple size difference will actually achieve, and so waste their money.

I'm curious. An excellent, but self-confessed sighting shot of a bug, elicits 3 pages of comments, but these shots above, that took 2 hours on top of a frozen hill and required all sorts of interesting gear to achieve, get one comment. I would have thought this post was a great talking point, which is why I posted it.
I'm not fishing for compliments; the photos aren't posted because I think they are especially great, I posted them as an interesting account of my first attempt at stars and indeed full moon/snow photography and using totally opposing techniques and cameras.
Also really pertinent to the whole FF debate in that the best shots came from the venerable K5.
I'm really bemused :

I wasn't saying the old lenses aren't any good, or only use fast new lenses. I was just saying don't buy a 35mm format expecting miracles from cheap lenses. Be aware of what the larger formats do and what they don't do.
Some creative and talented photographers will definitely make good use of the larger format but the vast majority will just be wasting their money.
Pixel pitch is something I forgot to consider when expecting the 645z to work wonders - it does, but not in terms of absolute detail or mind blowing dynamic range.
I have 1st-hand experience of the ISO abilities of the K5 and 645; the K5 easily keeps up and in fact, is better at retaining colour. The Z is fabulous for large dreamy picures, oozing quality, but it is not god's gift to night shooters, because they crammed it full of pixels.
Pentax have a balancing act with the 'FF' - detail per mm of sensor, verses sensitivity. I am willing to bet a 36MP sensor will be nothing more than average in that respect and clog up peoples hard drive with unnecessarily big files and the fine detail will be the same as the K3, leaving us with more esoteric reasons for buying.