Most Tokina lenses are not available for PK - but a few own-brand Pentax lenses (16-50 DA*, 50-135 DA*) are reworked Tokina designs, so you can get them... only with a Pentax name on the front!

I think other manufacturers do similar things. For example variations of the Tamron 18-250 were available as both Pentax and Sony branded lenses (the latter being more extensively reworked but also more expensive than the other two).

I hate to say it on this forum, but if you think you will want FF, and if you have good lenses already in Minolta fit, would it be possible to stretch to the Sony FF body now? I know it's not a Pentax, but despite that it's supposed to be very good! People moan about high ISO noise but I suspect that it's going to perform perfectly acceptably until at least ISO1600.

Chris - buy the 18-55 WR kit lens from SRS too - I think it's £79 now, and will be good on occasions when you don't want to risk taking out the 16-45.

Jon

In overall terms, yes and no!!!

Sony has a better rear LCD (the one that has now become standard issue on most higher end dSLRs), and possibly a more sophisticated exposure system. It is slightly lighter.

Samsung/Pentax has a top LCD (really useful and saves battery), some unique modes (eg TAv where you set the aperture and shutter speed and the camera sorts out the ISO), live view (although not a great implementation) and more robust weather-sealed build. It is also higher resolution, and the sensor put in the GX20/K20D is capable of outstanding results and tonality. You'd have to pick them both up to try, but generally the handling of Pentax/Samsung cameras is about as good as it gets: they fit your hand brilliantly. I find the button placement on some Sony's to be a little odd.

Talking of handling, if you are still going down the Samsung route, you might want to try and pick up the Samsung battery grip too, while they're still available - the grip is a nice addition, handles well, doubles your power, and brilliant for portrait shots.

Yes.

Got one with K-7. With first copy I was less than impressed - it was significantly less sharp than my DA AL II 18-55 lens.

But excellent service from SRS gave me a replacement WR lens within a couple of days - and this one performs just as well as the DA AL II. After a blip along the way, I'm very happy now - and at the price that they are now selling for, I think they're a pretty good bargain (on the assumption my first experience was an unfortunate one-off).

Mike is right - if I didn't have this lens already I'd snap this one up at that price - great IQ and weatherproof too!

Fantastic deal. Now you can move on to lots of angst about which lenses to buy next

Talking of which - do yourself a favour and buy the DA Ltd 70mm to stick in your pocket when you go out with your new kit - it'll complement the 16-45 beautifully for occasions when you need a longer focal length!

Others will be able to confirm but I believe the Samsung lenses are all rebadged Pentax. There may be claims about different lens coatings, but I would be surprised if they were substantiated.

The one thing I would caution against is buying the Samsung 18-55 kit lens, as I don't beleive they upgraded it to the same standard as Pentax's DA AL II version (a significant improvement, carried into the WR lens too).

From a quick look just now, the cheapest way you could get the combination you want is:

(1) buy the Samsung GX20 plus 18-55 (ignore what I said above!) from Park Cameras for £549
(2) buy the Pentax 16-45 from SRS Microsystems for stunning price of £229
(3) try selling the 18-55 on this forum - you might get around £25-£30 for it

If the Pentax brand and appeals more (and I think the general view is that K20D JPEGs were slightly better than GX20), Park are selling them body only for £579.

I'd try and negotiate... K20D from Park plus 16-45 from SRS would cost £808. Why not see if Park can match or better that price and avoid buying from separate suppliers? I'd recommend SRS but they appear to be out of stock of K20Ds at present.

Chris - one more suggestion. If you want to have a look for yourself at what these cameras and lenses are capable of doing, take a look a the pentaxphotogallery.com website, which allows you to search eg by image genre, camera type and lens type.

The main conclusion - good photographers will be able to make great photographs whatever kit they use (at least within reason). Look for the results using the old 6MP bodies and kit lens to see what I mean.

So to me, unless you have specific requirements such as fast AF and frame rate for sport photography, that means buy the camera that feels right to you when you pick it up - because you'll want to use it more. They're nearly all capable of good photographs nowadays!

People rate the 16-45 very highly - but I don't think it is weather sealed, so that may be an issue for you?

One option to supplement it would be to get the 18-55 WR kit lens which weighs nothing and is a great option for grot weather (should be able to get one for less than £100 now).

Another non weather-sealed lens you may wish to consider is the Pentax 17-70 - very highly rated by owners and possibly the most versatile of the standard zooms. The same focal range can also be had at less cost with the Sigma 17-70 (I have this one), which is very nicely made and gives great results at a reasonable price. People who have compared the two tend to be happier with the colours and contrast from the Pentax lens, but the Sigma is still a great performer and mine produces incredibly sharp results (but sharpness isn't everything).

For the telephoto zoom, probably the best compromise between price and quality is the Pentax 55-300 - which out-performs Sigma's 70-300 at the longer lengths and has less purple fringing than the Tamron 70-300. Quality wise, it is built to a decent standard (similar to the kit lens), but the image quality is probably better than you would expect at the price.

Good sites for lens reviews include SLRgear.com and Photozone.de.

Hope this helps!

I find the K-7 does really well in RAW. I've struggled to get JPEGs from it that are as good as those I got from the K20D, whereas the noise from K-7 RAW files has less chroma and more luminance (compared to K20D and compared to K-7 JPEGs) - more pleasant and easier to process.