You can't go wrong with the Pentax. They are not the #1 or #2 in terms of sales volume, but their products are first-rate and their prices are very attactive. My son has a Pentax *ist DL and I use a Nikon D70 and we go out a lot together to shoot and we also print our photos on my printer and I can tell you there is not any difference in the quality of the images as far as I can tell. Go out and try the cameras that you are interested in and if they feel good in your hand and convenient to use, go ahead and enjoy.

As a Pentax film shooter looking for inspiration to go digital, I think I'm finding it: http://stage.popphoto2006.popphoto.com/cameras/2991/pentax-takes-quantum-leap-with-new-k10d.html

Quote:
pentax has been around for years but correct me if i'm wrong as i am a newbie, it seems to me that they are not that prominent in the camera world compared to cannon or nikon.

Pentax chose to not compete across the whole spectrum of photographers, but to concentrate on the entry-level and consumer market for the most part - both with 35mm and digital. Even their medium-format equipment is quite affordable, representing excellent value for the money.

Wave after wave of photography students over the decades have learned by using Pentax cameras.

Understand, that the main difference between enthusiast cameras and professional cameras traditionally, has been the robustness of the build. While it is rare that an enthusiast would ever wear out a camera, a working photographer would likely go through two or three Pentaxes per year. Every time one was nearly worn out, there would be the potential for blowing a shoot and losing a client.

A Nikon F-series or top Canon EOS may go a quarter to half a million exposures before needing overhaul, and probably would be good for that again. Pro cameras are too expensive for enthusiasts, and entry level cameras are too expensive for working shooters.

Digital has altered the equation somewhat. Robustness is still a factor in the top cameras, but generally they will become obsolete before they wear out. High-end cameras have high-end features like full frame sensors, highly programmable, low noise and high resolution. They are also expected to pay for themselves quickly. They give an edge in extreme shooting conditions. Enthusiasts are rarely drawn to this level of challenge, so these cameras represent very poor value to the enthusiast. They become obsolete just as quickly no matter who is using them, and the depreciation is immense. No one even WANTS a Nikon D1, even though it was state of the art when new.

The digital cameras clustered between $500 and $1,200 - again - represent very good value to the hobby shooter.

you mention the D1, that has me thinking of the possibility of picking up a camera as such or 1 of the older but good brands at a very reasonable price possibly.

with the D1 having just 2.7 megs would that be a problem.

but i do like the idea of spending less cash(yea i'm cheap) for the first dslr, learn all aspects of the cameras,learn all the lighting, composition & such associated with cameras, then apply the money saved toward lenses.

then later down the road buy a better updated camera.

Quote:
with the D1 having just 2.7 megs would that be a problem.

This depends entirely on how you intend to use the images. I've been making nice 8x10 prints from my 3.3mp Nikon 880 P&S for years. But that's for my own pleasure, not for sale.

The D1 can be found on eBay in the $250 range. It's a great camera for a collector, but I can't help but recommend against it for someone who's taking the plunge into the SLR world. You can get an original Canon Digital Rebel on eBay which will give you 6.3mp for roughly the same price.

Incidentally, and particularly if price is an issue, I'd recommend that you take a look at the high-end P&S cameras on the market these days. They're amazingly capable little machines with image stabilization, incredible optical zoom ranges, and a startling array of electronic wizardry in a neat little package. You can read a host of Shutterbug reviews right here: http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/compact_digicams/

Quote:
then later down the road buy a better updated camera.

Here's another thing which some folks may not realize: when you buy an SLR (digital or film) what you're really doing is buying into the lens system. I bought into the Canon system because of the wonderful selection of superb glass. I don't own much of it yet, but the mount design should be around for decades and the glass and camera bodies are all interchangeable.

One of the factors in visibility of camera makes is their advertising budget. Those $ come as a % of the purchase & repair prices. Nikon and Canon cost more to buy, cost more to buy lenses for and cost more when they need to be repaired. As pointed out out previously, pros need the ruggedness and badge of the N or C to assure the job, and impress the client.
If you decide to get a Pentax, get one with SR/IS/ and the K10D when it becomes available should be the best. The SR is an image stabilization system that will enable better photos of wildlife using long focal length lenses. One good Canon telephoto with IS will cost more than your whole Pentax kit.

Pentax make excellent cameras, they just have a smaller advertising budget (and a terrible marketing team).

Personally I would prefer to buy the best camera I can afford (and more importantly the best lenses) rather than the one with the best marketing.

Cheers