For what it's worth just got my second Q body from SRS , ex Demo (which is SRS speak for brand new but we can't say that as it was taken out of the box!)for £59.
Dave

I sort of agree with both sides of the argument. The main thing is Pentax has to get the message across that they have the best low to mid range DSLR's. Nobody except us seems to know that and they need to change that else they can launch as many models as they like and things will stay the same.

There seems to be two conflicting discussions going on here and they needn't be. I don't think any of us think any of the cameras mentioned are bad or even bad value for money. I think it is a valid point to keep marketing something just to prove you are still there. You just can't expect any existing users to get excited except those at the entry level end and even then I can't see why they wouldn't still buy or didn't buy a K-30, the price difference between getting one now and the new entry level isn't that great. The K-50 offers little in the way of upgrade. The K500 camera is good for those who are not existing DSLR users but the K-50 offers little more to first time Pentaxians (who want a bit more than the entry level) than the K30, so that sector will stay constant.

All this "new" gear seems a bit marginal to existing users I think. I own a Q and a K30 and my first reaction is what's new? WIth the Q clearly the main feature is the larger sensor. But the picture quality for the sort of thing I would use a Q for is already very good in my opinion. It remains to be seen if there is some really significant improvement anywhere with the Q7 or K90. Good for new users though I think.

I'm with Matty H and the majority of posters. I own a K-30 and am looking at the K-50 thinking unless I wanted a mag alloy body (and I don't) why would I want one? My next step would have to be the K5ii if I changed at the moment.

Yes this obsession with the number of colours is boring, especially as they seem to miss out the most obvious one - camouflage!

Thanks - but it was really easy. Heard the youngster calling as I was walking on a nearby path. There was a less used sidepath where I set my tripod up. A good 25 metres away with the hole about 15 feet up, north facing of course. No hide , just the cover of a bush. Bird was completely unaware of my presence although had been slightly disturbed with my shutter from the stills with the K30, which is why I moved further back with the Q.
It really is good for video as lower light is less of an issue where you are not trying to freeze movement with a fast shutter speed.
In fact I had to move back a bit as I couldn't fit it in the frame.
I hadn't played it with the sound on - thanks for pointing that out!
Dave

Are we talking about a high quality 1.4/1.5x autofocus TC here? As far as I was aware the only ones currrently working with say the 300mm DA* are the Kenko, Tamron and 1.7x Pentax and although IQ reduction isn't much( the AF is abysmal) I imagine it's not on a par with Canon's matched converters. I know a hell a lot of Canon people use them and swear by them so that is what I want from Pentax - a matched high quality autofocus TC.

Took a few clips the other day of a GS Woodpecker feeding its chick. About 25m distance and up in a tree. Light not brilliant so wide open with the DA* 300mm. Could be improved with some editing and colour balancing but I don't have much in the way of video editing software. Quite sharp though I thought, and how else could I do that for that money?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dcweather/9001520562/

If link doesn't work it seems to if you paste as URL in new browser window.

Dave

Yes, I've tried the 50mm and 70mm. 50mm not too bad and useable but as Ken says really bad CA with the 70mm and hellish difficult to focus hand held.
Of course with Pentax lenses like the 300mm Da* it's brilliant.