First I want to thank all of you for the welcome and the comments and recommendations!
Originally posted by blackcloudbrew I can't personally vouch for this as I have neither a k7 nor large hands, but I read a comment recently from a k7 owner with self described big hands who said that the k7 with the battery grip was a really very good combo. I thought that was a useful comment.
If you were to go with a kit lens, opt for the DA 18-55 WR version. It's the latest and it's the water resistant version.
The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is an excellent lens no doubt. My daughter uses it on her Canon 40D. I have owned the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 briefly and it is very sharp although a very big lens (that was the one thing I didn't like about it).
I would say that you may want to go slow at first with your lens purchases. Particularly with the older non auto focusing glass. While it's true that you can use the older lenses, it's not quite the same as the newer lenses and it's better to get the controls all worked out before you delve into the older manual focusing stuff.
Enjoy.
Yeah, I guess its weird for me to be looking at the K7 especially per size difference. From what I understood even though its small, the grip is deep and semi curved, which allows it to be more comfortable in even larger hands. My Rebels were so tiny that my knuckles and finger tips would be always touching the zoom rings or the body right next to the lens. Hell, even the Nikons have a curve to deepen the grip... which to me makes it feel larger than it is.
The 50D solves this by being wider, but not from an ergonomics stand point, its big... but I will be damned if its "ergonomic". I think Nikon wins (so far I dont know what the K7 is like), I drooled over a D300s for a few minutes at my local shop.
Besides, Rebels are notorious for being the worst small DSLRs when it comes to ergonomics. The T2i was better than the older models but to me, it still wasnt that good.
Thanks for your response!
Originally posted by wlachan Sounds like the 50D suits you, wonder why you want a tiny body like the K-7. Any lens can be mounted on the K-7, can be mounted on 50D too, except DA lenses which have no aperture ring. Get the K-7 if you want DA Limited lenses, otherwise I fail to see the point consider you have already own the 50D with 2 fine zooms.
Well, thats just it, I am really looking to get into the DA and FA limited lenses eventually. I like primes I figured I would get more all around lenses to start with.
Is it really that much smaller than the 50D? From the people I have seen handing it, they had some meating fingers and it seemed to not bother them. One guy said the grip solved his "pinky-hanging-off-the-bottom" issue.
Other than that, I am really looking forward to packing this smaller DSLR for hiking and shooting in worse conditions than I would ever take my 50D into... as we all know being Canonites.... if you want REAL sealing you need to spend 1600 for good... and 2500 (this may not be true anymore, as the 5D seals are supposedly bested by the 7D's) for better, and 5-6k for the vaunted 1D seals.
From what I have read through testing, the K7 not only bests the 50D in seals... its on par with the kind of splash protection that the 1D and 7D share. And for 700-1600 dollars less!
Whats pushing me to try this so bad is that I feel the K7 is like a smaller brother of the D series bodies. Well sealed, Rugged, Fast (FPS), Lighter... all while keeping all the features I am looking for. I am actually lickin my chops' thinking of taking such a substantial camera with me more often than when I drag out the 50D. The shutter from what I have heard sounds so smooth and quiet... which is another thing that helps get those candids and natural people shots.
Thanks a lot for your post! Don't get me wrong... Canon is the fine system. I do enjoy my 50D.
Originally posted by northcoastgreg I would avoid the kit glass, particularly the 18-55. It won't measure up to the Canon L glass. The Pentax 16-45 is a better choice: it will at least equal, if not exceed, your Canon 17-40. Even better (but much more expensive) is the 16-50.
The 55-300, although pretty good for a kit lens, will not measure up to the 70-200 L Canon. Pentax has some lenses in that range that arguably are superior, like the 60-250 and the FA* 80-200/2.8 (no longer in production), but these lenses are rather expensive (+$1,200).
Among the legacy Pentax glass, the best lenses can be divided into two types: the "legendary" legacy Pentax glass that fetches huge prices on ebay (this includes most of the Pentax macro 1:1 and long lenses, and their fast 85s), and the great legacy glass that can be picked up at bargain prices (like the fast 50 1.4 and 1.7). Among the latter group, I would recommend that A series 35-105 f3.5 zoom (perhaps the best of Pentax's manual zooms), the K-series 28 f3.5, the K-series 35 f3.5, and the K-series 135 f2.5.
Hey! Thanks! I was looking at the 16-45 and 17-70 with intent to take place of the 17-40L. You say the 16-50 is sealed up like an L glass? I would consider it. I am not as concerned about the 70-200L replacement as my 17-40L is on the body about 85% of the time. I could make due with a 55-300 cheapy to get a feel for things. After all, its not the lens or the body that takes the pictures.
Thanks for the recommendations on the legacy glass! I picked up a great condition A 50mm f/1.7 is this the right one?
I gotta tell you, I am drooling over those limited prime photos that have been posted. The build looks out of this world... even compared to my L glass. Bokeh looks buttery smooth as well. The size is also very enticing. I loved my 50 f/1.8 "nifty fifty" on the canon... I couldn't imagine having a whole bag of such small yet substantial lenses with me all the time.