[northcoastgreg]

The bottom line for me is that the Pentax is a lot more fun to use but the Nikon is more versatile and produces better pictures for a lower price.

Since when is a bigger, heavier camera more versatile? Or a camera with worse handling? And does it really produce better pictures? If you judge how images produced by the Pentax system look, as opposed to the numerical specs of various sensor and lens combinations, then Pentax glass more than holds it own, and in some ways, surpasses its Nikon counterparts. Narrow DOF or lw/ph does not equal IQ; only a gearheads, bean counters, and other quantification zealots would believe such a thing. Photography is an aesthetic discipline. It's about quality, not quantity. The Pentax limited lenses were designed to specifically with aesthetic goals, rather than numerical criteria, in mind. Pentax limiteds and other high-end Pentax glass help the photographer to produce images with subtle hues and a richness and brightness of color that isn't quite matched by Nikon glass.

[Ash]

Since when is a bigger, heavier camera more versatile? Or a camera with worse handling?

Each photographer values different aspects of their gear. To some, more versatility means more features or faster AF/low light focusing. To others, it is the practicality of taking the gear out into the wild, making weight and size more important.
Each system also features high end glass that perform remarkably well. But it is difficult to compare them between systems because of differences in lens design/focal lengths, etc. Nevertheless, choosing higher end glass based on system comes down to feel and rendering. To some, L lenses are good enough to get the job done - and can be used in the FF format now, whereas to others Pentax Ltd glass gives them what they need on an APS-C system...

[kadajawi]

I find this obsession on FF quite amusing. When I listen to This Week in Photo there is always a pro switching from his D700, D3, 5D etc. to a mFT camera or the Fuji X100 or something like that, and simply leaving his or her big camera at home or even selling that gear. I for one don't want FF, unless they can fit it into something the size and weight of a K-5 or less.

[Mazhe]

I find this obsession on FF quite amusing. When I listen to This Week in Photo there is always a pro switching from his D700, D3, 5D etc. to a mFT camera or the Fuji X100 or something like that, and simply leaving his or her big camera at home or even selling that gear. I for one don't want FF, unless they can fit it into something the size and weight of a K-5 or less.

You know, new bodies are not all 1Dx or D4 sized:
* Pentax K-5: 131×97×73 mm, 750g
* Canon EOS 6D: 144.5 x 110.5 x 71.2 mm, 755g
* Nikon D600: 141 x 113 x 82 mm, 760g

1cm here, 1cm there... 5~10g more... Ok, it's not equal or less, but the difference is acceptable to me. Lenses will be another story, but if you know which ones to pick...

[nosnoop]

I find this obsession on FF quite amusing. When I listen to This Week in Photo there is always a pro switching from his D700, D3, 5D etc. to a mFT camera or the Fuji X100 or something like that, and simply leaving his or her big camera at home or even selling that gear. I for one don't want FF, unless they can fit it into something the size and weight of a K-5 or less.

The Sony NEX-FF to be announced in the next two weeks seem to fit the bill for you.

[Caat]

You know, new bodies are not all 1Dx or D4 sized:
* Pentax K-5: 131×97×73 mm, 750g
* Canon EOS 6D: 144.5 x 110.5 x 71.2 mm, 755g
* Nikon D600: 141 x 113 x 82 mm, 760g

1cm here, 1cm there... 5~10g more... Ok, it's not equal or less, but the difference is acceptable to me. Lenses will be another story, but if you know which ones to pick...

Those weights are off. According to Nikon the D600 weights 850g with batteries and card.

Also the volume differences are actually quite large:

K-5 - 927,611 mm3
6D - 1,136,868 mm3
D600 - 1,306,506 mm3

Making the K5 82% the size of the 6D and only 71% the size of the D600. For you these differences may be fine, as you say, but for me it means less space in my bag and in some cases would mean I'd need a bigger bag just for the camera and one, attached, lens.

[Barry Pearson]

Pricing strategy... schmicing strategy... as long as they put out a decent 24 MP camera with some AF skills at a price under $1500 I could care less about their pricing strategy... and at that point, I'll likely pay whatever they ask for a 31 ltd as well. People who want cheap have a perfectly viable option in a K-30 18-135 package.

They already have lots of cameras for folks who want good but cheap. Right now I have a 35, 2.4 which is a great lens for those who want cheap. It will be available for even cheaper when and if I get a 31 ltd. But to me, asking for a DA* or Ltd for cheap is a little ridiculous. Those are really good quality lenses. They are where Pentax should be making their money. If you want cheap, buy cheap, but don't ask for top of the line for cheap. You have other choices, take them. The DA 55-300 is a great alternative to the DA* 300. GO for it. If you want top quality, pay for it.

Just a bit of advice for people obsessing about high lens prices. There's a price for admission to the top quality lens club, whichever camera company you choose.

My position is that I want the top of the range Pentax K-mount camera to be the best that Ricoh/Pentax can supply. Then I have the option to pay any plausible price for such a Pentax camera, even if I have to sell my house and live in a cardboard box. That superior camera will exist. (I've already ordered a very large cardboard box).

What I don't want is for Ricoh/Pentax to supply a less-than-best top of the range camera in order to appeal to people who are not prepared to pay as much as I am. Because then I don't have an option to buy that greater Pentax camera because it won't exist. Those people should instead be offered a "one down from top of the range" camera at the price they are prepared to pay, and accept that the top of the range model isn't for them.

All these threads and arguments about the desired features and prices of the next Ricoh/Pentax have helped me clarify my own attitude. Top-end features are more important to me than a constrained price. I may regret the price of a superior camera, but I'll buy it if it has the features and performance I want.

(I'm a pensioner and hobbyist photographer and don't make any money from photography).

[tuco]

Those weights are off. According to Nikon the D600 weights 850g with batteries and card.

Also the volume differences are actually quite large:

K-5 - 927,611 mm3
6D - 1,136,868 mm3
D600 - 1,306,506 mm3

Making the K5 82% the size of the 6D and only 71% the size of the D600. For you these differences may be fine, as you say, but for me it means less space in my bag and in some cases would mean I'd need a bigger bag just for the camera and one, attached, lens.

Grams is a unit of mass; not weight. If you want small, get a mirrorless.

[snake]

For the OP:

Who made these "promises"?

[Blue]

Grams is a unit of mass; not weight. If you want small, get a mirrorless.

The gram is the unit of measure for both. A scientific distinction between mass and weight is unimportant formost practical purposes because the strength of gravity is ~ same everywhere on the surface of the Earth.

[tuco]

The gram is the unit of measure for both.

Well, we don't send rockets to the moon with mass and weight (a force) having the same units. They are only the same to the layman.

[Mistral75]

The gram is the unit of measure for both. A scientific distinction between mass and weight is unimportant formost practical purposes because the strength of gravity is ~ same everywhere on the surface of the Earth.

Nope, the unit to measure weight is the Newton, symbol N.

[normhead]

Why am I thinking of fig pastries?

[Blue]

Nope, the unit to measure weight is the Newton, symbol N.

I didn't say that. Re-read it. Does you bathroom scale have Newtons on it? Does the analytical balance in my lab have Newtons on it?

Well, we don't send rockets to the moon with mass and weight (a force) having the same units. They are only the same to the layman.

Actually, I just checked the analytical balances in my lab and they do not have Newtons on them. Plus, terms like "molecular weigh," "chemical weight" and "atomic weight" are widely used among scientists and engineers.

Why am I thinking of fig pastries?

More importantly, why are the measured in grams or ounces.

[normhead]

You mean like "How many Newtons would a Fig Newton be if a FIg Newton was measured in Newtons?"