Ah. Another mystery of life solved!

Beautiful images. But the green background on some of the posts is annoying as hell.

This is the right answer. Landscapes do not call for wide angle lenses. For they turn mountains into molehills through geometric distortion.

Andrew, it is you who need to "get your game right". You admit that you buy grey market items outside the dealer chain to get the lowest possible price. You act as though it is your right to do so. And it is. But then you must take responsibility for this choice. You didn't buy from an acknowledged local dealer but you expect local dealer service? Sorry, you lose. Service costs money and you refused to pay that money.

What you need to do instead is ship the camera back to Japan at your expense and get it serviced.

This is nothing to do with Pentax, by the way, as every company in the globe would act exactly the same way.

Your choice: Buy from a reputable local dealer and get service or take your chances and save some money. Either way, act like an adult when the cards are revealed.

All sorts of such stuff on the MFT forums. At a certain point the camera becomes a negligible part of the weight and size of the system. At that point there is no real difference between a smaller body and a slightly larger body.

This won't happen due to the profusion of older lenses designed for full frame. Not to mention the camera systems in which one can interchange lenses built for different films/sensors (like Pentax).

The beginner acquainting themselves with lenses inevitably asks "Why this focal length?" and the first answer is "field of view". (The second answer might be something to do with attainable DOF, magnification or geometric distortion.)

When someone picks a focal length they are really picking a FOV. And since this differs on different sensors the focal length they pick should be different.

I am not sure why people keep asking for zoom lenses that Pentax already makes. A long time ago Pentax decided to make equivalent field of view (eFOV) lenses; thus the DA*50-135 and DA*60-250 do the trick. If you don't want to keep comparing back to film focal lengths fine... forget all about equivalence. For those who do, you'd better learn what it means!

But back to the original subject of this thread. The Pentax system strength is in its high quality primes. I think they need more. Bring on the FA 24/2 Limited (eFOV to the classic 35mm street shooter), FA 28/2 Limited (perfect normal eFOV) and FA 135/2 Limited (eFOV 200mm).

Due to some mathematical magic, all of these have useful classic FOV on either full-frame or APS-C.

I say "FA" so they are designed with exactly the same exacting standards and priorities as the current FA Limited trio: metal build, compact, integrated or custom-made lens hood, superior coatings, special rendering. With this move Pentax would get serious attention for bucking the trend towards disposable lenses and camera systems. Not to mention there would be six aspirational primes in the line-up instead of just three.

Longer lenses, big zooms etc. are covered by the third party manufacturers. But no-one else is going to make lenses in the classic Pentax mould. So Pentax better do it!

Unless you're doing a pro shoot you don't need a backup camera.

Unless you want to make life difficult, a second K-5 is the logical solution for full compatibility.

But I think the question you pose is a red herring. You want to buy a new toy and have your eyes set on a NEX. No point looking to us for justification -- just do it and have fun!

(Me, I'd ignore the Sony system because the ergonomics suck. An older model MFT is the best bang for the buck.)

The FA Limiteds.

A very long tripod perhaps? With reversed centre pole, obviously.