Hmmm, you've all certainly given me something to think about. I suppose the main reasons I've been drawn to the Pentax are the price (about £100 cheaper than I can pick up a D3100 for here in Australia) and the excellent reviews I've read about it.
For those against the idea, would you still avoid the Pentax if the only lenses you were likely to purchase on top of the kit 18-55mm were a 1.7 50mm and a 200 or 300mm telephoto zoom?
I'm still looking at the D3100 as suggested, and the reviews all seem pretty good. Like I say though, it is a fair bit more expensive. I've kinda ruled out Canon 1100D as in the reviews it comes across as a bit too basic. Any other Canon models worth looking at up to the £400 mark?
The bottom line is the Pentax cameras are really good, as are the lenses, so if you buy a Pentax you wont be disappointed.
The sticking point is that you claim you will stick to a 18-55 kit lens + 50mm prime and a telephoto. I wouldn't bet on that, you will probably find the 18-55mm too limiting before long, if you start to like landscape or architecture you may wish to buy a wider angle lens, you might really enjoy the 50mm prime lens and so look to buy something like a 35mm or 85mm or 24mm or all 3... you may find you like macro photography and need a dedicated lens, or you start to enjoy wildlife photography and so need to invest some more serious money there, or perhaps for portraiture you wish for some good flashes/strobes. The power of an SLR comes from having dedicated specialist lenses for the task you are doing, so it worth bearing in mind that many people will start out thinking like you that only a few lenses will be needed but soon become much more interested in photography or realize the limitations of their kit lens etc.
And putting all that aside, in 2-4 years you will probably want a new camera to keep up with technology changes. What if Pentax no longer exists, or has much more diminished range, or has failed to keep apace technologically with the big brands?
