I've read through this thread so I have some idea of where your thinking has gone as you read other replies. I'm not an expert and don't know everything, so take my answer with a grain of salt. I shot film cameras for decades, but while I got a digital P&S in the mid-2000s, I didn't get a DSLR until the late 2000s, a K100D (same camera as yours but with internal anti-shake). I've been very happy with it, although it of course is more complicated than any film SLR. Still, I set it up as I wished, and do a lot of manual shooting with it. I had two digital lenses and a decent-sized collection of older manual-focus lenses. This year I decided to get a second body (and a third DA lens).
I am not a pixel chaser, as I don't do large, printed photos. Most of my stuff is for the computer, or regular-size prints on occasion. I wasn't going to pay a lot extra just to have a gazillion more mega-pixels; it is not worth it to me. More photographers than not are pixel chasers, and only you can decide how much this matters to you. I decided I would likely end up with more pixels, but it was not a priority.
I also have been happy with the CCD sensor in my K100D. After talking to many people, and reading reviews, I decided I was probably going to be happy with a second camera that still used the CCD, rather than going with the different CMOS sensor. This also is highly personal. Do you want another camera that will give you color rendition that is similar to what you are used to, that is reasonably predictable, or do you want a camera that is a good bit different, and which will require a real learning curve as you adjust to the different sensor? Many folks will tell you CMOS is better. Others will say CMOS in general may be better, but that the early collaboration between Pentax and Samsung resulted in something of a questionable result--not my opinion but one I read on respectable review sites so worth mentioning. Still others say they simply liked the way the CCD rendered color. I decided I wanted a second camera with some improved features over my K100D, but I planned to use both cameras indefinitely. As I'm a senior, I wanted a kit of two cameras that could conceivably last me as long as I want to take photos, without the need to upgrade every five minutes. Or years. :D So between a few cameras I identified, and had recommended to me, I decided I wanted to stay with the familiar CCD sensor.
What did I want? Weather-sealing sounded worthwhile. Why, since my older lenses didn't have it? Well, I wasn't going to go out into gale force storms, but light rain or just being around water was sure possible. A lens might leak, but a lens can be replaced--with another lens already in the bag. To me the camera itself is the core of my kit, and thus weather sealing is more important there.
I also wanted a camera with ISO 100 sensitivity, my K100D only goes down to 200. People get excited about higher ISOs and performance in those ranges, but I shoot the vast majority of my stuff at low ISOs. I shoot mostly still life (indoors and out), portraits, and landscapes, for whatever that's worth, but I have never been one, even in my film days, to routinely shoot above 400 ISO. I can find other ways to get the exposure I want without jumping to a higher ISO all the time. Everyone is different, but I read so many complaints about this camera or that having problems with noise at higher ISOs. And it seems many of the same folks are recommending high megapixel cameras, which of course cram more pixels on the same size sensor, which automatically increases noise. It seems self-defeating.
I started looking hard at the K10D, which I see you've started to favor, and ended up buying one. It checked the boxes I wanted above, and it also offered other features over my K100D, including a Pentaprism instead of a Pentamirror viewfinder. It has quicker autofocus than my K100D even with manual lenses. It's a good deal larger, and seems like a brute that can take on any assignment. It has a worthwhile addition of features over the already capable K100D, yet the external features look very much the same--close enough that there has been no great learning curve in that regard. Just a couple things like a dedicated button for turning on the RAW setting in case I want to shoot RAW while in mid-shooting. Speaking of RAW, the K10D will do both the Pentax and the Adobe standard on RAW, which is new. Oh, and it takes Lithium-ion batteries, which are great. The K10D also comes with a charger for the batteries, which are readily available. That I also have my K100D which takes AA means I always have a camera which will power up, though I believe I will have two.
I purchased my K10D from a camera store used in June 2016, rated as EX+. When I got it I could have called it Mint. It came with one original battery plus the charger (I bought two more batteries from Amazon). My cost was $135. How can you beat that? I paid more for my K100D a few years ago, though of course that makes sense. :lol:
Those are my opinions, not to be misinterpreted as facts from upon high! Enjoy the hunt!
--Mark
