I am glad to be wrong on this point.

They start by saying it's the new top of the line model and then go through the basic specs, as you can see from the titles. They do mention specially the TAv modes and other items that are old news to us. The shutter sounds quite nice, no?

Pricing now available as embargo is lifted. Two samples on my blog. Everyone happy with the lens at €450?

As my previous posts have illustrated, I get darned tired of people trotting out the same old full-frame complaints. I recognises that Pentax does not now and will not in the near future make such a beast, so those who want it should go elsewhere. Nonetheless, I refuse to side with ill-constructed rants that do nothing but give ammunition to the "other side".

Yes, more resolution and cleaner detail, permitting larger images. Which you cannot get with APS-C. Also wider field of view coverage, essential in some applications (architecture). Also more and better lenses for certain applications (tilt/shift). Less diffraction, narrower depth of field possibilities... there are many undeniable advantages to full-frame.

That's because Canon has a full-frame camera, as you just stated. Pentax does not. That's why people complain -- they want to stay within the brand and leverage their investment into a different sensor size. Even if I get tired of the complaints, the reasoning makes sense to me.

So your argument is that because it's not needed all the time it's not needed at all. That makes zero sense.

This is usually defined through the Modulation Transfer Function, which displays measured contrast and resolution for a given lens at a given aperture. Sharpness is not some mystical property but a scientific reality. The fact that many people want and need sharp lenses is undeniable. Though this is not an argument for or against any given sensor size.

Some people don't want to make do with compromises. Some people want the best and can afford to pay for it. You can take a photo with a shoebox and some old film through the bottom of a pop bottle. But I doubt that's how you'd shoot the next wedding you're invited to. Unless you want the bride's mother to impale you with the cake knife.

Um, I don't know... if you're a sports photographer then I guess the answer would be all the time! Fast AF and predictive tracking is also "kind of" handy if you ever want to shoot kids, outdoor activities, pets, birds in flight, etc. but if you don't want to do any of that then, yeah, I guess you're satisfied without. (Like I am most of the time.)

Make do with second or third best. Yep, good advice there.

No, the difference is there in every shot. I can see it doesn't matter to you, but is it so hard to admit that it does matter to some people?

This hackneyed argument desires to be shot through the head. What sort of an artist deliberately uses bad tools or those unsuited to the job? A bad artist. And no, a photographer does not create an image. A photographer sees the potential image in a scene. And then uses a tool called a camera to create it.

51200 is 9 stops over 100 ISO. Half of that would be somewhere around 2400 ISO, which the K-7 and K-x manage just fine.

For moving targets the more focus points the better, so the camera can interpolate between them. This permits almost magical focus abilities, something Pentax is far behind on. For my use I don't really mind, but for sports, action, etc. it gives a significant advantage.

Sorry, the spec sheet says 99.

Articles all over the internet thingie, including my own Pentax K-5 Pre-Announcement. Information in English there!

This was an expected announcement, considering how the D5 is rather too little too late, and seems like a consolation prize for their loyal customers. If Pentax can produce a top-of-the-line camera in a form factor no bigger than the K-x (and they can) it will be left to people to wonder what the point of micro-four-thirds really is.

(Actually, the Samsung NEX system already poses this question, but they do not have the lens support.)

This makes me look at being audited in a whole new way.

That's it, in a nutshell. While I might wish I could buy a FF camera at the same price as a K-7,it just ain't gonna happen. In the meantime if I do need one, I know that Nikon has a camera with my name on it.