I have found the K-5 and Metz 58 AF-2 combination perfectly fine once I got used to it. The P-TTL light metering is not completely reliable as noted, but all it seems to need is a little bit of negative exposure correction (EV on the flash unit) for close targets, and a little bit of positive for distant targets. Generally no more than +/- 2/3. This is something I'm so used to I now do it pretty much without thinking about it.

You can get a crappy tripod on ebay for next to nothing. Okay it will not be great, but it will be better than wedging yourself against something as long as you don't use it in windy conditions, near heavy traffic or jump up and down next to it.

I'm swaying towards the K-5II (without the 's'). I'm not sure I need 'extreme detail'. Extreme low-light, yes. What I'd like to know is, does removing the AA filter let any more light onto the sensor, and if so, is it significant? (1/3-1/2 a stop more light being significant, less and I don't really care).

I'm not looking to replace my K-5 but I have been wanting to get a second body for some time and the K-5II looks like it fits the bill perfectly. Actually it would be my primary body and the K-5 would become the secondary. The only thing I ever really griped about with my K-5 was the low-light AF performance and it looks like they have addressed that.

A K-5 MkII makes perfect sense. Pentax grabbed a lot of attention with the K-5 compared to previous DSLR models. The K-5 earned a reputation for being a great camera. Naming the successor K-5 mkII will give them a good starting point to build on that reputation.

IF there is any truth in this rumour it also suggests a significant expansion to the number of models in the range, but this is something Pentax have previously hinted at so not really a surprise. Presumably there will be a low end model below the K-30, then the K-5 mkII, then the even higher end (24mp?) K-3. A four model DSLR range for Pentax for the first time.

Personally I welcome this, I would be more likely to go for a K-5 mkII than a K-3, as I don't want or need 24mp.

Yes, I think it only makes sense now that the companies are one and the same. I think users of Ricoh gear should be welcomed into the fold, allowed to post pics and so forth. Of course, others may disagree.

Not to mention 'a lot'. Two words. With a space in between. (Not 'inbetween' which has a different meaning).

It's a good lens from reviews I've read. I don't really miss HSM with the Tamron though, and OS isn't necessary at all. The only thing the Tamron really lacks that I do miss is a quick-shift focus mechanism.

I find it interesting that Sigma even bothered to put HSM in the 8-16, a lens with focal lengths so short combined with relatively small maximum apertures it barely needs focusing!

In all honesty I have found the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 quite sufficient for my needs. With a lesser camera than the K-5 it might not be the case. An f/1.4 lens would gain me two stops over an f/2.8, but the K-5 has a 3 or 4 stop advantage over previous generations of camera. The brilliant noise reduction in Lightroom probably gets me another stop or two.

I've looked at f/1.4 lenses - they're pricey and I like the convenience of zooms. I'm more strongly considering extending my range at f/2.8 by getting a DA* 50-135, or possibly Sigma or Tamron 70-200 f/2.8.

And BTW, just because I brought up the Canon 5D MkIII does not mean I have any intention of buying one. I have none whatsoever.

Digital zoom is great if it works well, but probably not likely to be implemented on most DSLRs as the image in the viewfinder would be of little use and you'd be forced to shoot with live view to know what you were framing. For a mirrorless cam with an EVF it could work out great if well implemented.