[*isteve]

So you have buyers remorse?

Spec sheets change every day. The next Pentax will have all the features and so on. Its a never ending cycle.

Neither the K7 nor the D300s are really suitable for first time SLR users. Doesn't mean you can use them, just that its a bit like having flying lessons in a 747. Why make it so hard on yourself?

The fact you even have to ask the question rather gives it away.

Buy something cheap, learn about DSLRs, your style, figure out whats important, and THEN trade it all for something you really want when you actually know.

None of us can tell you. Its as personal as cars.

Thank you for all the replies, great feedback and information. Some background data, I've been a mid-level user of Point and Shoot for the last 15 years, I've owned Canon G8, G9 and G10 during the last 3 to 4 years, I want to jump into the next level, DSLR, I've been searching the market for the last 4 to 6 weeks, the main reasons why I bought the K-7 are:

- Small size
- Weather Resistant (WR) camera and lenses
- Great set of features
- Quality and construction
- In body Vibration Reduction (VR)
- Great forum to share experiences

Why I am considering to return the K-7 and buy a D300s:

- Better video with Auto Focus (AF) while filming
- Double memory card (1 for video, 1 for pictures)
- Advanced set of features and customization
- Brand (easy access to third party accessories and books online)
- Availability of lenses and parts at the local stores (try and test them)
- Rugged construction (similar to the K-7)
- Wider selection of lenses (prime, zoom and macro)
- Bigger community of forums and discussion boards

I am not super concerned about the cost, this is a long term investment, so in the long term it will not really matter.

[Pentaxor]

Thanks Jason, I do not have Glass at all, neither Pentax or Nikon, I am just starting this new DSLR adventure, so I do not have any entry barrier from the Lenses point of view.

Please excuse my ignorance, what do you mean by IQ ?, and how the K-7/D300s are better or worse in that respect ?, thanks again

Brosen, this is exactly the point that I was trying to point out. IQ means Image quality. since you are just about to enjoy your new journey to the dslr way of life, things could be tricky. the distinction between cameras and lenses results may not be clear or evident to you at all. unless you have fully learned about the mechanics of the dslr life, jumping ship "WILL NOT" solve your dilemma. camera specifications maybe helpful in a way in determining a camera of your choosing. but it can also be distracting and could cause a problem by adding confusion to the mix with your decision. there are just endless debate and endless production of new cameras every year. so the notion of having one camera that you think you could use for a long term investment is rather unstable.

what if there is a new camera which is so much more better than the K-7/D300s that comes out next year? wouldn't that tempt you or raise that question again?
money may not be an issue for now or may not be at all, if you are capable/willing to spend more than 500 bucks to more than a 1,000 bucks for every lens purchase. mind you that highend VR Nikkor lenses cost a lot of dough. and I think you haven't developed an LBA yet that could prove costly. weight may not be an issue or could be. space and carry-all with your gears may not be an issue or could be. these are just the other concerns that you need to face.

you could go Nikon for now, and learn about the dlsr life until such time you would know the different factors that defines one particular gadget over the other. or you may choose to stay here and learn about the dslr life in a different/ mixed perspective.

[Vormulac]

Well, in terms of image quality, as I mentioned above, it was the K-7 that had the upper hand due to the superior noise levels. Don't get me wrong, the shots coming off the D300s were fine - better than that, they were really good - but the K-7 had the edge.

[Urkeldaedalus]

Today I was playing with the Nikon D300S, really a great camera, it's not as big as I expected, think about switching to the Nikon from the K-7, any thoughts ?, I am not 100% sure yet ?, I have not had that much time to fully explore D300S options and features, feedback is welcome, thanks

Being that you don't know what you want exactly, and are leaning toward the D300S, I'd say go with your gut with this one. You seem to like the D300S, so I say pick one up and make the switch. They are both fine cameras that can get you great results over time. If I were to switch to Nikon and cost was not a problem, I'd probably pick up a Nikon D700 rather than a D300S; while if I wanted the best HD video with autofocus I'd get a Panasonic GH1. But I'm not you, so that is just another piece of advice that might lead you astray

[flyer]

Why I am considering to return the K-7 and buy a D300s:

- Better video with Auto Focus (AF) while filming
- Double memory card (1 for video, 1 for pictures)
- Advanced set of features and customization
- Brand (easy access to third party accessories and books online)
- Availability of lenses and parts at the local stores (try and test them)
- Rugged construction (similar to the K-7)
- Wider selection of lenses (prime, zoom and macro)
- Bigger community of forums and discussion boards

I am not super concerned about the cost, this is a long term investment, so in the long term it will not really matter.

