[JimJohnson]

If you assume that entry-level is the lowest functionality device in a series where each successive device has more functionality, then when released, the K-30 was the entry level to Pentax dSLRs (although the only other choice at that time was the K-5).

However, if you compare the functionality of the K-30 against the functionality of competitors' entry-level dSLRs, the K-30 is certainly better than "entry level". The moral here is to find out what the speaker means when s/he uses that term.

[Aux]

Personally, I don't think any DSLR should be put in entry/pro levels. Different sets of features are suited for different photography types. K30 is more about photography without time limits for changing settings ( less buttons and controls). Shooting still life and slow events with constant lighting, for example. K5 is for more dynamic workflow, but it will feel overbloated in K30 scenarios. It's like the difference between Canon 1D ( lower resolution, less features, but ultra-fast shooting for very fast events like sports) and 5D (a lot slower, but has way more features for studio work and HQ imaging). Shooting products in the studio by 1D is not a smart move.

So, my opinion on K30 is that it is best suited for slow work in persistent conditions when there is no need for extra large resolution and full frame sensor: product shooting in studio, still life, panoramas, etc. It is also a good work horse for studying photography, since it has less novice disturbing features. And last but not least - it is very light and WR, so it is a great camera to have with you most of the time. Not as compact as mirrorless cameras, yet not as heavy as big brothers.

[SteveB]

Personally, I don't think any DSLR should be put in entry/pro levels. Different sets of features are suited for different photography types. K30 is more about photography without time limits for changing settings ( less buttons and controls). Shooting still life and slow events with constant lighting, for example. K5 is for more dynamic workflow, but it will feel overbloated in K30 scenarios. It's like the difference between Canon 1D ( lower resolution, less features, but ultra-fast shooting for very fast events like sports) and 5D (a lot slower, but has way more features for studio work and HQ imaging). Shooting products in the studio by 1D is not a smart move.

So, my opinion on K30 is that it is best suited for slow work in persistent conditions when there is no need for extra large resolution and full frame sensor: product shooting in studio, still life, panoramas, etc. It is also a good work horse for studying photography, since it has less novice disturbing features. And last but not least - it is very light and WR, so it is a great camera to have with you most of the time. Not as compact as mirrorless cameras, yet not as heavy as big brothers.

Except we're not talking about night and day differences between K-30 and K5IIS resolution, same MP, same sensor size, 12bit vs. 14 bit where I've yet to see ANY visible proof of a difference, and weak AA filter vs. none where I have seen a difference but it's tiny, really tiny. The K-30 can easily cope with changing lighting conditions, no problem whatsoever. The real-world differences are:-

1. Plastic vs. Mag alloy body
2. Averagely loud shutter vs. Quiet shutter
3. The K-30 can either have a button to lock focus OR lock exposure, not both at the same time. The K-5 has both available on dedicated buttons.
4. No top LCD vs. top LCD The K-30 VF info line has all the usual info on display apart from battery level (shame!).
5. No rear remote sensor on K-30, cable remote or tin foil reflector for IR remote if you want to use remote from behind on the K-30.
6. Better low light AF.
7. Slightly faster fps, bigger buffer on K-5. The K-30 is quite good though for fast work, and is definitely NOT only suited to slow work.

I would only pay out for 2 and 6 personally, the rest can be worked round and 1 has zero benefit IMHO, but probably has for a lot of people.