[jgnfld]

As someone who has owned and hiked/sailed with a K-50 extensively and now a K-70, I concur with the main themes: Smaller and easy to handle. Cropping of shots one gets in the wild is significantly better. When I need faster shutter speeds, I routinely shoot at 400 in my normally fairly dark environment of Newfoundland while getting the same quality to my eyes as 200 on the K-50. The new PLM 55-300 is a significant upgrade in many respects as well though with about the same image quality as the older DAL version (for my 2 copies, at least). The difference is it is much easier to get good shots on birds, etc. or anything requiring faster operation as it really is faster. It is silent. And, it collapses more which makes outdoor packing around more convenient.

[reh321]

Torque might/might not be the correct word here. I could see torque in reference to the AF action of the lens from the screwdrive, but I follow that more of in terms of motor vehicle terminology. I did get your point though in what you were getting at.

"Torque" is physics talk for a force which causes rotation. People who want a large camera body usually talk in terms of using long lenses; my assumption has been that they have trouble keeping the system level - the gravitational pull that would pull a long lens down, thereby twisting the system down towards the earth, is a torque force by definition, and that is what I've been trying to describe.

So if I were to guess, either the K-01 or the Q would be more of what you like in camera bodies?

I have a Q-7 in addition to my K-30. I would have purchased a K-01 instead of the K-30 if the K-01 were equipped with an EVF.