[sas.quatch]

Hey guys I have been shooting with Nikon for a while and I was thinking about purchasing a K-7 as the prices have dropped recently. The features of the K-7 for the price just seem like the perfect match for me. The gear I'm currently using is

Nikon D60
18-55mm vr
55-200mm vr
35mm f/1.8
sb-600 flash

I'm thinking about purchasing the new set I'm looking for at Adorama.
Pentax K-7
16-50 f/2.8

Total: Around 1600.00 USD and hopefully I'll get a 50-135 f/2.8 in the future.

What do you guys think?

[alexeyga]

If you've got 1600$ to spend, why don't you upgrade the body to D90 and get a Nikon 17-55 instead? If you'll buy it used, you'll stay within your budget... hell... considering FM-forum's prices, you can even get a slightly used D300s and will still have some money left for a Tamron 17-50/2.8....

[dlacouture]

You'll be hard put to find an affordable 35mm f/1.8 equivalent in Pentax mount... There is the discontinued (thus costly) FA35/2, and the astronomical 31ltd... Sigma also offers a 30mm f/1.4...

Apart from this, the K7 is just a sweet camera!!! Its shutter sound alone is pure ear candy... You'd find it a real upgrade from the D60... I personally also prefer it to the D80/D90 bodies, it's just less "plasticky" (yeah, I know, easy shot, it has an alloy body), with a more firm feeling of the wheels and buttons.

And you'll never fear rain anymore...

[er1kksen]

I'd be giving the D90 a good hard look if I were you. It has its pros and cons relative to the K-7, obviously, but which of those pros or cons is more important is entirely up to you.

[sas.quatch]

Thanks for the suggestions, I will look into upgrading the body to a D90 since the prices have been going down on that as well.

[johnmflores]

If your heart's set on spending $1600, look at the D300 as well.

But if you really like the small form factor of the D60, then the K7 or the even smaller K-x might be the ticket. For the same $1600, you can get the K-x with the two kit lenses (18-55 and 55-300) plus a couple of the Limited pancake primes. The K-x with the DA40 is a wonderfully compact package.

Why, if I may ask, are you looking to switch? If you let us know what kind of photos you like taking, then we can help steer you to possible Pentax solutions...

[sas.quatch]

I'm interested in landscape photography as well as a backup wedding photographer as a future goal. I was looking at Pentax due to the prices of the 50-135 f/2.8 lens which is much cheaper than the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. The reason I'm moving away from the D60 is because of the limited choice of lenses I have to pick from that suits my budget.

[yeatzee]

I was looking at Pentax due to the prices of the 50-135 f/2.8 lens which is much cheaper than the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8.

My buddy, a nikonian, told me he planned on getting the new Nikon 70-200mm VR II. I asked how much and soon after my face turned to --->

Thats one insanely expensive lens! I see canon has decided to throw their new 70-200 in that astronomical price range too. Little ol me hasn't spent more than $400 on any single lens..... though that might change

[aleonx3]

I'm interested in landscape photography as well as a backup wedding photographer as a future goal. I was looking at Pentax due to the prices of the 50-135 f/2.8 lens which is much cheaper than the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. The reason I'm moving away from the D60 is because of the limited choice of lenses I have to pick from that suits my budget.

I agree with Johnmflores, if you are not minding bigger camera bodies like D300, you may be better off staying with Nikon since you already have some lenses. But if you are looking for something more "stealth" and easier on your shoulder when you travel, Pentax K-7 and Olympus E-3 (though I am not too hot on the ergonomics of this one) are the ones that you may want to pursue. Either way, before you are fully commited, you can always sell the equipment and move on.

[aleonx3]

My buddy, a nikonian, told me he planned on getting the new Nikon 70-200mm VR II. I asked how much and soon after my face turned to --->

Thats one insanely expensive lens! I see canon has decided to throw their new 70-200 in that astronomical price range too. Little ol me hasn't spent more than $400 on any single lens..... though that might change

I was fortunate to grap the FA 31mm and 50-135mm 2.8 for 800 each before price hike last year - my FA 43mm was only 375.

[PentaxPoke]

If you've got 1600$ to spend, why don't you upgrade the body to D90 and get a Nikon 17-55 instead? If you'll buy it used, you'll stay within your budget... hell... considering FM-forum's prices, you can even get a slightly used D300s and will still have some money left for a Tamron 17-50/2.8....

I agree with this recommendation. Seems like a waste of money unless you have some compelling reason to switch.

[Rondec]

It can cost a lot of money to switch systems. As others have mentioned, it is better to evaluate carefully whether there is something about Pentax that you want that Nikon doesn't offer. For most people who come to Pentax, it is smaller primes. Also, on the Nikon side of things, their zooms are quite expensive (but also very good). The 50-135 is a sweet lens and currently is half the price of the 70-200 VRII. It also focuses a lot slower, if that matters to you.

[dlacouture]

Another contendant for the Nikon 70-200 is the tamron 70-200, way cheaper, but at least as sharp (and heavy!).
Don't know about focusing, albeit it's quite fast on my k7...

[rustynail925]

I'm interested in landscape photography as well as a backup wedding photographer as a future goal. I was looking at Pentax due to the prices of the 50-135 f/2.8 lens which is much cheaper than the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8. The reason I'm moving away from the D60 is because of the limited choice of lenses I have to pick from that suits my budget.

Seems like price of the lens is the reason why you want to change systems.
16-50 and 50-135 have SDM problems w/c have not been resolved by Pentax yet. For now stick w/ nikon you have already invested on the system.
For $1600 ill take the D90 85 1.8 and the 50 1.4

[Rondec]

Another contendant for the Nikon 70-200 is the tamron 70-200, way cheaper, but at least as sharp (and heavy!).
Don't know about focusing, albeit it's quite fast on my k7...

I think the Tamron on Nikon mount has an in lens motor that is unfortunately quite prone to failure. Just for what it is worth. The K mount version does not have this and is screw driven -- seems to hold up a little better.