But this makes sense, when you think about it. In film days there were three main technological components a photographer needed to purchase: lens, camera, film. Now there are two: lens, camera. That is because the camera comes pre-stocked with film (which we call the sensor).

Of course there are also processes one needs to perfect to be a good photographer: taking a shot, developing, etc. These haven't changed much.

You set the aperture and ISO ahead of time and the video then stays locked to that. Manual focus like in real cameras. Good for controlled work on tripod or in studio. Sorry, no samples to share (yet) but I am sure a search will turn some up.

The fact it's bigger negates the other advantages. Reasons to upgrade from the K-x would include a better viewfinder and ergonomics, neither of which the K-r offers.

K10D for 120 sterling is some kind of bargain.

Definitely hold out for something with SR. The K100D Super is a good starting point.

How much resolution do people really need? 720p is excellent and much better than terrestrial broadcasts and video footage of even a short while ago. Anything more and the time and expense of transferring / storing / editing footage becomes prohibitive. I'm not saying that there isn't a place for 1080 but it's not the solution to all problems.

More difficult is learning the art of video and putting together a rig. Do you need a shoulder harness? External monitor? Focus puller?

I put together my first film with the K-x and am very impressed. Being able to use all my brilliant lenses to make video is an astounding advance over the crap zooms in most low-end video cameras.

That said, if the K-5 has manual control that will be a killer feature.

First, this is not print, it's the web. You might want to learn the difference if you have any intentions of being a photographer.

Second, I get my name in print enough for my liking, not that you would have the faintest clue. I post here for many reasons, sometimes even in response to ill-mannered trolls.

Third, I'm glad you thought I was "stating the bleeding obvious" when I said "Your post here serves no purpose." Thankfully you continue to demonstrate the truth of that assertion. Even though, on this occasion, it would have been nice to have been wrong.

Like your others, this statement makes no sense. As good as film at what? Printing a postcard? A mural? Retouching? Collage? And in what price range? And with what convenience? And what size film? This "full-frame" you are so happy with is rather small change. Any 645 or 6x7 system would eat it for dinner. You do know it was specifically introduced for amateurs, right?

Many professionals use APS-C, proving you wrong.

If there is logic in that, then it has become quite ill. Pentax has been competing with the big boys from long before you realised it.

Metering is as good as any camera. Which is to say that you, the photographer, know things about how you want to meter the scene that a camera can never know. Because it cannot read your mind. If you do not learn this, then you will never be a photographer and every brand of camera will disappoint you.

Pentax has some of the best lenses made by any company, comparable to Zeiss and Leica, indeed better in some regards. Lens quality is one of the main reasons to buy Pentax over Canon and Nikon, unless your pockets are very deep indeed.

Do some more research and tell us which other companies have the equivalent of the FA Limited lenses?

So buy something else. Your post here serves no purpose.

No, the fuss is not over nothing, exactly. This is the cheapest prime Pentax has in its catalogue and will be available to those who could not afford something else.

And f/2.4 is not slow. It's faster than all the DA Limiteds. It's faster than all the classic manual Pentax lenses in this focal length. If you want to buy Nikon, go ahead. You gain a stop but lose image stabilisation and will be paying a lot more for a comparable body. One stop difference in this focal length does not ruin my day.

I recommend the DA35 Macro Limited as a completely brilliant optic, and it is even slower. But so what? It has lovely bokeh, is usable from wide open and has incredible micro contrast. I think I might have to spend two grand on a Canikon lens to get something similar.

I am disappointed that Pentax is not making this the kit lens outside Japan. They have lost the chance to make a bold statement. But I will wait to see shots and tests before dismissing the lens. In fact I rather expect it will kick butt.

A lot of people do this to justify the expense. The trick is to find those you can trust, who are not afraid to call 'em as they see 'em. Certainly I have purchased lenses I have been unsatisfied with, though in my case I research like a demon and so am unlikely to fall into this trap. I do this because I am picky and will notice the difference between a mediocre and a good lens, or even a good versus excellent lens. Not everyone will, which is fine. We all have different expectations, not to mention budgets.

I believe you are right. Only incremental improvements on the DA55-300 can be made, and then only at a price (weight, loss of range, cost).

This is the consensus view and I am part of the majority this time. I bought the Sigma and don't mind saying it was false economy. Replacing it with the Pentax I realised my initial mistake.

This is unlikely to happen for many reasons.

1. Pentax are unfortunately not going to have the gumption to sell a camera with a fixed 35mm outside Japan. I have confirmed this for the USA and UK -- likely the rest of the world follows suit.

2. Other brands are most certainly not going to do so.

3. The viewfinder will not show a difference between these apertures, since most (all?) stop at a certain, um, stop.

4. A salesperson is never going to be that knowledgeable.