Which one?

Ok here goes. I have had a merry go round with dslr's and currently do not own one. I sold my last one and bought a Panasonic FZ150 which I can only describe as a revelation. However I now want to buy a DSLR for the rainy days which living in the Isle of Lewis we get now and again .
So to my question, which of the Pentax's would be best.
I hope to use a 16-45 and possibly a 55-300. My budget would be around £300 for a body so the K5 is out then, but what about a K20D ?, K200 seems to have vanished second hand so guess the only other option is a K7 which I am unsure of. Any advice would be welcome.

Considering your location, then weather resistance would seem appropriate!

The K20D would be ideal as a lower cost option, or even the K10D if your choice is limited by availability.

As for lenses, any of the weather resistant kit lenses or star lenses.

If possible then, K20D with WR 18-55mm and 50-200mm lenses. The 16-45mm and 55-300mm are not WR, although if that isn't an issue they would be a superior choice. The 18-135mm WR is also excellent, but perhaps beyond the price levels you had in mind.

Many thanks for the advice John. I love the build quality of the 18 55 WR,has to be the most solid kit lens available.
What is the opinion on the K7 ? seen some for a good price but unsure of any issues.

This is just a personal point if view, but I actually prefer the layout of the K20D. The K-7 didn't seem enough of a step up for me to take it up. I had to wait for the K-5 until I was happy that I could gain something from the upgrade. I often leapfrog upgrades, perhaps buying every other model improvement rather than all of them.

Taken in isolation though, the K-7 is fine. It would make a better match when paired with the K-5, for example, as it uses the same battery and the layout is the same.

Hi Donald,

Like John pointed out, the lenses you have mentioned won't serve your purpose. If you have a WR body, it's better you have WR lenses too for the rainy days. I have a K-7 which is great. I am planning to upgrade to a K-5 and looking to sell off my K-7 to finance the K-5 purchase. PM me for further details, if interested. I am looking for £ 350 for the body. Can negotiate.

Regards,

Jeeess

I preferred the K-7 over the K20D.

The ISO performance was ever so slightly inferior on the K-7 but was more than made up for by the faster AF, better live view and the fact it has video (important to some).

Agree with Mike. There are more pros than cons to buying the K7 over the K20D. It is an excellent camera if you don't go over ISO 800 though there are workarounds in PP that make 1,600 and 3,200 usable.

Sold the K7 for the K5 but still have lots of great images to remember the K7 by.

I went from the *istDS to a K7, so skipped a few models before upgrading
The K7 is a great camera, solid as a rock, very comfortable in the hand and even better with a battery grip, it really feels the business with a grip fitted.
The K5 is slightly better (they'd not release a new model that was inferior to the last) but that doesn't mean the K7 is suddenly not a good camera. If you can get hold of a well priced and reliable used K7 then go for it.

Given the 3 stop increase in ISO performance and greater dynamic range I'd contend the word 'slightly'. But it is subjective after all

You have too high an opinion of yourself Mr Smegg, your veiled hostility is unwelcome. Heck my post was not even addressed to you.

Seemed a good natured comment to me, Steve.

You'll get used to Smeggy's schtick in time!

Ditto.

I think that is true Steve. Seems you have misconstrued his intent.

And I agree with you both, the K7 is a truly excellent camera but the K5 is one huge leap ahead.

If you can get it for 300.00, the K7 is an amazing camera for that sort of money; and if you do find yourself able to afford a K5 in the future, the handling and accessories (e.g. batteries, grips) will be the same.

The K5 is by all reports much better than the K20/K7 in IQ terms, but not yet within your budget. In good light or with flash, you'll not see much difference though, except where you need to pull a lot of detail out of the shadows.

You can make superb photos with a K7, you really really can. I've only felt held back a few times with one (the forced dfs in startrails and underexposure noise). And at £300 that's a bargain for a rock solid piece of kit. But it slightly depends on what sort of photography you do, if high ISO stuff is a priority maybe go for a used k-x or k-r, if focus speed a priority (ie sports) look for used k-5.

Ok,many thanks for the interesting replies. Putting weather proofing to one side would there be any advantage in getting the K5 over the K-R. I should add that 95% of my shots are landscape at base ISO.