Originally posted by Cosmo The last question is pretty stupid. I think most, if not all people would choose a 5D mkII over a K7 if price wasn't an issue.
If it's FREE, sure. Then I'll sell the 5DmkII and buy a K-7 AND a really cool lens. But in building my system, I could have chosen a 5DmkII - I don't mind spending money; I only hate *wasting* money. FF doesn't enter into the equation - there's considerably less difference between APS-C and FF than there was between 35mm and medium format in film, and the cost difference is similar; that's not a high-value equation. Second, the Canon equipment is BIG (an artifact of the marketing hype driving the FF cult). Third, I prefer the color rendition of Pentax lenses to that of Canon lenses. That was true even when I was a Canon film shooter, back in "the day".
I chose the K20D over Canon and Nikon because I believe it to be the best photographic tool on the market for many applications, with IQ second to none, despite the synthetic benchmarks that everyone invents to show that
everything else is better. Show me real-world pictures taken with [insert comparable camera here] that couldn't be taken with the K20D. I've never gone out shooting with my Canon/Nikon carrying buddies and had to step back and say, "No, you go ahead. I can't shoot that shot, because I've only got a Pentax." Or "Man that's a great shot! I would have shot it, but I only have a Pentax!"
I think a lot of the victims of LBA here - when I look at the long lens lists! - could easily have built a Canon FF kit over Pentax if they'd so chosen, so I think the question is not so stupid as you'd have us believe.