[thibs]

I recently visioned it again. It was the first bluray I bought as soon as i got my BD player.
This movie is incredibly beautiful: 1080p and PCM soundtrack is mind blowing.

[FullertonImages]

Why oh why can Pentax not get it right.......16.5 MP, 2/3rds Sensor, when I ask are they going to make a camera with professional standing, full frame 22 MP.
Were I entering the market at this time I'm afraid I'd be going Canon. Scarry thought for a dedicated Pentax Man, but as a professsional photographer my competitors have the edge over me with high end equipment.
I have a whole bag full of lovely Pentax & Sigma lenses ranging from 10mm to 500mm & yet can't buy a body over currently 15 MP......come on Pentax, get with the Pro market & give us a camera worthy of the Pentax brand. Until then I'll have to stick with my 2 K20 D bodies. because it's just not worth an upgrade for 1.5 MP. I totally skipped the K7 despite being given one to play with for 3 weeks, a not worth changing battery packs & accessories for.
I keep hoping that Pentax will come up with something to rival Canon, but they always seem to trail the market.

You know the D700 'only' has 12MP right?

And the D3, probably the most used cameras among Nikon pros, and the D3s, one of the most technically advanced cameras at the moment. And then there's the 1DmkIV, which is as pro as it gets and isn't even FF. Then there's Bob Krist, one of the most renowned pro travel photographers, who almost purely uses aps-c because it's smaller and he thinks FF doens't off enough of an advantage to justify the size increase.

I hate how much everyone thinks pros NEED FF, and how pros NEED lots of MP's, and pros NEED super-clean, mega-high ISO's. When the reality is that all of these things are relatively new. There have only been how many FF DSLRs in existence before the 5DmkII? I don't know, ten or so by my count. And yet every one acts like that's the only way DSLR's have ever been, and that anything else is a gross deviation from the norm. Three years ago, 15 MP's was alot, and yet people treat it like it's this arcane technology from the dark ages that isn't even worth considering. It wasn't long ago that digital ISO400 looked like garbage, and yet people act like anything less than crystal clear 6400 is worthless.

The bottom line, as has already been pointed out, is that the vast minority of pros actually use FF. And furthermore, thanks to the 5DmkII and the D700, the vast minority of FF owners are in fact pros. I see more mkII's and D700's in the hands of amateurs than in the hands of pros. And guess who the ones are constantly complaining about needing more MP's and better high ISO. Not the pros.

[kalison]

And the D3, probably the most used cameras among Nikon pros, and the D3s, one of the most technically advanced cameras at the moment. And then there's the 1DmkIV, which is as pro as it gets and isn't even FF. Then there's Bob Krist, one of the most renowned pro travel photographers, who almost purely uses aps-c because it's smaller and he thinks FF doens't off enough of an advantage to justify the size increase.

I hate how much everyone thinks pros NEED FF, and how pros NEED lots of MP's, and pros NEED super-clean, mega-high ISO's. When the reality is that all of these things are relatively new. There have only been how many FF DSLRs in existence before the 5DmkII? I don't know, ten or so by my count. And yet every one acts like that's the only way DSLR's have ever been, and that anything else is a gross deviation from the norm. Three years ago, 15 MP's was alot, and yet people treat it like it's this arcane technology from the dark ages that isn't even worth considering. It wasn't long ago that digital ISO400 looked like garbage, and yet people act like anything less than crystal clear 6400 is worthless.

The bottom line, as has already been pointed out, is that the vast minority of pros actually use FF. And furthermore, thanks to the 5DmkII and the D700, the vast minority of FF owners are in fact pros. I see more mkII's and D700's in the hands of amateurs than in the hands of pros. And guess who the ones are constantly complaining about needing more MP's and better high ISO. Not the pros.

There is a lot of truth in this post.

Although you can't tell me there aren't available light pros shooting with APS-C saying "Damn, I just can't get a clean shot at night". Lets face it, noise reduction software has come a long way, but I still feel its limitations not to mention they do tear away detail. I also think sometimes the NR softwares out there make the photos look a little "off". D3 cameras have been shot up to 9000 ISO with results I never imaged, and that camera is already "old".

Now I agree with you, but there is a need for certain specs in cameras, just because some pros don't want high ISO or complain about it... doesn't mean there are some out there who need it for available lighting.

I fully agree with you on the megapixels though. I think Nikon and Pentax have proved 12.1 is still high viable and still beyond most people's needs.

[DogLover]

Yep, I can't imagine ever wanting FF as my only system, or even my main system, but if I had unlimited funds I wouldn't mind having one for occasional use.

