So, I'm in a bit of a predicament, and I'm trying to figure out how to most optimally play my cards here.
Basically, my current situation is as follows:
I first started getting into photography just a few years ago, in 2008 (that was when I first started reading DPReview, and read a bunch of photography books, etc). In late 2009, I decided to get my first DSLR. At the time, I already understood the concepts of aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and how the three are related as far as overall exposure value, and what the visual effect of increasing/decreasing the individual factors would do, i.e. motion blur with slower shutter speed, freezing fast action/no blurry images with super fast shutter speed, shallowing depth of field with widening aperture value and vice versa, and increased noise as the ISO value goes up, etc. So, I became obsessed with getting a DSLR that had really good high-ISO ability, as is the case with many newcomers to the DSLR world, as for some reason at the time I thought that was the only thing that was super important. I didn't even really know much about dynamic range and color depth etc yet, let alone how to think in terms of the long-term as far as buying lenses and using them on future cameras you upgrade to over time.
So, I ended up buying the Pentax K-X, since it was just $500 including the kit lens at the time, and it had the best high-ISO performance of basically any APS-C sensor camera on the market at the time, so I thought it was just the perfect camera for me, so I bought one.
Now it is 2012, and I've begun to re-think my decision to go with a Pentax. The direction Pentax seems to be going as far as their cameras is kind of the exact opposite of what I'm into, with the Q-lineup and them not seeming to have any plans on ever releasing a full frame, and their most recent APS-C dslr's being just a very mild upgrade of the k-5, rather than any all new cameras, etc.
Thus, I have decided that I am regretting not just starting off with a Canon or a Nikon, as I think these would be much better systems for my interests/purposes in the long run, especially if I want to upgrade to full frame some day, and take my ff-compatible lenses with me when I switch over, which I kind of am planning on doing, in the long run.
That said, for the time being, I do not want to get a full frame just yet, as it is a little too far out of my price range, and I'm still just too novice of a photographer to justify it yet. I'd rather start off with APS-C, but be careful to only buy FF-compatible lenses for my APS-C, so that I don't have to buy a whole new lens lineup if I upgrade to full frame later on.
So, basically, I am going to be selling my Pentax K-x and the 1 random lens other than the kit lens that I bought for it (fortunately I'm not "in too deep" lens-wise with it, so I can still reasonably make the switch without feeling too gross about it, lol), and I'm going to be buying either a Canon or Nikon APS-C camera.
Therefore, my decision now is whether to:
option 1: Buy one of the current APS-C cameras of Canon or Nikon, such as a Canon 550d, or a Nikon D90 or D7000
or
Option 2: Wait for the new APS-C lineups to come out for Canon/Nikon and get one of those.
The main problem is this: Ideally, I would just get the Nikon D3200, as it has the all new 24mp sensor, and is reasonably priced, and would be the perfect entry point for me to switch into Nikon. The problem, however, is that the d3000/d5000 category of bottom level Nikon APS-C dslr's don't have a built-in autofocus motor. This is a dealbreaker for me, because, like I said, I'm going to be getting only FF-compatible lenses, and so, since most of the FF-compatible Nikon lenses don't have motors in them, I wouldn't have autofocus on most of my lenses if I got a d3200, so, that's a dealbreaker for me.
So, basically, this leaves me with the current D90 (the d7000 is a little out of my price range maybe, but I guess I could get it if I really had to), or the Canon 550d, as far as my best current options, in which case I'd be leaning towards the Canon 550d, since it has the 18mp sensor and a little better iso performance than the ancient d90 I think, although the d90 is maybe a little better as far as everything else, so I could go either way on that I guess. On the other hand, it kind of bugs me that the Canon 18mp lineup has been going 3 generations in a row now with the same 18mp sensor, meaning almost guaranteed they are about to unleash some totally new sensor to drop in all their APS-C cameras when their new batch of APS-C cameras finally come out, and same for Nikon, since their D90/D300/D7000 have all been out for quite a while now, so, presumably when their next APS-C camera is released, it'll have at the bare minimum, the 24mp sensor of the d3200, except, with an in-body AF motor to go with it, which I need, or, possibly an all new sensor that we don't even know about yet or something.
So, I kind of want to wait it out and see what the new batch of APS-C canons and nikons will bring, as they will undoubtedly be of a new sensor type than the old batch was all using, rather than just buy some 3 year old camera and feel grossly outdated like 2 years from now when I'll be rocking basically a 5+ year old camera with like 12mp or something while everyone else is running around with their 30mp new generation APS-C cameras cuz they waited a few more months before jumping in, unlike me.
So, how long do you guys think it'll be before the new APS-C cameras come out?
edit: oh, I forgot to explain, the reason I kept saying "550d" instead of "600d" or "650d" is that since they all have the same 18mp sensor, and the 550d would be the cheapest, I'd probly go with the 550d instead of the 600d or 650d, if I were to get a canon that is, since I don't care for any of the additional features of the 600/650 over the 550 anyway, plus it's the cheapest and lightest of the three of those, so, that's why I kept saying 550d throughout my post when referring to that, just in case any of you thought I was just like, unaware of the existence of the 600d or 650d or something (not the case).
