Originally posted by totsmuyco I would say the d7200 matches the k-3/II. The k-70 is being matched by others with the d5500 but I think the k-70 is more superior except for AF. But like I said, the prices of Pentax here is exorbitant. I honestly think that the k-70 has no equivalent in Nikon. I'd say the ks2 is about the same as d5300 but the k-70 is above it. The d7500 should match the upcoming k-3II replacement. The KP I think is above the k-70 but lower in terms of features with the d7500. So I'm assuming it has no equivalent in Nikon. Those are just my own assessments. Image quality wise it's a different story, KP wins.
This kind of statement is pretty much nonsense. IN body SR for all your lenses, Pixel Shift, astrotracer. There is no Nikon camera anywhere that matches it. For me the nail in the coffin for Nikon was when the D800 came out. They had a shot of an old Library somewhere that was fantastic. Enough to sell the camera. Then they admitted and I don't know why, that because of shutter shock or whatever, they had to go back 7 times, to get a shot I could have nailed hand held. The difference being, all my Pentax lenses even m42 lenses benefit from shake reduction. I can use any film era lens I want with the full capability of the lens as it was manufactured, plus shake reduction.
Simply, Nikons don't do everything Pentax does, Pentax's don't do what Nikons do, but for my use, Pentax's are better at what Nikons do best than Nikons are at what Pentax does best. So looking at it from that perspective, if you depend on what Pentax does best, the above comparisons look ridiculous. I'm one of those guys who's built his whole style on mobility, ruggedness, shooting on the fly. In the field, I've seen Nikons fail and Canons fail. Sony's are so flimsy I refuse to even consider them.
Other companies compare with Pentax, only if you don't consider build quality, WR and durability.
When I see these kinds of comparisons it usually mean the poster just did a cursory comparison without much thought.
The SR in the 18-140 is 3-4 stops, 5 in the Pentax.
But the biggest thing against the Nikon would appear to be no water residence. If there is one major gripe based on my own shooting style this is it. I simply will not buy a zoom without water resistance. WR adds so much of a "quality" feel to a lens I'm somewhat amazed other manufacturers haven't clued in.
My latest, Pentax lens purchases, DAF 100 macro, DFA 28-105, DA* 200, DA*55 1.4 to complement my DA*60-250 and DA 18-135. Where I go, non-WR lenses are an un-nessesary risk. So, you can say the Nikon is cheaper, but you get what you pay for. And the Nikon 18-140, I wouldn't pay for. It's only cheaper if it meets your minimum specs, and it doesn't. So you can buy the Nikon for cheaper, but for me it would be wasted money. A lens that would sit on my shelf most of the time. My DA 18-135 goes with me at least half the time.
So whether you consider the Nikon 18-140 a better buy than the DA 18-135, depends entirely on whether you'd pay a dime for the Nikon. If part of the cheap price was I had to keep it for 5 years, I'd pass. The issue is not that the Nikon is cheaper, its that you can't get a DA 18-135 equivalent from Nikon. Just looking at this one example makes the Nikon D7200 unacceptable and not at all comparable. My favourite most used lens is not of acceptable quality from Nikon. The only way you make it acceptable is by giving up important (to me) features.
And this got even more pronounced with the DA 55-300 PLM. For $500, a lightweight, quick focussing WR lens perfect for the hiker or out doors type shooter, rated on at least one site as best in class.
The Nikons look better, or equal only if you don't appreciate the unique things Pentax has to offer.