[Vaikis_]

Based on?

somebody saw such price in one Germany online shop

[Asahiflex]

The prices originate from a German webshop, www.kosfeld24.de. I've made a screenshot in case the information is deleted:

[Supernaut]

Great to see that the 18-135 is WR

Any info of the aperture? Classic 3.5-5.6?

[the swede]

Great to see that the 18-135 is WR

Any info of the aperture? Classic 3.5-5.6?

Yes, very nice! A topic that has been discussed many times here.
Im curious to, if this is nevly designed zoom, or something from an existing lens somewhere. Also the focus travel is of interest here. Will it bee fast or slow? We'll see, we'll see.

Interesting times!

[Class A]

Comparing to an 'old' FF really there's no point IMO.

Have you ever looked through the viewfinder of this 'old' FF camera? One word: Gorgelicious!

The A850/900 get a lot of flag for weak high-ISO performance but I'm not so sure how much of this is real or more a case of SONY not doing too much NR at the RAW level. We've always praised Pentax for doing this. Be that as it may, I personally wouldn't care about sub-par high-ISO performance, given the great colours and tonality the A850/900 provide.

If I had the funds to follow through with the expenses for the great but expensive lenses, I'd think more than once about swapping systems.

[Christopher M.W.T]

Based on?

Trust me, he knows!

[thibs]

Have you ever looked through the viewfinder of this 'old' FF camera? One word: Gorgelicious!
.

Which why I put quotes to 'old'.
In practice, from consumer PoV I agree with you but then it is always thé same problem: one coule say thé same compared to D300 or 7D with AF speed or résolution etc.
Is the a850 WRed btw ? If not from another point of view one could say it is very unacceptable.

Companies whichever they are will Never decide price point based on end of Life product from other companies.

[Class A]

Is the a850 WRed btw?

I think it is: "weather/dust resistant body" & "Dust & Weather-Resistant". Luminous Landscapes had six out of 26 Canon 5D MKIIs fail during their Antarctica expedition; the two A900 bodies survived:

"I deliberately allowed both of my A900 bodies be exposed to the rain for two days ashore to see how they would stand up. There were no operational difficulties. I also have used the Sonys back here in Toronto in snow storms, (unprotected), both before and after the Antarctic trip, with no ill effects. Though also not claimed as weather sealed, they appear to be as well protected as any other camera I've ever used."

Note that all these references refer to the A900 but to the best of my knowledge the only differences between that model and the A850 are the FPS-rate (3 vs 5) and the viewfinder coverage (98% vs 100%). EDIT: Here's a reference stating the A850 is weather-resistant.

Companies whichever they are will Never decide price point based on end of Life product from other companies.

They may not but some customers do not need to have the most up-to-date model and hence can make the comparison. I personally would never buy a camera at its introductory price but I understand that someone has to do it.

[rparmar]

At this time I have the option to get a FF camera for only 300 € more.
Hmm ... hmm ...

One would have to compare with the A900, since there is no way I would give up 100% viewfinder in a professional full-frame body. And be sure and look at your entire kit so you do not get any rude surprises.

I have done this exercise, comparing the K-7 plus an optimal set of lenses (DA12-24, FA31, FA43, FA77) to the Sony A900 and a "similar" set (Vario-Sonnar T* 16-35/2.8, Sony 50/1.4, Planar T* 85/1.4, Sony 135/2.8 [T4.5]). Of course there is no making an exact comparisons. You gain a stop across the board with the Sony setup. And I've missed out on macro facilities (which I would want) and telephoto (which I don't care about).

The Sony kit weighs 1.5kg more and costs an extra $3200 while losing out on some of the cool Pentax advantages.

So that's the true cost of full-frame.

[kevinschoenmakers]

Not to mention size. I'd hate to give up the portability of the Pentax primes and bodies.

[RonHendriks1966]

The startprice for the K-7 in Germany was 1299 euro, so this startprice for the K-5 is only 100 euro's up.

[Class A]

One would have to compare with the A900, since there is no way I would give up 100% viewfinder in a professional full-frame body.

I think 98% is alright but I accept if it has to be 100% for you.

I have done this exercise, comparing the K-7 plus an optimal set of lenses (DA12-24, FA31, FA43, FA77) to the Sony A900 and a "similar" set (Vario-Sonnar T* 16-35/2.8, Sony 50/1.4, Planar T* 85/1.4, Sony 135/2.8 [T4.5]).

I'm not sure there is a better way to make this comparison but with the exception of the Sony 50/1.4 all the other Sony lenses exceed the Pentax equivalents not only in terms of speed. I'm not surprised the Sony kit turns out more expensive. Whether it should be more expensive by the amount you arrived at, that is a good question, but no doubt the equipment is better.

Also note that you are paying a premium for the A900 of ~$1000 more for 2% more viewfinder coverage and 5 FPS rather than 3 FPS. If you take away that premium, your price difference shrinks to about $2200.

Do you still have the individual prices for the lenses?
Was that before or after the Pentax lens price hike?
Is the fabled Sony 135/2.8 [T4.5] still available as new?

You gain a stop across the board with the Sony setup.

The Pentax 12-24/4 equivalent on FF is a 18.5-37/6.2. That's a 2.3 stop advantage for the 16-35/2.8 Carl Zeiss Sony zoom.

To take the same images which you can take with the f/1.8 Ltds on APS-C, you only need f/2.8 on FF (obviously converting the focal length as well). So if you've got an f/1.4 on FF, that's a 2 stop advantage compared to an f/1.8 lens on APS-C.

...while losing out on some of the cool Pentax advantages.

It's got in-body image stabilisation and is weather-resistant. Where does it lose out, except in size (for some, that is. I find the K-7 a bit too small.)?

So that's the true cost of full-frame.

