Well if you get a K-01 I hope you at least really go for it in style and buy a yellow one! Not sure I'd go for such a large body as a "mid range" though - not terribly much smaller than your K-5s...whereas the MX-1 is very noticeably more compact. IQ from K-01 would be appreciably better when the going gets tough, but I'm impressed by what the MX-1 can do. More than good enough for many purposes. The cracking lens really helps.

As mentioned in another thread, I recently travelled light, with the MX-1 and Fuji X100, leaving the dSLR kit behind. The MX-1 was great fun to use, and I'm more than happy with the results. A few examples:

Inside King Arthur's bakery, Norwich Vermont (ISO100 - that f1.8 lens really helps indoors):




This is a crop - about half the original image:




In the right circumstances, blurred backgrounds are possible, and colours and contrast rather pleasing to my eye at least:




Some fun with flare, but still lots of sharp detail to be had in difficult circumstances:




Processed to death but I quite like this one:




Couple of shots from the woodland floor:







I tried hard to get some shots of the Perseids meteor shower but failed miserably due to a combination of clouds and sheer bad timing. But I'm quite pleased with this shot of a different part of the sky (ISO640) as a consolation prize:




Obviously it's not as capable as a larger sensor camera, but the MX-1 has lots of controls available to those of us who prefer to stray away from the automatic settings, and does a pretty decent job. The battery lasted a lot longer than I expected too - two of them lasted all week without recourse to recharging.

Thanks for looking,

Jon

Have just been away with an MX-1 and Fuji X100. The latter is ridiculously good fun and if Pentax do go down the FF route it's left me thinking they should out-Fuji Fuji, and produce a FF competitor to the X-Pro. I'd be more interested in that than another me-too FF SLR. Could also give them a good reason to launch a new mount (sacrilege I know) but they need the revenue from lenses as well as bodies. Given it'd be mirrorless,, adapters for K mount lenses should still be possible.

At one point I wondered if the K-01 was headed in that direction, but apparently not.

[quote:3496ace15f="Horst"]I can buy an argument that FF should provide better dynamic range and noise performance unless the pixel count goes to absurd levels, offers a nicer viewfinder and provides better control over depth of field.

But I can't agree larger size is always better. Read the number of posts by people who buy larger cameras with their larger lenses and then end up barely using them because they're too big to lug around, and it then becomes clear that FF cameras are compromises just like any other.

You go for the best mix of price, quality, size and features that suits you best. And for many people, it is not automatically correct the FF is always going to be better.

I think I'd rather see them continue to develop and refine the good APSC bodies they have, and update the 645D which is a superb niche product with no obvious direct competitor. I'd be interested in a FF body myself if the price was right, but I'm not sure how they'd make it profitable, especially with a group of buyers many of whom will want to use existing legacy lenses rather than buy into a whole new system.

Been out for an hour in Vermont and saw four....each one occurring whilst the buffer of the MX-1 was clearing (travelling light). Oh well, I think I may have some reasonable shots (for a compact) of the Milky Way. And I've seen way more stars than we get in light-polluted London.

PS ability to force the MX-1 to focus on infinity and take three shots in a row using the self timer is quite handy for this kind of thing.

I'd still go for Opticron - wider field of view than the Vanguards and generally do just a little better in reviews, despite the latter having ED glass.

I highly recommend Opticron. Excellent quality and punch above their weight. You should be able to get a decent pair for around £200.

Jon

I used to have the mark 2 version of the Tokina and aside from tank like build I'd not recommend over the 55-300. At its longest length, the image quality from my Pentax lens even wide open was better than the Tokina - and the latter softened up considerably from around 350mm. It also suffered noticeably from aberrations/fringing which I'm sure would hit your airshow shots. Crops from the Pentax at 300mm were better than shots from the Tokina at 400mm. I suspect holding out for the Sigmas or a secondhand Bigma is the way to go.

i use the 18-135 a lot more than I expected, and appreciate its WR construction as well as it fast focusing. Image quality is good but it wouldn't be my first choice for rural landscape shots - the edge performance lets it down a little.

I have the Tamron 17-50 and it's an amazingly sharp lens with the fast aperture also being a great bonus - brilliant value. But if I was starting now, I'd go for the Sigma 17-70 - great walkabout lens with decent close up ability, good build and image quality, and a bit faster than the kit lens. Sadly, I see no reason to pay the extra for the Pentax 17-70.

The Pentax forums website has some interesting tests you might want to look at.

Cheers,

Jon