The DA12-24 is now priced at over £900, so I think the new wide zoom will be equally fancifully priced.

With the older lenses I find manual focus much more convenient for landscape, the hyperfocal scales are useful too.

There is also the wide zoom for the Q system.

If it ain't broke don't fix it. Even it were serviced there would be no guarantee that the SDM wouldn't fail the next day. So better off saving pennies for that potential eventuality.

Just had a quick look at ebay completed listings. Kx or Kr can be had for very good money, that's what I'd be buying on a low budget, great image quality if that's a priority.

It's a very good point that great sports photography predates auto this and that. However, if I were primarily interested in shooting sports then I could see very little reason to choose Pentax over Canon or Nikon. In fact none whatsoever. It's not just the automation it's the limitation of suitable lenses. I like manual modes but this is the one area where I would take most advantage of automation and the initial impressions on even the K3's autofocus seem rather underwhelmed. It is an Achilles heel, Pentax simply have to get more serious to win market share. My impression of Pentaxians' sports/action shots is that motorsports and airshows make up the bulk of these and outside of these then the overall level is distinctly average by comparison.

Is Pentax bad for sport? In some ways yes but I think the level is just a reflection that there are better options.

I think it's best to link to a full size image to properly justify how good a camera is. I wouldn't go and buy an MX-1 to try it myself based on a titchy image, I don't think anyone with a modicum of photography knowledge would.

A small sized image for web proves nothing whatsoever. I agree that if one were to do nothing more with an image than to view it/have it viewed at 800 pixels wide then a K3 is pointless, but then so is an MX-1, a cheaper compact or mobile phone would do just fine. I'm unconvinced that shooting JPEG is the best method of noise reduction, I doubt the MX-1 could achieve what AG has demonstrated. A link to a full sized image might help convince.

Generally yes I think that is fair. I still think the difference between the 18-55 and for instance my K35/3.5 would be significant at f5.6/f8, in fact I'd say no contest. But on the other hand the zoom brings you convenience and less cost. Pretty much every lens brings its compromises.

Vastly reduced noise levels.

See here.