Does it show ?

I think that is as near to a perfect kit as I can come :
K5 plus Ltds etc.
D800 plus 500mm and TCs

Now to sell some lenses and find the cash.

Well if someone were to seriously suggest going from a K5 to a $10,000 MF camera (and then the lenses) over a $3,000 DSLR that would be the least I would assume

Go on any Canon/Nikon forum and see the lenses they are using (or just price them on SRS/KEH etc.). I know you know what they cost so TBH conjecture doesn't come into it.

Ah maybe that is a psychological consequence Though as you say (and you can see from the figures I gave above) the difference in actual cms is very small and in weight just a 160g - inconsequential when considering lenses, tripods and all the other gear we cart around. Now ergonomics is something else and particular to each individual, which can change over time or may only be a case of adjustment via familiarity.

JR. I know I've mentioned this before ... somewhere

The issue for Pentax is that people who are willing to buy a FF camera are also willing to spend a lot of money on expensive lenses to go on that camera, often lenses that cost nearly as much, or even more, than the camera itself. Therefore the camera is only a small part of the profitability equation. It could even be considered or marketed as a loss leader for lenses and supplementary equipment.

Since Pentax don't have an upgrade after the K5 they are virtually forcing people (and before some dolt suggests the 645 we are not talking about such a mega jump, not that the 645 can be considered to have the same functionality as a DSLR anyway) to move on to another manufacturer. Again I've seen the ridiculous statement made that they should have thought of that before buying into Pentax - but when you are looking to move into a DSLR for the first time most people don't imagine themselves needing / spending that sort of money on a FF camera and top quality lenses a few years down the line, people just don't think that far ahead.

Sony's FF line didn't take off for many reasons, most of them not directly related to the quality of the A850/900 and that is a whole other subject in itself.

Pentax's lack of a FF camera, or upgrade path, not only disincentivises some buyers from buying into, say the K5, or buying Pentax in the first place, it forces those that subsequently need / or think that they need (effectively the same thing) a FF camera out of the brand and loses them multiple sales of their most expensive lenses etc.

Your last comment re. tuition rather than buying a FF body is rather disingenuous. People have a right to spend their money on whatever they want to without being preached to and that is without even considering the legitimate benefits that a FF camera can offer to many photographer's regardless of their technical ability or that indeed many people have indeed reached a stage in their development where a FF would offer them something their current APS-C doesn't, to say nothing of incentive, drive or maybe just satisfaction from owning such high quality equipment. All of which is anyway irrelevant to manufacturers, including Pentax, who just want to drive profits.

The A77 is a noise machine above 800 ISO (according to those on the Sony forums) so if it is that sensor then I hope Pentax can work their usual miracles on it !

As I mention above - I have never had any real issue with the K5's AF and I feel any deficiency (in comparison to Nikon/Canon) is over stated even though real. However there is no doubt it lags behind that of Nikon/Canon so any improvement would be well received.

Sorry CMW your link doesn't seem to work - however I'm assuming it is the DPReview on the K5 from 2 years ago ? If so then time moves on and in the world of photography that is quite a big step.

Blows it away ? Absolutely. Canon's AF has lagged behind Nikon's for quite a while but the new AF in the 5DIII is reportedly out-performing that in the D800 (and that means probably the new US$6,000 D4 as well), especially with regard to predictive AF.
We know Pentax's AF lags already (though I've only ever very rarely had any issue with it and those occasions are mostly when birding) so now it is at least two iterations behind Canon/Nikon unless there is a massive leap forward with whatever appears next in the Pentax line-up.

The DR and low noise at high ISOs in those cameras come into their own when above 3,200 - 6,400 not at base ISO where the K5 holds an edge over the 5DIII and is the same as the D800. Which helps in so many ways of course and not just in delivering better image quality. To say nothing of being able to use much faster WA lenses the like of which don't exist in the APS-C world due to the crop factor.

Don't get me wrong here, I love the K5 - I have two of them and think it is a superb camera and I won't be ditching them both (one will probably be upgraded to whatever replaces it in the Pentax line-up - if it's worth the upgrade otherwise I'll just keep one K5). And of course all those benefits the D800 and 5DIII offer are only worth it if you need them ... most people don't and the K5 is more than enough camera.

I had the D800 in my hands at the weekend, I was very surprised to find it felt hardly any larger or heavier than my K5.

130x96x72 mm vs 146x123x82 mm
740 g vs 900 g

Amazing insight there (even though you are completely wrong, there are 4.29MP per cm3 on the K5 sensor, 3.2MP per cm3 on a 12MP APS-C sensor and 2.58MP per cm3 on the 5DIII). Even so just to compare pixel density is far far too simplistic.

I really don't see what your point is unless you are one of those people that are impressed by pixel count above all else. The 5DIII hasn't been hailed by the photographic community as a resounding success because it doesn't even match the K5 .... it blows the K5 away and your argument with it. This should come as no surprise when the 16MP D4 can do the same thing and more. Proving yet again that it is not just about the pixels.

And so what if the D800 has 36MP ? What do you think that is an indicator of ? Basically it's resolution and the problem with the D800, for many people, is that you now need only Nikon's best lenses to resolve on that sensor - otherwise the results are less than satisfactory. Great for cropping though (which is why it's excellent for birders) !

As that implies many of Pentax's lenses would be unsuitable for a sensor with that amount of resolving power and hence I believe I'm right in saying that a Pentax FF of 22-24mp would be almost perfect in terms of extracting the most from Pentax's existing FF lenses.

You do know that the superb new Canon 5DIII is a 22.3mp camera don't you ? I guess not.

There are many advantages to a FF sensor over an APS-C - and very few of them have anything to do with printing.

Many of that full frame 'brigade' are the ones currently jumping ship to Nikon/Canon/Sony so why do you think they wouldn't pay the same amount for a similar spec'd Pentax which would not force them to change systems ?