[The_Reasonable_Man]

My first child was born in 2006. I wasn't satisfied with the pictures I was getting from my Canon P&S (lots of hand held, low light stuff), so I started researching DSLRs. The K100d offered the best combo of price/features at the time. I liked the SR, backward compatability (although I had no Pentax glass at the time), and build quality. Canon felt cheap. Nikon ergonomics felt wonky. Olympus scared me with their smaller sensor. Sony is pure evil and I avoided on principle. The Pentax felt right.

The K100d has been a great camera to learn on and I don't regret the purchase one bit, but I'd be lying if I said I don't consider switching from time to time. I love Pentax lenses and bodies, but part of me worries about Pentax going belly up and stranding me with a bunch of K-mount glass. Unlikely and out of my control, I know, but it does niggle at me every time I feed my LBA.

[ColonelPanic]

I did by accident. Got my first body, a K100D on sellout.woot.com for cheap, refurbished. Did some research before clicking the buy button, and I couldn't find any reason not to. More importantly I couldn't find any reason to pay the canon and nikon price premium when Pentax offered more features at a lower price point-as well as superior lens compatibility.

[cbaytan]

I wanted a smooth transition from film to digital. First I've decided to get a small digital camera which will serve me as a light meter and in pre-shots like Polaroid as old photographers did. When checking the internet I've noticed K200D, I searched more, it's IQ also impressed me with kit lens and I grabbed one.

[GlennG]

Stayed with Pentax for the value and compatability with K-mount lenses. The IQ is top notch. My first Pentax was an ME in 1980 that I received as a gift. I enjoyed that a lot and have also enjoyed the k100d S a lot also. Planning the body upgrade migration now, and I believe I have "virtual" LBA, given the amount of time I look at lens reviews and discussions.

[spystyle]

Reason # 1

Pentax gives the most to it's customers for the least price, therefore Pentax is the "most virtuous" camera company

Reason # 2

Lens compatibility

[kadajawi]

Few things. First of all, Pentax cameras aren't that wanted, so they get good prices (for buyers) on the second hand market. The alternative would have been a much newer D40, but I really hated its viewfinder. I was used to the Nikon FM2, the D40 couldn't even try to compete. If I would have gone with a Canon it would have been a Canon D30 or D60, which at that time were already 6 to 8 years old! I used and loved a Canon P&S before (as well as the FM2), but I was open to other brands. The Sigma SD10 caught my interest because it didn't even support JPEG, but it was too heavy, too expensive.

Then I tried the Pentax *istDs (that was in 2008 btw.). It was affordable, I think I paid 220 € with lens), had only taken like 8000 photos so far, good condition, and I fell in love with that camera. The viewfinder was gigantic (well, compared to the competition), you could change the focusing screen, it was small and light without feeling flimsy, I liked the way the buttons were placed, it just made sense to me. Reading reviews I found out that JPEGs out of the camera weren't as good as with a Nikon or Canon, but I knew that I would use RAW, so that wasn't an issue to me. I have upgraded the focusing screen to one of those microprism split prism ones you found on the FM2 e.g.

I also like that the *istDs doesn't feel like they had to cut cost and wanted to create a cheap camera. On Canon and Nikon entry level cameras it feels like they artificially limited the camera in order to justify the upgrade to a more expensive camera. They could be better. Also the *istDs seems to be more about being a tool for the photographer, without too many automatics (which to be honest aren't that great on this camera anyway). That's how the camera was designed, trying to give the user as much control as possible. I like that. Backward compatibility was another plus.

It's been 2 years now, and well, I still love my *istDs, despite having a damaged command dial (it usually only notices dials to the left... or better, it notices dialing to the right as to the left) and a rubber grip that isn't really attached to the camera anymore. Other than that it's great, and I haven't treated the camera with too much care. It had to suffer very cold and hot temperatures, I bring it along almost always, and never in a camera bag, etc. It has shot almost 50000 photos until now. In short it can take a beating and works reliable (unless it's really cold and the batteries are old).

What I do hate about it is the AA batteries. The eneloops are ok, but I have the Pentax power adapter and the camera just performs better with it. It's just faster, esp. the AF. Even with freshly charged eneloops. It also just eats through Alkalines, even expensive ones. They batteries are still usable though, it's just that they can't provide enough juice for the camera. Pentax should have used Li-Ion batteries from the start.

[wed7]

because it is red?

I DARE to be different.

[RAMOS79]

It took about three months from the day i decided i wanted to move up to a dslr type camera to the day i decided on the Pentax Kx.
I searched and searched the net for reviews and the one that tipped the balance in favor of the Pentax was one from dpreview, the review contained side by side comparisons of shots taken from canon, nikon, the Kx and a fiew from olympus if memory serves.
Hands down the pentax shots were the most pleasing to my eyes.
Value also played a major role as well as the fact that it runs on AA batteries.
The one thing the Kx does not have that i thought i wanted was the flip screen lcd that the nikon has, after a few months of use i think it was just my gizmo fetish telling me i needed it.
To mke a long story longer the value caught my attention and the image quality sealed the deal.
For what it's worth, the people on pentax forums seem more down to earth and i like that very much.

