I'm not new to photography, but I only made the dive into digital this summer when my siblings offered to get me the digicam of my choice as a graduation present. (within reason, they knew I'd been shopping in the $500 range) I decided pretty quickly I wanted a dslr, and as a student I knew cost would be the primary concern for at least the next 5 years, probably eight. I ended up going with the Pentax K100d, which is pretty comparable to the D40. 6mp, solidly built. It has a couple huge advantages in the operating cost realm though.
First of all, Pentax, like Sony, has built image stabilization into the camera itself, so you get image stabilization without more expensive IS lenses. (the Canon and Nikon IS lenses are technically a better option, but not for those of us that are really price sensitive)
Second, unlike Canon, Nikon, and Minolta/Sony, Pentax has maintained backward compatibility with pre-digital lenses, which means you can pick up cheap used glass, even in great condition. I've got a great local camera shop, and even the best condition older k-mount lenses are selling for around $100.
So as not to sound preachy, there are reasons to not go with Pentax:
There are less lenses available out there. If you want REALLY long range, or the most extreme wide angle, you'll have better luck finding it with Nikon or Canon.
Autofocus is slower, especially compared to the XTi. (If I remember right that is)
Its harder to find fast lenses, though you can get them in the older primes. You'll definitely have trouble finding lenses under 2.
Speed and buffer space of the K100/110 are inferior to all competitors to my knowledge. This is only really significant if you want to shoot sporting events. I got slightly frustrated shooting a volleyball game the other day, but thats also because I had the wrong lens for the job. Canon's are almost invariably better for sports photography.
Thats the end of my little Pentax informational brochure, really you've got to feel the cameras. Personally, I think the low end Canon's feel like toys. Pentax, Nikon, Sony, and Olympus all do a better job on materials and construction.
P.S. If you're planning on slowly climbing up the ranks of cameras and carrying the lenses over, Pentax is actually a poor choice, because they don't make any of the high end cameras. (as in over a grand; the K10d is considerably more pro than its little brothers) But Pentax is typically the realm of amateurs and hobbiests, those that make a living taking pictures tend to migrate to the brands that offer more expansion.
--
Mark
First of all, Pentax, like Sony, has built image stabilization into the camera itself, so you get image stabilization without more expensive IS lenses. (the Canon and Nikon IS lenses are technically a better option, but not for those of us that are really price sensitive)
Second, unlike Canon, Nikon, and Minolta/Sony, Pentax has maintained backward compatibility with pre-digital lenses, which means you can pick up cheap used glass, even in great condition. I've got a great local camera shop, and even the best condition older k-mount lenses are selling for around $100.
So as not to sound preachy, there are reasons to not go with Pentax:
There are less lenses available out there. If you want REALLY long range, or the most extreme wide angle, you'll have better luck finding it with Nikon or Canon.
Autofocus is slower, especially compared to the XTi. (If I remember right that is)
Its harder to find fast lenses, though you can get them in the older primes. You'll definitely have trouble finding lenses under 2.
Speed and buffer space of the K100/110 are inferior to all competitors to my knowledge. This is only really significant if you want to shoot sporting events. I got slightly frustrated shooting a volleyball game the other day, but thats also because I had the wrong lens for the job. Canon's are almost invariably better for sports photography.
Thats the end of my little Pentax informational brochure, really you've got to feel the cameras. Personally, I think the low end Canon's feel like toys. Pentax, Nikon, Sony, and Olympus all do a better job on materials and construction.
P.S. If you're planning on slowly climbing up the ranks of cameras and carrying the lenses over, Pentax is actually a poor choice, because they don't make any of the high end cameras. (as in over a grand; the K10d is considerably more pro than its little brothers) But Pentax is typically the realm of amateurs and hobbiests, those that make a living taking pictures tend to migrate to the brands that offer more expansion.
--