-The AF while in video made is contrast detect, so it is jerky and not that useful. Pentax had it enabled in the pre-production K7 and turned it off in producton model due to jerkiness.
-Double memory card doesn't really bring anything more, just more storage and bulkiness.
-Advanced features and customization. The K7 is NOT lagging behind. In some cases, it is superior to the D300s
-Lenses in local stores. It depends upon your local stores. Good stores will have Pentax mount lenses. Maybe it's time to look for a decent store.
-Rugged construction. Advantage to K7 with a stainless steel subframe.
-As for prime, the advantage is still for Pentax. The Nikon primes are leftover from the silver era. They haven't even been optimized for digital. They are usable, but they lag behind Pentax. The DA* zooms from Pentax can hold their own against just about any other brand.
-If you buy a camera based only on forum community, well...

If you want to go Nikon, well a lot of people like to brag about their Nikon or Canon. That doesn't mean they are better photographer because of that. A hammer is a hammer. If you use it properly, you will be able to build a house with just about any decent brand.

[B Grace]

Brosen, I would also suggest you shoot with your K7 for a few years. Buying excellent Pentax lenses is as easy today as it's ever been and with the money you would sink into the D300s alone you can build a nice Pentax kit.

While I've used Pentax gear for many years, I've only used Nikon gear for a little over eight years but my take on Nikon is you have three choices. The low end Nikkors are relatively inexpensive but they don't offer a compelling reason to sell the camera you already have. The mid-level Nikkors such as the 16-85 and 70-300 are excellent lenses and would be nice on the D300s but they would seem to be matched by the upper level Pentax lenses. Finally, the pro-grade Nikkors such as the 17-35 (the D300s is a DX camera) and the 70-200 are some of the nicest lenses on the market but they're very big and heavy in relationship to the size of sensor you'd be using. Plus, those two will set you back about $3K US in addition to the camera. The image quality offered by the super pro-grade Nikkors such as the 14-24 and 24-70 make even the Canon guys weak in the knees but all good things come with very steep prices. If you were considering trading for the D700, 24-70 and the new 70-200, I would say, yes, you'll see a significant improvement in IQ over the K7.

You can make some amazing selections in the Pentax lens range with $3K US.

[bymy141]

Thanks Jason, I do not have Glass at all, neither Pentax or Nikon, I am just starting this new DSLR adventure, so I do not have any entry barrier from the Lenses point of view.

Please excuse my ignorance, what do you mean by IQ ?, and how the K-7/D300s are better or worse in that respect ?, thanks again

Brosen,

I would like to point out the following:
If you would read many of the posts here in this forum or elsewhere, you'll find that there is a large number of people who bougth a DSLR and are disappointed by the results.

Understanding where these posters were coming from, most of them did not understand that buying quality lenses is much more important than the camera.
Also most of them do not have (had) enough knowledge and experience to understand the effects of what they were doing.

If you own a DSLR, I'd rather say: any DSLR, you will have a camera with a LARGE sensor (relative to point & shoot cameras).
The effect of this is that lenses are also big with a lot of glass. Big lenses are 1) expensive and 2) heavy.
Fortunatly lenses have economic life spans of many, many years. In Pentax case many decades.

A very big mistake often made is that people spend a lot of money on the electronics (body) and too little on glass. Small, light zooms with a lot of range do not deliver the same results as primes, or, big, light sensitive lenses with good optical quality.

As it has been pointed out in the thread before, features and specs will change fast. If you buy a camera now, there will be a better / cheaper one in 6 months, a D400 or a K-8 etc. Glass will stay much longer.
Also, the IQ impact of $500 spend extra on a good lens, is IMHO much bigger than the impact of $500 spend extra on a DSLR body.

My advise to you is: buy a proper camera that is easy to master (go try the K-x!!) and get yourself a few GOOD lenses and a few GOOD books.
Then take your time to learn, after that while you have been saving, spend some serious money on a new, more complex body, more lenses and proper piece post processing software (yes, software as well is extremely important).
You are not buying a camera here, you are buying a system....

For what it is worth, I almost bougth a D300 this summer, but ended up with a K-7 and 3 new lenses instead, after I investigated the total cost of all the Nikon lenses I wanted to go with that D300.

- Bert

[knoxploration]

Why I am considering to return the K-7 and buy a D300s

Expect to be charged a restocking fee for returning a product that's in perfect working order just because you didn't research it properly before buying it... (Pet peeve of mine - people like you put prices up for the rest of us. Retailers aren't libraries, you don't check products out and then return them at will).

If you return that camera, the retailer can no longer legally sell it as new. Somebody either has to pay for it to be refurbished (and it *still* can't be sold as new), or sell it as-is for an even greater loss in value. Either way, they're out money because you didn't make the effort to choose the product you actually wanted before buying it. In a fair world, what you should be doing is not returning the camera, but selling it on second-hand yourself and taking the hit on the cost yourself.

With that said, I highly doubt you'll be satisfied with the D300s either - you almost certainly are suffering from greener grass syndrome:

* Better video with Auto Focus (AF) while filming <-- AF while filming will show up on both the video and audio tracks (slow, noisy likely to disrupt exposure - how badly will vary from lens to lens). Yes, the D300s has slightly higher video res, but frankly if you needed full HD you'd have known that before buying.

* Double memory card (1 for video, 1 for pictures) <-- Another one you knew before buying, so if the K-7's single slot was good enough for you then, why isn't it now?

