ChrisA said:
If, for example you decide to get into sports photography or wildlife photos you can _easly_ spend a four digit price on a lens, so in the bigger picture who cares if you save $200 on a body in 2006 if you later can't get the sports or wildlife lens you want. If you like the Nikon "70-200 F/2.8 VR" you need a nikon body and likewise for a good Canon L series lens.
by the same token though, there are plenty of excellent Pentax lenses that are as good as those. Plus there is the new K100D that offers in-body shake reduction.
Hi, I'm the token Pentax user here, and I own the *ist DS which is very similar to the DL but with a few more features, and I can tell you it is a fantastic camera. It feels great, has long battery life, takes pictures in every way as good as the Nikon and Canon bodies in the price range. The lens choice is fantastic too, since Pentax has the best backward compatibility on the market, I use a number of lenses from the 60s and 70s and they are marvelous.
pentax is one of the best lens manufacturers in the world, don't worry about it being the "wrong brand"
as for batteries, I use rechargeable As that I got for 10 bucks and they last for several hundred shots, and you can use lithium CR-V3 batteries as well. I use a pair of those for backup and they are over a year old and still show full on the battery meter
you should be able to find a DL body for a very good price these days, enough so that you can easily invest in lenses sooner rather than later. Just this week I picked up a flawless 50mm/f1.7 for $40 and an immaculate 200mm/f4 for $70. These are top-notch lenses that are very sharp, are speedy, have good contrast, resistance to lens flare, and they work perfectly (unless you need auto-focus) with the digital SLR.
if you have any more specific questions please ask, I'm always eager to extoll the virtues of Pentax versus the massive C&N crowd