Originally posted by: bthorny
Originally posted by: magomago
If you want to talk about bang for the buck, you absolutely need to consider the K-20D
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0012...ref=pd_sl_93qw7ixcmt_b
Wow, that seems like a pretty good camera for the money, I know absolutely nothing about pentax lens's though...
Any thoughts on that?
It depends.
Are you a beginner into the world of DSLR cams? If so, just use the kit lens. MANY people like to bash kit lenses across the board, although I've noticed the quality isn't radically different than more expensive, better lenses. Yes I saw an improvement in IQ from my 18-55 to my 16-45, but that was when I started to focus more, and look at a photo corner to corner (i don't mean pixel peeping...i just mean taking in the whole photo and looking at details).
However, I've never looked at them printed...and I would think the difference is even less.
I personally have a DA 16-45 (yes is a constant F/4 aperture, but its extremely sharp so use it wide open all the time), DA 55-300 and a pair of primes (DA 50mm , SMC Takumar 135).
You mentioned that the usage would be mainly outside. If that is the case, and it sounds like it, you MIGHT be interested in the 18-55WR and the 50-200WR. These are
consumer priced WEATHER RESISTANT lenses (meaning they have seals on them). They are virtually the same as the their no WR counterparts. Go take a look at the cost of other (including Pentax's other sealed lenses!) brand's sealed lenses...it ain't going to be pretty at all.
If you really like to do hikes and enjoy travel, then I'd recommend the 50-200. I won't be coy with you - the IQ isn't the best. I'd say its acceptable - it can't be described as poor at all, but it can't be to be stellar. The DA 55-300 has better IQ and I had both lenses (my 50-200 got stolen )...but this comes at a cost --> the latter is much much heavier, at least in my hand. The 50-200 felt like it weighed nothing as I carried it around. And for people who focus on traveling or hikes, weight matters. So when one considers the quality/weight ratio...its actually pretty damned good.
If you like to be out a lot, and want to be able to shoot in rain and other similar environments, those lenses would be of interest to you. Hell, I'm going to end up buying the WR version of the 18-55 simply because of how cheap it is. Slap it on (remember, the K20D is a weather sealed body), go outside in bad weather and not worry about it.
Oh yeah - the cost: They are 200 (18-55) and 250 (50-200) dollars respectively...
So perhaps K20D body + 18-55/50-200 WR? Sounds like you can probably fit that into your budget.
edit:
as for the quality of lenses....i personally wouldn't worry too much. Pentax, like canon, has 'general lenses' and 'really nice' lenses. I actually disagree with pdo that the 'consumer' lenses are bad. Pentax's strength is that it has some really nice prime (fixed focal length, meaning they don't zoom...you zoom with your feet) lenses.
I think if your worry is that you will have worse IQ than a P&S.....you won't