Hi everyone.
I am going to purchase a DSLR to use while I am on exchange in Switzerland next year. After months of research, I have limited my choices down to the Pentax k-5 and either the Canon 600/650D. Basically, my main area of interest is landscape photography. To be able to take some nice shots and then frame them (in maybe A3 size) after the exchange without declined quality would be great. However, this camera will also be used for general walk around shots in cities and for some footage of my friends etc. The main thing that I am worried about is item damage. Otherwise, I would happily go for the k-5. I have already extended my budget to get the camera and a Tamron 17-50, but an extra $160 for the Mack warranty isn't very attractive. Is the warranty really worth it? At the same time, would I be best just to get one of the Canons? I know that the Pentax outperforms both of them, but I really would just like quality landscape shots... everything else can be more of a more standard quality (if that makes sense). I know that the main factor is the person operating the camera and the lenses, so this is why I'm asking whether or not the k-5 really does allow for better shots. If I was to get the Canon, I would probably be able to also get a wide-angle lens (10-20 Sigma etc.). I currently use the family 1000D, which has given me a few years experience.
Thanks for any help.
I am going to purchase a DSLR to use while I am on exchange in Switzerland next year. After months of research, I have limited my choices down to the Pentax k-5 and either the Canon 600/650D. Basically, my main area of interest is landscape photography. To be able to take some nice shots and then frame them (in maybe A3 size) after the exchange without declined quality would be great. However, this camera will also be used for general walk around shots in cities and for some footage of my friends etc. The main thing that I am worried about is item damage. Otherwise, I would happily go for the k-5. I have already extended my budget to get the camera and a Tamron 17-50, but an extra $160 for the Mack warranty isn't very attractive. Is the warranty really worth it? At the same time, would I be best just to get one of the Canons? I know that the Pentax outperforms both of them, but I really would just like quality landscape shots... everything else can be more of a more standard quality (if that makes sense). I know that the main factor is the person operating the camera and the lenses, so this is why I'm asking whether or not the k-5 really does allow for better shots. If I was to get the Canon, I would probably be able to also get a wide-angle lens (10-20 Sigma etc.). I currently use the family 1000D, which has given me a few years experience.
Thanks for any help.