* Advanced set of features and customization <-- Meaningless. What advanced features and customisation is the K-7 lacking? It's an incredibly customisable camera, and even more so with the latest firmware update applied.

* Brand (easy access to third party accessories and books online) <-- Again, you knew what brand you were buying ahead of time, and knew they had a smaller market share ahead of time. There's still loads of third-party accessories available for Pentax, and I'm personally aware of several books for this specific camera model.

* Rugged construction (similar to the K-7) <-- so in other words, no advantage over the K-7 here. (In fact, the K-7 still has the advantage in that a fully-weather sealed body and lens system is available using consumer-grade lenses, rather than just the pro glass - and the K-7 also has better cold resistance).

* Wider selection of lenses (prime, zoom and macro) <-- Every lens manufacturer has gaps in its lineup. How many Nikon primes were designed for digital? What gaps in the zoom range do you see? (Even without third-party or discontinued glass, you can easily cover 10mm to 300mm nearly uninterrupted with three lenses, or completely uninterrupted with four lenses - and almost no duplication of zoom ranges.)

* Bigger community of forums and discussion boards <-- so you bought the K-7 in part because of this great forum, and yet somehow you only just realised that there are more Nikon forums out there than Pentax? Seems unlikely.

* Availability of lenses and parts at the local stores (try and test them) <-- seems to me that this is the only real point on your list. Is it worth an extra $700 or so body-only, to you?

[reeftool]

I can't add too much to the comments already stated. I will make one note fo the lens availability issue in stores. If you live in a small town/rural area like I do you will probably notice some Nikon and Canon lenses in places like Best Buy. They probably have a couple of zooms of different lengths and they are likely the "consumer" models. While not bad, I think Pentax glass is superior and priced much, much better even counting in the recent price hikes. If you live in the city and have a camera store that carrys a large variety of lenses you are very fortunate as most of us have to rely on mail order/internet for everything we buy regardless of camera brand. The D300s is a fine camera but be prepared to pay nearly double or more by the time you are done building your kit.

[solar1]

Hi Brosen,

Without any doubt the D300s is a very good camera, but of a level and complexity likely far beyond anything you may have experienced.

from D300 review at imaging-resource.com: "Analysis. As I mentioned at the outset, the Nikon D300 is not a digital SLR camera for those who just want to dabble in photography. Neither is it for those who just like having the latest, coolest-looking camera hanging around their neck. Tyros need not apply. Seriously, snapshooters should steer clear. I hate to put it that way, but it's the truth. You can lock it in program and get good shots much of the time, but the Nikon D300 will do the equivalent of bucking you to the dirt if you mess with it without checking the manual to understand what you're doing."

Like the K-7, there are no scene modes that on average makes point and shoot photography an easy affair for most shooters. Be prepared for the inevitable steep learning curve, and if you persist and have that insatiable desire to learn, either camera will be far beyond the capability to your p&s... but, much more to do to get to finished form - dealing with post processing etc. Basically, it's more work. You can of course stick to JPEG's too. Best to you and your new found desire to learn a different way of shooting.

[Pentaxor]

Brosen, pardon me but I did some digging with your previous posts. it is apparent that you had been on a jumping expedition from camera to camera too quickly/frequently lately. from D90 to K-7 to D300s, I wonder what camera is up next. and you did this alone because you see something in the camera and not what you need for photography or anything like that for that matter. your decision has nothing to do with photography honestly speaking but more of a camera fetish. because if you were concerned about photography really, you would had shot some pictures with your K-7 right now and tried to workout the cam. probably you have spended more time being on the camera store rather than spending time shooting with your camera.

pardon me, but that is an itch that you need to cure immediately. otherwise you'd be changing system every 3 months or so without doing nothing in regards to photography.

[Eruditass]

When did you get your K-7??

Slow down, buy/rent some glass, and take some pictures, whether it be with Pentax or Nikon. Both cameras are highly capable, I doubt that you would be dissapointed with Pentax if you actually tried out some lenses, unless you are doing something quite extreme.

But if you, personally, would be happier to take pictures with a D300s, go do that. Just don't be a grass is greener guy. And I prefer the smaller more tight-knit community of Pentax than other brands.

[Michael Barker]

Until Nikon implements SR in their cameras, switching from Pentax to Nikon will be a step backwards in my book.

I feel the same way sometimes, but wow - how quickly marketing has made SR a necessity.

It's amazing how much relative mileage I get out of a film SLR with ISO400 and a couple of moderate focal length, decently fast lenses.

[pcarfan]

If you decide to go with Nikon, there is a set up for sale right here (no affiliations to the seller)

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographers-marketplace/76711-sale-trad...ass-flash.html

[Wheatfield]

Not being able to store your RAW natively in DNG straight from camera is also another Nikon drag. Damn all these NEF's and PEF's and CRW's. Jumping systems too often means you can end up with an alphabet soup of RAW file formats to work with and/or archive.

At least them you don't get too many file name overlaps....