No, that's the true cost of an excellent SONY full frame system. Nothing dictates that a regular FF set has to consist of very fast top-notch Carl Zeiss lenses and a unique 135 with an apodization element.

I said earlier that the cost for the really good SONY lenses is high but the kit you assembled is a hell of a kit and not representative of a regular FF kit.

As Falk (falconeye) has repeatedly pointed out the cost for FF glass can be/is lower than that of APS-C glass if you strive for the same (and not better) performance.

[rparmar]

Also note that you are paying a premium for the A900 of ~$1000 more for 2% more viewfinder coverage and 5 FPS rather than 3 FPS. If you take away that premium, your price difference shrinks to about $2200.

Fair enough. I don't care about FPS so would go the cheaper route. I was sure there was some other key difference but I am not a Minolta/Sony expert.

I'm not sure there is a better way to make this comparison but with the exception of the Sony 50/1.4 all the other Sony lenses exceed the Pentax equivalents not only in terms of speed.

I personally think that no lenses exceed the Pentax FA Limiteds in overall rendering ability. Some might be faster, some might have less PF. But there are none I'd rather have, overall (size included in the comparison).

Do you still have the individual prices for the lenses?
Was that before or after the Pentax lens price hike?
Is the fabled Sony 135/2.8 [T4.5] still available as new?

1. No, since I did the comparison by throwing stuff in an Adorama cart, just to be consistent.
2. After, since I just updated the comparison yesterday!
3. Yes, the Sony legend is still available.

The Pentax 12-24/4 equivalent on FF is a 18.5-37/6.2. That's a 2.3 stop advantage for the 16-35/2.8 Carl Zeiss Sony zoom.

I should have been clear that I am talking absolute speed and not "equivalents" across different sensors. Measure them how you wish, I was just pointing out a Sony advantage. But really the point is moot. The DOF and light-gathering properties of the Pentax lenses are good enough for all purposes I can think of, so having faster is not relevant to me.

It's got in-body image stabilisation and is weather-resistant. Where does it lose out, except in size (for some, that is. I find the K-7 a bit too small.)?

Pentax has many distinctive features including TAv, hyper-programme, ability to cook image in-camera (got me a gig!), etc.

No, that's the true cost of an excellent SONY full frame system. Nothing dictates that a regular FF set has to consist of very fast top-notch Carl Zeiss lenses and a unique 135 with an apodization element.

But you do need to choose these lenses to get near the FA Limiteds. In fact, I would prefer the FA77 to the Zeiss 85mm (someone lend me one and I may change my mind!). Though maybe I would like the Sony 135mm even more. There are no true equivalences, but this is the kit I would need to feel like I wasn't losing out on the exchange. Besides, it's not as though Sony has anything cheaper to substitute in most of these cases.

You seem to think I am being unfair or down on Sony in this comparison. I assure you I am not trying to go that route. If I had the money I'd buy this kit myself. And one from Nikon. And Leica...

[Class A]

I personally think that no lenses exceed the Pentax FA Limiteds in overall rendering ability.

Well, I guess I'd prefer the 135 STF over any of the Ltds, as great as the latter are.
Regarding other lenses, I have to refrain from judgement since I didn't make in-depth comparisons.

Some might be faster, some might have less PF. But there are none I'd rather have, overall (size included in the comparison).

Fair enough. Size isn't that important to me and I don't like if IQ/speed is compromised because small size is a top priority. I do like the rendering of the Ltds myself though and the potential to get them some day serves me as justification to stay with Pentax.

1. No, since I did the comparison by throwing stuff in an Adorama cart, just to be consistent.

Cool, so that's a current and accurate figure then.

3. Yes, the Sony legend is still available.

Niiiiice.

I should have been clear that I am talking absolute speed and not "equivalents" across different sensors. Measure them how you wish, I was just pointing out a Sony advantage.

Yes, you were pointing out a Sony advantage but not sufficiently so. There is no such thing as "absolute speed" across different sensor formats, unless you don't care whether you take an image with a 50mm or a 77mm lens. But I'm fine with not arguing that point anymore.

The DOF and light-gathering properties of the Pentax lenses are good enough for all purposes I can think of, so having faster is not relevant to me.

Which means that you could have taken slower lenses for the FF-kit. Which would have brought the cost down.

Pentax has many distinctive features including TAv, hyper-programme, ability to cook image in-camera (got me a gig!), etc.

I'd say "nice to have" but not essential. Not suitable to base a system choice on, AFAIC. I've yet to encounter a situation in which I wished I had a hyper-programme option (which is still broken in the K-7, BTW. Better then in the K20D, but still broken).

Besides, it's not as though Sony has anything cheaper to substitute in most of these cases.

You might be right there, I don't really know. One shouldn't forget third party manufacturers. The Sigma 105/2.8 receives a lot of praise and is available in Alpha mount, for example. The forthcoming Sigma 85/1.4 might also be a winner; remains to be seen.

You seem to think I am being unfair or down on Sony in this comparison.

As a subtle but important point, I wasn't assuming anything about you being unfair, but just wondered whether the comparison was as fair as it could be.

If I had the money I'd buy this kit myself. And one from Nikon. And Leica...

Same here. Except for the Nikon stuff.

[rparmar]

Which means that you could have taken slower lenses for the FF-kit. Which would have brought the cost down.

If you know of any cheaper Sony lenses that are as good as the FA Limiteds for IQ, please let me know. Personally, I don't even think the Zeiss are as good, though I haven't had the pleasure of using them lately.

Third-party lenses are rarely a viable option, as their quality control is simply too variable. If I lived in the USA near a large store and could take back copies until I had a good one (as many do) that might be OK. But here where everything is ordered online, it's not a workable method.

I am not saying one can never get a bad Pentax lens, but the chance is way less.