Interesting theory Algi, but nonsense IMHO(!) as none of the APSC cameras are anywhere near the size of the classic MF cameras! A Pentax FF will be judged against previous Pentax DSLRs, and FF cameras from the other brands. People will have enough sense to realise it can't be as small as a MX.

It would be nice, though, if it was relatively small (say a only a tad larger than a K5, and quite a bit smaller than a D800 or 5DIII).

They do offer Tiff but I went with Jpeg as they are slightly cheaper and a more manageable file size! There's not much PP to do with these in any case.

Thing is once people are throwing down 1.4k for a new body, and splashing about several grand on lenses, stumping up for a FF body becomes more attainable. I suspect people look at the kit they have accumulated, convert it into pounds shillings and pence, and conclude that the FF camera they thought they couldn't afford IS in fact within reach.

The cost seems mind boggling, but you see people on this forum who change their entire kit - and back again - like they were changing their clothes. They come back to Pentax and buy their entire kit in virtually one go! So although a lot of us would find the cost prohibitive, I think there's a market there.

Personally I'd much rather Pentax put it's development cash behind a serious FF rather than a 645dii, or more mirrorless novelty cameras, as the improvements they would need to make in order to have a competitive FF would translate into their APSC lineup. New K mount lenses would also be great. I don't give a flying damn about their Q, XS or 645 range. They might as well be made out of blue cheese for all the relevance they have to me.

With my practical hat on I'd choose my Tamron 17-50/f2.8 zoom. But zooms are for traitors, so I would probably pick up a DA35mm Macro which seems to be a stunning lens and offers macro shooting into the bargain!

Of the lenses I own, I would probably take my Sigma 24/2.8 as it's probably the most versatile focal length.

Stick a 50mm f1.7 lens on both and anyone would be able to tell the difference, even at postcard size.

This is precisely the key question! But Pentax's offerings have been getting progressively more serious (and expensive). Not offering the same range of options as the competitors is a bit of a hindrance to Pentax if they want to compete with the big guys (which is precisely what Ricoh have said they want to do).

They all delivered better IQ than APSC cameras at the time though. (Perhaps apart from the Contax, and Pentax were perhaps wise not to roll out their original DSLR, the MZ-D, which would have used the same sensor).

Thanks for the comments chaps. I found it quite interesting that, unlike digital shooting, shooting with Ektar and my PZ70 delivered perfectly exposed images, with colour and contrast which was very pleasing straight out of the can. Look at the woodland shot. There's no way a DSLR could produce an exposure like that without quite a bit of tweaking in PP.

Nice selection of shots Gary. I think my preference for the horse would be somewhere between your version and MrB's (probably closer to yours - sorry MrB!)

Very nice indeed!