Difficult to say really.

Why? well, both the K10D and K20D have hit 30,000 shots, and maybe due to their inherent design (mirror whack so to speak) the accuracy is intermittent now. However, up to 20,000 shots, both were excellent.
The DS is less than 20,000 and still excellent.
The K-5, now at 1,000 is spot on (as you expect for a camera a month old....)

I would say however, that due to the lack of vibration from the mirror in the K-5, it will not be a problem at all, at least until the shutter fails at over 150,000 shots so to speak.....

I have not got a K-7, but I can advise the AF performance of the K-5

But to start, I can let you know the AF comparisons of earlier models which may give you some insight.

My K10D was a lot faster than my *istDS.
My K20D is quite faster (not by much, but you do notice it) than my K10D
My K-5 is a lot faster than my K20D

Now taking into consideration my personal indicators, and that the K-7 will not hit its 5.2fps in AF-C mode - it will only do 3FPS in AF-C, and that the K-5 will do 7FPS in both AF-S and AF-C, could be a good indicator that the AF on the K-5 is better than the K-7. By how much? I don't know, but if the indicator of the comparison with my K20D, it will be a lot.

Still, the K-5 is not as fast as the D3 and EOS1D, but then again not much is a fast as these two.

Hope this helps.

I am still not convinced with an EVF viewfinder.
Maybe I am a stick in the mud, but I'd much prefer a nice bright pentaprism for composition. Even a pentamirror would be preferred over an EVF.

But thats progress for you.

Don, I like the concept. But whether the makes will go for it is another matter.
Still at least the sensor would be covered, which is probably the major bugbear of CSC cameras at the moment (apart from the contrast AF)

No, no shutter. A CSC Camera has neither. Just take the lens off any of them and the sensor is there in all its glory.
The "shutter" on CSC cameras is purely electronic - ie freezing the data when you press the button. There is no curtain to cover it at all.

Maybe, just maybe, with the K-5 getting the deserved plaudits in the photo community, and that it having the required AF speed and FPS for sport and nature, longer lenses might just be around the corner. Those in the 400-600mm range with decent speed (F4-F5.6)

Here's hoping

Nice to see that Canon users see the Pentax for what it is though - A seriously good all weather DSLR.

Unfortunately its a fact of life, and the market, that the interchangable lens CSC cameras are swallowing up the bottom end of the DSLR market. Whether it is good is debatable (contrast AF, no shutter to protect the sensor from dust, no "proper" viewfinder etc) but when you have compact users wanting more IQ, but still in a small camera, then the new CSC type are going to be more appealing than an entry level DSLR to them, no matter how small the DSLR are. They are used to large screens to use to take the image rather than a viewfinder.
Both Nikon and Canon are almost bucking the trend due to neither of them having a CSC camera (yet), but we can see, even they are suffering sales but can cope at the moment because they are huge.
However, once both have CSC's in their range, then even they will drop the entry level camera (4 and 3 digit EOS and D3100/D5000 cameras) ranges accordingly.
We all know that CSC's are not as good as DSLR's at the moment, but the technology is getting far better and quickly, for example the Fuji hybrid contrast/phase AF recently announced on one of their compacts.

DSLR's will still be around as the demand will always be there for the more serious tog, but the market share will be reduced.

Personally I always throught that the CSC would sound the death knell of the Bridge camera, and become the stepping stone to the DSLR. How wrong I was.

As long as Pentax come out with a CSC and still be around to fund DSLR's I will be happy.

Travel light? You're taking the 60-250!.....LOL

Seriously though, as you are taking the 60-250, leave the 50-135mm at home, and if you have a fast prime (50mm F1.4) take that instead, or a 100mm Macro for those shallow DOF shots you may get

Never noticed that John. Thanks for that.
Oh and BTW, my laptop is perfect......

Either will be fantastic as both optically are excellent.

But both have their positives and negatives

35 Limited
1. Oh so beautiful build quality. Small metal primes are so much better than modern plastic ones (35 F2.4 included) when it comes to tactility
2. More flexible, you have two lenses in one - walkabout and macro
3. Manual focus clutch in AF mode.
4. Still a very light lens

35 F2.4
1. Lighter than the limited
2. A LOT cheaper than the Limited
3. Faster (1/2 stop) than the limited.
4. Less likely to take time hunting in low contrast than the limited which will go the whole hog of lens movement due to macro, making it slower to hit the focus point in AF.

IQ is very close indeed between them.

So, which one? Depends on what your budget is, and whether having Macro as well.

I love my F2.4, and for the price, a bargain. But I fully understand those who prefer the Limited for its flexibility and build.

Best thing though is that you have a choice from Pentax for a change, and which ever you get, no matter what your budget and needs are, you are going to get an excellent little lens.