clearly Glyn's is also photoshopped

my understanding of sensors is incomplete (in that the only one I've ever played with directly was a CCD, I don't know if they all work the same way or if CMOS makes a difference), but I think that would require a significant re-working of the sensor itself.

in any case wouldn't your suggestion result in some pretty odd motion blur artifacts?

For still subjects with clever processing you might get some DR improvement out of it though.

Here Here!

while we're at it, I'll throw in a mention for a mode I love the idea of but can't effectively use most of the time because of the limited ISO range on my K10

TAv!

What a concept! You get most of the creative control of M with respect to DOF and action freeze/motion blur, but with automatic exposure. I love it for indoor sports where you need to react quickly but want control of your shutter speed and aperture. When I scrape together the cash to upgrade to a K5II (or K-3 if it's THAT good), I'll be using this mode a lot more often.

it's not entirely clear to me what such a mode would achieve, other than halving the vertical resolution?

if Full Frame is defined as the size of the light sensitive medium used in the analogue forerunner of the digital device in question, then it will be infinitely larger than full frame.

also the small form factor of the Q means that apertures smaller than about f/5.6 suffer from a loss of image quality due to diffraction.

but the base ISO is a physical property of the sensor.

I can't remember if any Pentaxes do it, but occasionally you see DSLRs with "expanded" ISO at both ends of the range, accessible via a custom function. This is the same thing, and it costs dynamic range.

the one on the Q is built into the lenses, not the camera.

going below the base sensitivity on the sensor would cost dynamic range, and as we have all no doubt observed, digital sensors behave better with underexposure than they do with overexposure.

If one accepts the "simple incontravertable fact" that 35mm image quality is better than APS-C (which by the way I would argue is more of a good rule of thumb with caveats), then by extension you must also accept that 645 image quality is better than 35mm.

Why are the FF brigade not all saving like mad for a 645D?

wild aplomb..... is that a type of brandy?