[DaveHolmes]

If you're after good glass it might be worth at least considering an older body... K20d's go very cheaply at the moment and still offer pretty fantastic IQ (in general) this gives you a lot more cash to play with in the lens buying stakes...

[Miike]

Have you thought about picking up a K-01? Bit better than K-5 IQ due to less AA filtering, and only about $300 for a brand new body.

I had not thought about that yet. For $360 I could pick up the K01 with the 40mm XS lens. I would get the IQ of the K-5, better high ISO ranges and still have focus peaking for manual lenses. I could later buy a K-5 body once prices have gone down and have lenses to use with it.

The only thing is that I already have a Nikon V1. Would there be too much of an overlap owning two Mirror less cameras? Or could the K-01 be thought of as a small "DSLR" without a viewfinder?

[jbuck92]

I currently own the K-r and have had it since Christmas 2011. I outgrew it very quickly and am planning on moving to the K-30 or K-5II sometime soon. It is a fabulous camera to learn the art on and get acquainted with the DSLR world, but if you plan on getting into photography anymore than your average weekender, you will definitely outgrow the K-r. I'd highly recommend grabbing the K-30/18-55 WR or 18-135 WR to get yourself started!

[SpecialK]

you will definitely outgrow the K-r.

In what way?

[jbuck92]

By wanting "something" more. Whether it's faster AF, better noise reduction, low-light capability, WR. I find myself wanting the high-ISO and AF accuracy of the K-30 or K-5II.

[cyclone3d]

I had not thought about that yet. For $360 I could pick up the K01 with the 40mm XS lens. I would get the IQ of the K-5, better high ISO ranges and still have focus peaking for manual lenses. I could later buy a K-5 body once prices have gone down and have lenses to use with it.

The only thing is that I already have a Nikon V1. Would there be too much of an overlap owning two Mirror less cameras? Or could the K-01 be thought of as a small "DSLR" without a viewfinder?

Yeah, it is pretty much a DSLR without an optical viewfinder.

Can't beat it for the price.

Put my K10d up for sale soon after I got it. Basically didn't touch the K10d after I got the K-01.

The only drawback is that the burst mode currently is not as fast as the K-30 due to artificial firmware limits. Doesn't really matter for my uses though.

[Just1MoreDave]

I like the cheaper camera + more lenses idea. Which camera is a problem, so leave that aside for a minute. Start with the DA 55-300mm f4-5.8. It comes in two versions, optically the same. The cheaper L version has a plastic mount, no quick-shift focus and no hood, about $80-100 cheaper. This lens is the best price/performance way to get to 300mm in a modern lens. There's an L version used in the marketplace for $210 now. I used one of thise older Sigma 100-300s and it was compact, but f6.7 on the long end and not very good. I'd avoid it.

Get the camera with the DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens. There's a DA-L version of this one too, a regular metal mount version II, and a weather-resistant WR version. Again, the optics are the same. The K-7 and some later bodies could be purchased with the WR vesion as a kit lens, but it wasn't around for the K20D and older sealed bodies.

I really like the Pentax-A 50mm f1.4 but you have to know that it's a short telephoto on an APS-C, and requires practice to focus. I took about 500 shots with it in December, it was fun. A more normal "normal" is the DA 35mm f2.4, which is much like the DA-L zooms but pretty good anyway.

Even the finest body around today will sooner or later look terrible as new cameras come out. So you will outgrow anything. Decent lenses will be with you for a while, and hold value if you decide to sell.

I would look at the K-r first. The K-x is quite close in spec. What tips me to the K-r is the better rear LCD, your primary interface.
If you need WR, I suggest the K-7. I'm biased because I bought one. Still, it has the same chassis and build of the K-5. It was the top of the line so it has the top-line features of the time. The K20D is too big for me, has the older rear LCD and no live view. (Live view is much more useful than I thought at first.) A battery grip for the K-7 will work on the K-5II.

I think you could get K-r, 18-55, 55-300, and a prime for $700 with careful shopping.

[Sagitta]

Lenses > The camera they're attached to

You're better off getting a used body and some decent lenses than a new body and some crappy ones.

You can take some wonderful photos with an older DSLR and a good bit of glass attached to it.

Putting a clunker of a lens on a fancy new camera will just give you clunker pictures.

[TheOtherRob]

I am with the crew who suggests getting better glass before getting a good body. Definitely. If it wasn't for the budget.

However....for a beginner on a budget, I reckon spending a big chunk of your start-up on a single bit of good glass is a just a bit perilous.

