[Caat]

Also the penta-mirror on the K-300 is contrary to several statements by Pentax that all it's viewfinders from now on would be 100% view Pentaprisms. Not that they can't change their minds of course but still...

[Alizarine]

One AA-less K-3 is enough, with the K-5 MkII below it, the K-30 below that, and a K-300 in the bottom. 4-camera-APS-C lineup, as Pentax said before...

[ogl]

Since RH has no inside info

He has it now...

[LamyTax]

No, it's just an useless compilation of rumors; some details being obviously fake/made up. Since RH has no inside info, he would just parrot every good-looking rumor, but lacks any ability to distinguish the plausible ones.

Some of it are indeed useless rumours.

[JohnBee]

He has it...

I've never known RH to have front line access to any information relative to Pentax.
To my knowledge, his news are always taken from other forums and websites(including pentaxforums.com).

[LamyTax]

I've never known RH to have front line access to any information relative to Pentax.
To my knowledge, his news are always taken from other forums and websites(including pentaxforums.com).

Front line, this late before Photokina? Nah. Most shop owners know by now.

[JohnBee]

Front line, this late before Photokina? Nah. Most shop owners know by now.

I think that for the most part certain shop owners(not all) can get surface details for upcoming models such as; Model name, sensor type and size. Though I don't think any of them are given actual specs since this is usually reserved for official announcements etc. Then again... that doesn't stop leaks from occurring either. But it really doesn't look like RH has anything unique on his site in terms of upcoming news given that it is always posted after others.

[JohnLegrand]

Out of curiosity - just so we're talking about the same thing - what do you describe as 'large'?

At least 100" prints.

[JohnLegrand]

If the subject matter is not there, then I would not be printing large to begin with. Subject matter is a given or we would not waste the paper and ink.

I'm not saying you can't make great large prints with cheap kit lenses. I am saying that if you put images side by side you can see the difference. It is not always in detail. I have seen test shots between the Pentax 31mm LTD and the DA 35mm printed at only 8x10. By itself the DA 35mm looked good. When you put it next to the 31mm though you could see the difference from a standard viewing distance. The bigger you print the more obvious these differences are.

Fair enough I agree you can notice a difference if you really pay attention. But my point of view is that you dont necessarily need the best of the best for a good large print.

[Kunzite]

He has it now...

Then, why can't he make the difference between what's true and what's not?
You can't, either - so I shouldn't ask you

[ogl]

Then, why can't he make the difference between what's true and what's not?
You can't, either - so I shouldn't ask you

Sorry, you are only one in my ignore list.

[Winder]

Fair enough I agree you can notice a difference if you really pay attention. But my point of view is that you dont necessarily need the best of the best for a good large print.

The number of people in the business handing out CDs with pictures on them or using iPads to show their work like a portfolio is off the charts. When you sit down with a potential client and pullout a full sized print (13x19) portfolio with pictures that have that "3D" pop and clarity that people feel like they can step into, it can make a huge difference.

If you are just printing large to hang in you hall as casual art then I will agree. If you are competing for work against other talented photographers then the differences will be noticed and size matters. It is a hard business to separate yourself in and the differences between success and failure are often found in the margins.

Shooting in the music industry you will see hundreds of "friends of the band" photographers all trying to get published. It seems like everyone has a Canon 7D and the latest super-slow, super-soft, super-zoom. They dump JPEG loaded CDs on the desk of anyone who will give them the time. When you try to print their work at any decent size it starts to fall apart. The weakest link I see in most starting photographers system is their lens selection.

[janneman]

They dump JPEG loaded CDs on the desk of anyone who will give them the time. When you try to print their work at any decent size it starts to fall apart. The weakest link I see in most starting photographers system is their lens selection.

Too true. As I found out when I bought me an A2 printer for printing my own stuff... Many pics that got me "ooh"and "aaah" remarks look like ..... when printed full A2.... However, even with the humble K-5 and K-7 one can - granted, occasionally - get "ooh"and "aah"when someone looks up close with a magnifying glass at the prints....

[eddie1960]

You look to much into it. You can have perfectly beautiful large prints with a K5 18-55 kit combo for example. If your picture is awesome it'll look awesome on any but the most insanely large prints..and even then. All this "high res is a necessity for large print" talk is out of control. It is not a necessity. Art viewers dont care. I've been in tons of photography exhibitions. The best photos are most of the times not the sharpest. In the end, it really doesnt matter. Subject matter

100" (as in a nearly 9 foot print. from a 16mp k5. it will be smeared sorry. I have a cousin who prints for fine art at 6' which is a bloody big print. he used to shoot d3s(24mp FF) now shoots D800e. last show had prints from both. the D800 prints were easy to pick out. they were sharper. both looked good but D800 looked better hands down. His work is all macro for this of his Paintings (companion pieces) so the original subjects were right beside the photo's. In film days he also shot medium format and large format for these.

Sorry but for large prints sensor size and pixel count matters big time.

Sure you can print large but the image will not look it's best at really large sizes. for almost everyone on eath though this doesn't matter since they aren't likely to even print 20x30 never mind the 68x100 size you theorized possible (this is getting to billboard territory where iq isn't a priority since viewing distance is huge)

[JohnLegrand]

The number of people in the business handing out CDs with pictures on them or using iPads to show their work like a portfolio is off the charts. When you sit down with a potential client and pullout a full sized print (13x19) portfolio with pictures that have that "3D" pop and clarity that people feel like they can step into, it can make a huge difference.

If you are just printing large to hang in you hall as casual art then I will agree. If you are competing for work against other talented photographers then the differences will be noticed and size matters. It is a hard business to separate yourself in and the differences between success and failure are often found in the margins.

Shooting in the music industry you will see hundreds of "friends of the band" photographers all trying to get published. It seems like everyone has a Canon 7D and the latest super-slow, super-soft, super-zoom. They dump JPEG loaded CDs on the desk of anyone who will give them the time. When you try to print their work at any decent size it starts to fall apart. The weakest link I see in most starting photographers system is their lens selection.

I have superb A2 size prints from my K-5 or sony alpha-77. They are tack sharp and yes they also look like you can jump into them. No soul (exept pixel peepers with a lookging glass) on earth will notice a difference when i do the same prints with a D800 and 2000 dollar lens.
Because a K5- 40 mm prime for example is a good enough combo to get those amazing prints already. No need to spend 2000 euro more to get a sharper print. 4,928 x 3,264 is plenty enough resolution for nice large prints.