I think the problem is that as the pixel counts go up our expectations go up even more. The real advantage will always lie with the very best technique - so tripods, very careful focusing, etc., will yield super crisp images that take the breath away. We can achieve that with hand held shooting as well, especially with SR being so effective, but there will be more near misses that will no longer be acceptable.

Sue has found this moving from the K-5 to the K-3. Now she gets amazingly sharp pictures, but rejects much more quickly those that aren't quite the same standard. I've been doing the same with the K-1. When it's right it's amazing, but if I'm just a whisker off then it's no longer good enough. Photography is becoming more and more demanding.

Both lenses are sharp, the 24-70mm marginally sharper, but there's not a lot in it. Probably the 28-105mm will be more useful to you as it has a longer reach.

Low light will be fine, just use a higher ISO.

Please only post once, rather than in multiple sections. I'll close this one to avoid confusion.

Looks like the shutter is closed to me. You won't see the sensor until the shutter opens.

It's odd how these terms spring up, a bit like bokeh. We lived without them for decades and then suddenly they're in everyday use. The amazing power of the internet I guess.

Best wishes for a speedy recovery, and hope you enjoy your new K-1.

The goose is focused specifically on the eyes and most of the rest will be outside the DOF.

Quite right, we seem to have got our wires crossed. I've just finished a very intense 10 days or so looking at four new Pentax lenses (28-105, 24-70, 15-30, 70-200) so the new 28-105mm was pretty much on my mind. That's my excuse anyway, so sorry to the OP if we got it wrong.

Good question. I was discussing the new D-FA lens, but now I'm not so sure!

A couple of examples that didn't get into the review.

That looks like some transformation. I'd like to see some results from the lens?