I would have upgraded my 55-300 if the new version came with the DC motor as well as WR (or even just the DC motor) but I won't upgrade for WR alone. The noisy focusing is my only real problem with the existing lens, which is an absolute gem, optically speaking. Lack of WR isn't such an issue. Oh well.

The K-5 was my first Pentax, purchased January 2011. I had previously used (but not owned) Canon DSLRs. Not owning any lenses there was nothing to tie me to the brand. When it came to getting my very own DSLR as opposed to just 'borrowing' one (albeit on a long term basis) the K-5 seemed to suit me best for a number of reasons.

This review seems fair. I'll say it's far from glowing, but it isn't all doom and gloom either. I think it's pretty honest about the lenses strengths and weaknesses. http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1384/cat/46

Doh! haven't read the hands on preview yet... it wasn't mentioned in the blurb I read. Still, I think I would have to try it out 'new anti-reflective coating' doesn't sound like the same technology used in the K-5 II so it may be less (or more) effective.

Indications from some interview earlier this year (or was it late last year?) were that Pentax wanted to cover the full range i.e. expand in both directions. The announcment of FF plans ties in with that. There's no reason to believe that position has changed just because the consumer end models have been announced first.

My wife got a Q10 recently. A larger sensor and better AF are all very worthy upgrades but having tested the Q10 out over the weekend, what it was really crying out for in my opinion was a better LCD screen. Using the LCD to compose shots in bright daylight at unfavourable angles involved a lot of guesswork as to what was in the shot because it was not possible to actually see it properly.

I compared it side by side with the gapless LCD screen on the K-5 II and that was clearly way, way better. This brought me to the conclusion that Pentax really needed to incorporate that technology into the next Q-series camera, after all the LCD screen is the only composition tool available on the Q. Looks like they haven't.

I might consider getting a future Q model for myself, but only if they improve the LCD screen (or add a decent EVF without increasing the size too drastically).

Thanks also!

Thanks!

The advertising blurb for 5 mentions 'tighter integration with photoshop' - my concern with this is: do you lose any functionality (comparted to Lightroom 4) if you don't have photoshop (I don't)? Anyone here know the answer for certain?

Corporate speak like that sets off alarm bells for me - it wouldn't be the first time a software company dressed up a downgrade to look like an upgrade...

The level of noise in your first image does seem a bit higher than I would expect from ISO 3200, but no more so than would be explained by underexposing and then raising the exposure in Lightroom later. When you raise the exposure in PP any noise present is amplified as a result.

As Smeggy says, -1/3EV is not that much but the issue is more how much you raised the exposure by in PP than how much exposure compensation you used when shooting the image. I might be wrong but there is quite a large area in this image covered by white tiles which may have caused the camera to underexpose the image in the first place, forcing you to use more than +1/3 EV to bring it back. As I say I could be wrong but it wouldn't hurt to take a look in Lightroom and see how much you raised the exposure (or brightness, or fill light - any tool that makes the image lighter has the same effect).

The K-5 rightly has a reputation for high ISO / low noise performance because it excels in this area in comparison to its peers. That doesn't mean it's somehow magically noise free at higher ISO levels. Having said that, effective use of the noise reduction tool in Lightroom can give pretty clean images at ISOs up to 8000 or so, albeit with a little loss of detail.

Have a look at the results here for an idea of what level of noise you should expect at different ISOs.