Didn't you say once that you bought many of them prior to the release - which never happened - of the MZ-D?

No affordable digital camera has lasted for very long so far, and it's not because they are mediocre; it's because technology has been moving very fast.

I don't think you will ever get a D3 in K-mount. First, you will never get a 24x36 sensor in K-mount (anti-shake won't allow it, and the lenses are largely discontinued), and second, Pentax does not have the market for a high-end pro camera (unless they re-launch the D645 project, where they already have a suitable mount and the lenses to go with it).

But at one time you would have been satisfied with the MZ-D. Now you want something much more sophisticated. You're not an easy man to satisfy.

G

One has to question what you were thinking of to invest in 31 prime lenses for a system with "significant limits".

Still, I am sure the K30D will meet all your expectations. Well, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure, but I do hope so.

G

What is so silly about these endlessly repetitive threads is not just the fact that the FF'ers appear to have no grasp of economics whatever (economies of scale in particular), but they also fail to remember that in the days of film there was such a thing as medium format.

And the point about medium format was that very few people used it, despite the fact that it offered better quality.

And why didn't they use it? Two reasons: cost and bulk. And those reasons hold true for digital, only more so in the case of the former.

A medium format camera body is just a box with a winding mechanism. A FF (so-called) digital body is a much more expensive proposition, and when you consider that virtually nobody will buy them, you will see that they make no economic sense whatsover.

The quality produced by modern digital cameras is more than good enough for most of us. We really don't need sensors the size of a 35mm film frame, and I am quite sure that we are not going to get them - at least from Pentax.

And I wonder how many of the whingers use prime lenses exclusively (Limiteds and * lenses especially). If they don't, then simply by switching to good primes they will see an increase in image quality. And it will be cheaper than buying a so-called FF body.

G

Set camera to Manual, and flash to Manual. Then use trial and error to find the right exposure.

OR

Set camera to Manual and flash to Auto, and let the flash deal with exposure using its sensor.

G

We have a comedian in our midst. Try £5,000.

G

It doesn't.

And to turn off pre-flash, mount a small manual gun.

G

[quote="johnriley"]I never made my own shutters, or ground my own lenses, even in the old days. There's nothing new in seeking convenience.

G

I do believe this is wishful thinking. However, since Pentax still seems unable to keep up with demand for lenses, it is possible they might do it just to keep owners happy.

Another point is that whilst K and M primes were very good in their day, many of the new zooms are just as sharp. I suspect that the vast majority of new owners will want to fit AF zooms rather than MF primes.

G

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "frames". But if you mean a kind of digital picture frame, then I imagine you would be much better advised to add these things on your computer, rather than in-camera. Much more choice and flexibility.

G

Another fact you forgot to mention is that consumer protection is much better in the UK/Europe than in the US. This has to be reflected in prices.

But basically, I believe that all camera manufacturers subsidise US sales and make the monery back in other markets - primarily Europe.

G