[sterretje]

Are you asking for a Pentax equivalent of the D3000? If so, I guess it's the Kx (and soon the Kr).

DPReview has a review of the Kx where it is compared to (amongst others) the Nikon D5000; see Pentax K-x Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review and the comparison starts on page 21

I think it was already said, but you don't need an adaptor for Pentax.

[Impartial]

WOK, Kilsimiv:
i) I don't know how to pronounce Ricoh;
ii) you don't need an adapter for Pentax and are good to go (if there is no pin);
iii) you can buy an adapter for K-mount to Nikon, but it requires additional optical elements and degrades the image somewhat;
iv) your lenses are manual focus lenses; the only way you could autofocus them is with a Pentax autofocus adapter, which costs as much as a used K10D. The adapter would work on your prime lenses (50 and 135) but not on the mirror lens or zooms.
v) I hate to break this to you, but your lenses are not as useful for you on digital as you might think. The prime 50 and 135 are probably fine optically, but modern zoom lenses are simply superior optically to the early zooms from the 70s, even apart from added functions like autofocus. And your 1000mm mirror lens, while unusual, is not well-regarded. So you might not want to base your DSLR selection on these lenses.
vi) watch out for low-end Nikon bodies such as the D3000 and D5000. They have no built-in autofocus motor, so the lenses you need to buy for them to autofocus are _more_expensive_ than the cheaper Nikon or Pentax lenses, especially if you would consider used autofocus lenses. Pentax bodies in this price range have additional functionality, such as built-in Shake Reduction. This makes more difference the more lenses you want to buy eventually, since buying stabilized lenses generally costs more, and prime lenses are generally not stabilized so they can't have as long an exposure (handheld). So you might want to consider a k-x, or a K10D if you are thinking of manual focus.

[Kilsimiv]

@sterretje - That was an awesome review, thanks for the link!

@ Impartial - Wow. You just made my day. Clear, concise, informative and straight to it. Thank you. Turns out I didn't know squat about the low-end Nikon bodies. I'm just familiar with them. I think what I'll do is find a shop to repair/thoroughly clean my KS2 and just get a separate DSLR. Would the D90 outperform the equivalently priced Kr?
And is the 18-55mm 'standard' lens really the best option for an general purpose camera? I like to take all sorts of shots from late-night remote bulbs to close-ups (are they still considered macros if taken sans macro lens, or is that just a snobbish term for a non-true macro). I'm not big on action shots. I like to compose more than just kinda fly by the seat of my pants. But who knows, I'd like to play around with burst mode.

[Impartial]

So I won't wade into the k-r vs. D90, except to make the obvious point that the Pentax has shake reduction, so the more you want to play with a variety of lenses, especially primes, the better off you are vs. Nikon. Though at least the D90 will let you use AF on the cheaper Nikon primes, as opposed to the D5000.

And I will point out that there are threads elsewhere debating k-r vs. D90. Just make sure that you think about the overall lens situation when you make your decision, since i) new lenses are usually the best way to expand your photographic options and ii) you will very quickly have lenses that are worth more than your body, which will discourage you from switching brands after your initial choice. So make sure you think about lenses!

[stevebrot]

i) I don't know how to pronounce Ricoh;

Rye'coh...sort of like Nye'con


Steve

[Lowell Goudge]

Kilsimiv

you asked about wide angle and compared the nikon kit lens at 18-55mm, and then commented about fisheye.

While 18mm would have been really wide on a film camera with it's 24mm x 36mm frame, the sensor in all consumer SLRs is much smaller.

Pentax and nikon use ASP-C sensors which are 15.6 x 23.7 mm (I think) but typically we consider them 16 x 24 for simplicity.

since the sensor is smaller, the field of view is different than on film, and a 18mm when used on a DSLR has the same field of view as a 28mm lens would have had on film.

Your collection of old lenses started at 28mm which may have been OK on film but not really wide enough for digital due to the crop factor of the smaller sensor.

that is why I recommended the kit lens, and pentax makes a similar 18-55mm.

As for going wider, lots of things are changing, and all camera makers offer rectalinear (i.e. non fisheye) ultra wide zooms ranging from 10-12mm at the wide end to 20-24mm at the long end. These are really wide.

There are also fisheye lenses in the 8mm range which are a lot of fun, but they are more specialized.

the reason I suggested a kit zoom lens is that for really wide angle lenses used ones are rare. there were not many made beyond 20mm for film, and these can be very expensive, in fact several times the cost of the 18-55 zoom.

[Kilsimiv]

Thanks Steve!

@ Lowell Goudge That was interesting. Yes, I've dabbled for a bit with a friend's 8mm Fisheye which was ... awe-inspiring. It distorts the horizon so much. Very fun to play around with but not very useful for most situations.

[jolepp]

A quick chime-in about the Pentax 18-55 kit lens: for a kit lens this seems to be a pretty good one one (see Pentax SMC-DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL - Review / Test Report).

It is worth noting that there have apparently been two versions of this, where the latter is the better one - the review above covers the later version. Even with the newer version there are two varieties of this with the same optical design, where the lens included in the kit doesn't come with a lens hood and is stripped of the integrated AF/MF clutch of the separately sold one ("DA II").