[Boris]

The bottom line, as has already been pointed out, is that the vast minority of pros actually use FF. And furthermore, thanks to the 5DmkII and the D700, the vast minority of FF owners are in fact pros. I see more mkII's and D700's in the hands of amateurs than in the hands of pros. And guess who the ones are constantly complaining about needing more MP's and better high ISO. Not the pros.

Added you some reputation .

[FullertonImages]

Now I agree with you, but there is a need for certain specs in cameras, just because some pros don't want high ISO or complain about it... doesn't mean there are some out there who need it for available lighting.

I agree as well. I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I don't believe that are many pros out there who are against the advancement of high ISO technology. Although I'm sure they exist. But what I meant is that you won't find many pros who will blame whatever the current status of technology is on their inability to create great images.

Pros use whatever is in their bag to make the best images possible. Amateurs blame whatever is in their bag for why their images aren't as good as they would like. Give me clean 12,800. I'll use it, and I'll love it. But in the meantime, you won't find me complaining about how I'm being held back by the lack of it.

[kalison]

I agree as well. I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I don't believe that are many pros out there who are against the advancement of high ISO technology. Although I'm sure they exist. But what I meant is that you won't find many pros who will blame whatever the current status of technology is on their inability to create great images.

Pros use whatever is in their bag to make the best images possible. Amateurs blame whatever is in their bag for why their images aren't as good as they would like. Give me clean 12,800. I'll use it, and I'll love it. But in the meantime, you won't find me complaining about how I'm being held back by the lack of it.

Gotcha. We're on the same page as it were.

[xjjohnno]

Until officially announced and you hear it from the horse's mouth rumours should be treated as if they come from the other end of the horse and given no credibility.

[rparmar]

I agree that compared to the D7000 the K-5, based on current reports, is starting to look lacklustre. Yes it has all the numbers to play with the big boys -- but then why not just buy into a Canikon instead? I always judged the Pentax niches as being landscape (unprocessed RAWs and WR), street (small size, WR, stabilised) and art (those Limited lenses). Added to this was value. But the lens prices are now ridiculous and the body prices are shooting up to match.

Pentax are losing their strengths. Since they will never get the birder, wildlife and sport markets, nor the pros who need a support network, I wonder who they think they are appealing to?

To my mind Pentax still needs to give us the Limited body we have hoped for, stripped down and efficient, together with ergonomic improvements in something the size of the K-x. Uncripple the mount and pump the heritage angle (like the Olympus PEN). Make it affordable. Market it to street shooters, students and artists. Compete with Samsung NX and micro-four-thirds. In fact, blow them out of the water. Pentax can do this without any new technology simply by designing a better camera and selling it cheaper.

The way it is shaping up, the K-x/K-7 might well be the closest Pentax ever come to this. Their cameras are getting bigger and more expensive and that is a bad thing.

[deadwolfbones]

Everyone needs to stop being Chicken Littles and wait and see how things shake out.

[Vaikis_]

new Pentax K-5 with true AF.C after 5 days, guys hold your pants, screw drive is very FAST ! This information fom one person who is testing K-5 ! He can't say anything about focus points - secret

It doesn't create profit for pros either; that's why the majority of them use APS sensored cameras....

Fully agreed. But like I said, it will look very cool, kind of like how 645D looks very very cool. Is Hoya raking it in with 645D??

new Pentax K-5 with true AF.C after 5 days, guys hold your pants, screw drive is very FAST ! This information fom one person who is testing K-5 ! He can't say anything about focus points - secret

You know, when I got to play with 645D in Japan back in June, one of the Pentax dudes said that the new AF technology developed for 645 D will be utilized in the up coming DSLR. I thought that 645D AF was awesome, and remember thinking to myself that if this was any indication if how good Pentax AF is going to be in the future, many members ought to stop bitching about lame AF very soon.

Personally, I don't care about AF one way or another; I don't AF that much.

[falconeye]

I was replying to the statement that FF is needed for professional photography; this is not true at all. Most pros do not use FF. .

That statement is oversimplifying things.

There are enough sectors where 24MP FF is a minimum requirement, like fine art erotic photography for pay websites. Or fashion photography and portraiture. I agree, some may go MF anyway, but APSC pro usage now is more in the photo journalism, or event, wildlife and travel photography.

In any case, most vendors call their top notch APSC cameras enthusiast and mid-level, reserving the term pro model to D3 or 1D models. Which aren't APSC.

[gawan]

To my mind Pentax still needs to give us the Limited body we have hoped for

Like a digital K1000, perhaps? Wasn't K1000 the successful, simple and trusty companion for a whole generation of students in the late 70's. I think I'd like that!