Originally posted by illdefined quite objectively though, the D7000 isn't too much different from the K5...
IMHO it's more "me too" with its added bulk and more mainstream design, but YMMV of course.
Quote: what was distinctive for me personally about Pentax were the Limited lenses. but now m4/3 has a plethora of small, fast primes on even smaller (and now weathersealed) cameras.
Which brings up something I wanted to ask the FF-desiring part of the community, and since this thread has "full-frame" in its subject, I might as well ask it here:
Your point about the lenses making the m4/3 system desirable is very good, because different camera bodies are really just different tools with different compromises of IQ and ergonomics in order to bring the best out of
lenses.
So I wonder - which lenses make you (i.e. those who badly want a FF body) want FF?
I've looked a lot at wide angle lenses with a colleague who is considering the D800, and come to the conclusion that the main reason for owning a D800 would be to use it with Nikon's terrific f/2.8 zooms.
There are a lot of great Nikkor primes too, but some of them are rather old designs which presumably aren't really
that fantastic with digital FF. And if you're not into razor thin DoF fetichism, the narrower DoF of fast prime lenses on FF often just cancels the high ISO advantage. For instance, when using M-50/1.7 on my LX for available light photography indoors, I rarely used it at wider apertures than 2.8, simply because you almost never want that thin DoF. Now I use my DA35 Macro Ltd for the same kind of photography and I more often stop it down to f/4 than use it wide open at f/2.8, which means that I wouldn't really gain anything by using a full format camera with a fast 50.... IMHO there are really only two prime lenses missing in the Pentax lineup to make it almost perfect: A super wide prime (10mm?) and a fast moderate WA, e.g. 24mm f/2. Some also crave a 135mm f/2-f/2.8, but the latter is to a large extent covered by the 50-135 zoom.
But back to the Nikkor lenses: For me the D800 would only make real sense with some of those great zooms. I won't complain about the high prices, the lenses come first, and if you can't
really afford a D800 if you have to use it with cheap lenses. But here's my point: The 24-70/2.8 Nikkor weighs 900 grams, the marvellous 14-24 1000 grams! So you end up with a very bulky system after all, and the OM-D (if you can stand the EVF) with its nice primes - or the K-5 (II (s)) with the limiteds suddenly looks very attractive after all.