[Bob A]

I had a few screw mount and K mount Pentax lenses that I loved shooting with. Was looking to go digital when the K 110D first came out. I checked it out at a Pentax event in Grand Central Station. The camera fit my hand and eye perfectly, it just felt right. I brought home some brochures from that event and did more study and got the camera.

It's been great.... and I too like to be a bit different from what everyone else is shooting with so the Pentax fits for me.

[jay1973]

For me it was the build quality and the lense flexibility, plus it seems that so many people are on the other 3 band wagon lol.

[cpk]

I tripped into Pentax. I was shooting black and white with Leicas in the 70s and 80s when an artist friend asked me to make copy slides of his paintings. I bought a Pentax K1000 because it was so inexpensive. So where the M series of lenses, so I bought a number of them as well. I then move to an MX. When I bought my LX I realized that I could have bought the Nikon F3 for much the same price. And the lenses I wanted were not that more expensive for the Nikon equivalents to my Pentax lenses. I then ran the following test (this has been posted before; it was originally a news group posting):

"Back in the early 80s I had a chance to test a Leicaflex side by side with my Pentax LX. I shot a series of pictures comparing the following lenses: Leica 35mm - Pentax-M 28mm f2.8 Leica 50mm - Pentax-M 50mm f4 macro Leica 135mm - Pentax-M 100mm f2.8.

"I cannot remember the Leicaflex model or the maximum apertures of Leica lenses; but they were the ones current at that time. They were supplied by Leica Canada as part of a promotion to "try a Leica for a day" in the hopes that one would buy one.

"The pictures were taken on Kodachrome 25 for maximum sharpness, and both cameras were mounted on tripods. The first slide on each roll of film was a photograph of the other camera. Both films were processed by Kodak Canada. When the films were processed and returned uncut in strips, I asked the son of the owner of the camera store where I dealt, to choose the Leica slides. He inspected both film strips with a Pentax 20X magnifier and selected one as being shot by the Leicaflex. I then asked him which camera was pictured at the front of the strip. It was the Leicaflex. The pictures he thought were taken by the Leicaflex had been taken by the Pentax LX. His father, who was a bit of a Leicaphile, also inspected the film strips and appeared somewhat upset by the results.

"At the time of the tests I used Leica Ms for all of my available-light work. Therefore, having no need for high-speed lenses, when I purchased Pentax lenses, they were the slower f2.8 and f4 ones. These ones, I expect, would be easier to correct. Also the pictures were taken outside at around f8, rather than wide open. This was not a definitive test; but it proved to me that, certainly in some areas, the Pentax lenses could hold their own against some of the best. I was happy with the results because the circumstances of the test mirrored the situations in which I expected to use the Pentax and its lenses, outdoors for architectural and other work."

When I seriously went digital I bought a K10D because the price was so low (the K20D had just been announced) and I had Pentax lenses already. I have since added a number of zoom lenses, the DA Limited lenses, and a couple of FA Limited lenses. Was this the best choice? I don't know, but it's what I have. Right now my kit includes a K20D and a K-7. Much of my work is manually-focused and I have katzEye-adjusted focusing screens. In my available-light situations I don't think Canon or Nikon could improve on the situations I face.

[cpk]

I should also add that I sold the Leicas several years ago. The work I am now doing with film is being done with my MX and LX (architectural). My available-light work is being done with the K20D and K-7. I am waiting for the K-5.

[FullertonImages]

Like many people, I got into Pentax because it offers the same feature set for less money, plus I was very attracted by the weathersealing. But I'm staying with it for the build quality, compactness, low weight, ergonomics, and IQ. I'm a pro adventure photographer, and I find Pentax to be the ideal system for this kind of work. Small, light, tough, weathersealed like a mofo, and with awesome IQ to back it all up. Despite how much people like to complain about Pentax's AF and high ISO, I've almost always found the K-7 AF to be enough for me, except in very low-light conditions, which I don't often encounter; and since 90% of what I shoot is iso800 or lower, and other isn't much of an issue either. And it would seem that the K-5 has likely significantly fixed these things. Between K-7 and K-5, and I can't imagine needing any other camera. Now how about a 400/4, 135/1.8, 28/1.4 and 16/2...

[Shamwow]

I chose my system based on lens offerings.
I fell in love with the "three sisters." I planned on buying the 43mm first, followed by the 77mm, and then after I won the lottery, the 31mm.

Plus, the K10D felt so much better in my hands than the comparable CaNikon offerings.

Ironically, I never ended up buying any FA Limiteds. I shoot primarily with legacy glass, with a few DA Limiteds sprinkled in.