In what way do you disagree? I'm puzzled as to what there is in that to disagree with?

Maybe, but the K-3 focused in the dark with no problem at all.

The shots at f/22 were lens test shots, so that was shot at open aperture, f/8 and f/22 to show the usual rise and fall performance in a simplified way. It's also the same as all the other reviews I have done of the K-5 onwards, and in the same place as well. Rough and ready comparison I know, but hopefully better than just random shots where there's nothing at all to compare to. It's not a full lens test, just a guide.

The AA filter shot was the best in a whole evening's messing about trying to actually generate some moire that could be shown reliably. Interestingly, Richard Sibley of AP was also having the same problem at the same time. It will be interesting to see how he did with his efforts, mine cost me a lot of time.

So the shutter speed is irrelevant really as every combination and option was shot, but this was the best one at showing something.

Sometimes, I do Richard. I don't worry about the ISO and use it as necessary at whatever speed is necessary.

All features are important. I haven't noticed anyone complimenting Pentax on changing the frame rates though. There were plenty of grumbles when it was 1.6fps at low speed!

The images I shot were all JPEG, so they were definitely optimised by the engineers who designed the camera.

Chris makes some very valid points there.

Maybe Pentax will do with the K-3 what they did with the Q10 - just put a larger sensor in. Not quite that simple I know but it would make for a very compact 24x36mm DSLR.

Has anyone tried out the new HD Limited lenses to see if they are actually full frame? If they were, then maybe HD is the designation for full frame lenses as well as a new coating technology.

There's a mischievous thought.

You may very well be right.

Noise per se is not the problem though, any more than grain was with film. As long as the type of noise and the effect it produces is something we like, then it's fine.

Shooting JPEG as I do, I don't have a problem with noise and just whack that ISO up to whatever is necessary. It's much better than old ASA 1000 films ever were.

Incidentally, if noise does look off then sometimes converting to black and white helps.

Why not have a really close look at the studio ISO results in the EPZ review. You'll find out that the detail at ISO 6400 is slightly better in the K-3, even though the noise level is slightly higher. A real life example is in the sample shots, the one of the leaning gravestone.

Have a close look and a play with a few images and forget what anybody says, judge for yourself. Also check out the comparisons between the K-5 IIs reviews shots and the K-3 ones. How could amyone not be impressed by the difference....

The second one is really good.

I sometimes wonder if anyone takes any photographs, apart from test charts!

There's no need for a full frame mount because the k mount is already a full frame mount. Always has been.

I doubt whether I would be buying one because of cost, but never say never.