For a budget of $700 how much good glass can you get while getting a serviceable camera as well? Assuming one scores a good older body for $200 (possible) that leaves $500 for the good glass. How much god glass can you buy with that? More precisely, how much can you buy as a BEGINNER, assuming you don't have a mentor to guide you? Even then, how can you know what type to buy, remembering that the next lens is probably some way off? So, the issue I see with the good glass option for someone starting out is that unless they have a rock solid idea of what they want to do they are just as likely to end up with an expensive lens that doesn't suit their purpose. That's why I suggest cheap glass to explore a wide range of possibilities, and maybe even save some of that initial capital for a tripod, some software or even a course? Good glass is always good... but I think it is over emphasized for beginners. When doing that hard prioritizing under a budget, other stuff should come before that first really good lens.

I think Just1MoreDave Illustrates a good selection of ordinary glass (ie: not necessarily nasty, definitely not "good") with the 18-55, 55-300 and prime. You might just be able to do that if you score a cracker of a deal on the camera and were happy to go with DAL zooms and a manual prime. If you could somehow manage it for the said $700, I would go with that selection over an average body and one good prime (or a good body and ordinary zoom) for someone just starting out with a tight budget. My only gripe is that you could get a really good percentage of that performance at a fraction of the cost. Also, it lacks a tripod and no room for all those little extras like filters, a spare memory card or battery, a lens cleaning kit and all that other stuff that chews at the initial budget.

So I just don't see how "good" glass comes into it if you are looking at a starter kit for under $700. Unless we are talking about some natural prodigy, the beginner will take the same ratio of clunker-to-keepers regardless of whether they are shooting with great gear or cheap gear. That ratio will rise and eventually plateau with cheap gear, at which time the photographer will have a better idea of where to invest the next chunk of change in order to keep growing.

Actually... come to think of it, my final submission to the OP would be don't spend the whole $700... yet. If this truly is your first DSLR, buy a decent older body and kit zoom ( the Pentax DAL18-55 is happily one of the better out there), with a few extra bits for $300 and then go out and shoot a whole bunch of photos. Keep shooting till your technique improves and you get an idea of what you really like doing. Keep the $400 in your pocket and see what you want to get in six month's time with that and whatever you have saved in the meantime. It just might be that cracker prime, after all.

[snake]

As mentioned, I'd simply advise the OP to get the K-30 and a DA35 2.4.

The glass quality is very good. Not superfast, but still good and sharp and good clarity and contrast. The body is very versatile, too. The good high ISO performance will make up for the slightly smaller aperture over the FA35.

The factor here is that the 52mm fixed focal length will force the op to adapt and develop creative compositional techniques and eventually become a joy to use. Once working with that, over time, the OP can assess what the limitations might be and plan additions accordingly. This is the advice I will give all beginners, in fact.

Developing imagination, creativity, and original compositional techniques is invaluable and worth much, much more than just loading up on gear. The OP will be able to focus on what he/she has and then excel at it.

[cpho]

As mentioned, I'd simply advise the OP to get the K-30 and a DA35 2.4.

However, from what I read from OP, he wants a lens for travel shots, landscapes. I think that having an all rounder zoom like the 18-135mm would be a great starting lens.
I'm just wondering if OP is willing to push the boundaries a bit and go for a K-30 + 18-135mm Kit for some $850, because I think that would be the best solution. Wider range, less lenses to lug around, and less money spent.

[snake]

Landscapes can't be done with a prime? People have been doing them with 50mm for a century now.

[Nick Siebers]

Prices from KEH:
k10d - $200
Da16-45 - $254
DA L 55-300 - $205
Leaving a tidy $40 or so to chase an M or A 50/1.7 on the used marketplace

I wouldn't argue with an Ist ds or K100d either, saving about $50 more. But unless you need high ISO, I think one could do a lot of growing with a K10d.

[VisualDarkness]

Prices from KEH:
k10d - $200
Da16-45 - $254
DA L 55-300 - $205
Leaving a tidy $40 or so to chase an M or A 50/1.7 on the used marketplace

I wouldn't argue with an Ist ds or K100d either, saving about $50 more. But unless you need high ISO, I think one could do a lot of growing with a K10d.

That's one heck of a beginner kit, it covers pretty much everything with a decent to very good image quality! The 16-45 deserves better than pentax is treating it and it would make a great "luxury" kit lens if they came out with a WR version.

[northofpolaris]

I'll jump on the cheaper body/better glass boat with everyone else. I sent you a PM with some stuff I have available that would suit your needs. There's a good many lenses from Sigma and Tamron that are a bit better than the standard kit and aren't that much more either. You can also get some nice primes for less than modern AF lenses. When I started out, I had sold the kit lens that came with the camera and did everything manual. It's a steeper learning curve but I felt I got better with focusing my own shots and i rarely use use AF now even though I have modern lenses