Originally posted by luftfluss Like the sheeple who propagate the "30-50% more for each VR lens" myth? Like the sheeple who prefer the Nikon 18-105 VR lens, which is sharper and over $100 less than the Pentax 18-135?
There's good reason to choose Pentax - or any system - but spreading FUD is not one of them.
Part of my reason to question has to do with the average consumer not ever considering Pentax and only doing the knee-jerk reaction of buying the big two; it was not about measuring pixels, sharpness, resolution, CA, etc, etc of specific, paired zoom lens comparisons. It also has a further purpose of forcing people to think about long-term total cost of ownership and still have an enjoyable experience learning the hobby. If I sounded like I was spreading FUD, I apologize since I consider the Nikon system, as a whole, to be very attractive. What I cannot justify is the total cost, based on my needs, which seem to be fairly average for a hobbyist, and could line-up very well with the average consumer who wants to become a better photographer over a long period of time and build a system over that time frame that fits his/her needs. Thank you for your obviously expert opinion.