I don't really understand the dissappointment that goes around, esp on dpreview. There's a lot of talk about fps and live view and lack of breakthrough technology. The most stupid complaint, IMO is the one about the LCD screen not being big enough.
To me this looks and sounds like the real K10D, and not the beta version. If the reviews don't totally write down picture quality and noise, I'll get one as soon as I simply can.
The specs signal to me that I'll have a usable ISO800, if it's as good as my DS at 1600 I'll be happy, I consider 3200 as an emergency option and 6400 for when those aliens knock on my door at night and ask me to take them to my leader.
They kept the pentaprism. Yeah! In spite of more megapixels it seems as it can handle higher ISO without noise. Yeah! It's not bigger than the K10D, and doesn't weigh more. Yeah! It won't cost over 2000USD. Yeah!
How often did you burst 5 fps with your analog camera with a 3200 ISO film to get A2 printed copies? And got an instant preview copy? With a camera that forgave your having a hangover?
One thing about fps: 3 fps is not enough for fast action such as soccer especially when the AF is slow. I tried that with my poor K100D and you don't want to know what came out of my mouth:-) 99% of the time I don't need it but when I do I really miss it.
I tried a couple of times soccer indoors with fast moving 5 years olds running like there was no tomorrow. Bumped the ISO to 800 and 1600, used DA 70mm F2.4 when possible (DA 50-200mm a lot of times) and all I got was a bunch of unusable shots. More fps with a 70-200mm F2.8 would have been much better, I guess.