While I think what you and I shoot are quite different, I can relate to all the aspects you mention in your post. I moved to an L-mount system (Panasonic S5) as my main camera about 30 months ago and since then I have to say the quality of photos I can produce has leapt up because my equipment is far more reliable in terms of AF and exposure. Going to FF also made a big difference in IQ, which I could have done with Pentax, but the Pentax FF system wasn't for me, mainly because the only way to get really high quality lenses without archaic screwdrive AF is to get very big and expensive f/2.8 zooms or f/1.4 lenses. I would love one day to be able to buy native L-mount Limited lenses for my system and while Pentax and many loyalists may balk at the idea, it may be their only route to survival, and one in which they could do very well.

I think the experience of the K-01 will have warned Pentax off from a "mirrorless" camera which is identical to a DSLR but with the OVF removed and none of the size benefit. Even if they add an EVF their cameras would still be larger than any competitor's because they would have this big empty space in the middle of them. No, a move to mirrorless would need to be all-in with the only option to continue the K-mount being an adapter to be able to use old K-mount lenses (including screw-drive) on the new cameras.

Very nice and well done with the exposure and all that running water.

At least it seems Pentax have finally woken up and smelled the coffee, which I think is reassuring. None of what was said in the interview surprises me at all.

I still vouch for the only long-term future for Pentax being to join the L-mount alliance, at least making lenses if not going all-in and making cameras too.

Bear in mind I've never owned a K-1, but I kept up to speed with the K-1 and the later mark II and I believe the only difference is the mark II's built-in noise reduction chip which bakes in noise reduction to the RAW files. The extent of the difference I don't know, but some purists regard this as a bad move and removing control from the photographer, with said noise reduction being rather heavy-handed. This might be an over-reaction, I don't know, but for astro there might be a bigger impact than for other genres of photography.

Personally, regardless of the brand or model, if I were to get into astro then I think I'd invest in one of the programs that offers state-of-the-art AI noise reduction and do it that way rather than in-camera. From what I've read this method of NR is the best there is and certainly better than a hardware chip from 2018. So with Pentax the mark I would be the way to go.

I don't think I've heard of an original K-3 being converted to monochrome but it's certainly a great idea (and a lot cheaper than the K-3 III Mono, I'm sure).

Many older camera simply desaturated images to convert them to B&W, which always left them flat and lifeless, while newer ones have far better B&W jpeg profiles that can add a good punch and make them look more like film. The K-3's B&W profile is mediocre in my experience. Those in my Fujifilm cameras and Lumix S5 are much better, but of course could be mimicked in software with RAW files from any camera under the sun.

I remember when this lens, even at the original price, wouldn't have lasted half an hour before being sold.

Vintage glass is really brought to life on full-frame when compared to APS-C. In my case I'm using a mirrorless camera but the same should apply to the K-1 - same field of view, same depth of field as originally on film.

Very nice work indeed!

They say bad weather makes for good photos. There's no way I'd leave my camera gear behind even if the forecast was atrocious, just make sure I have at least one weather resistant lens.