I can't believe that a person could be so retarded as to attack someone who isn't going to change systems and sell of several dozen lenses because one fool on the internet says that a particular camera is a bad financial decision.
Not that I'm calling you a retard, but if it walks and quacks like a duck....
The price of the camera is the price of the camera. Get a life and get over it.
I own a K7 and it is useable to shoot weddings, but I guess I would wait till the K5 comes into your price range. From what I can see, the K5 is quicker to lock focus in poor light than the K7 and tracks objects (ie brides) better than the K7. The K5 is also dramatically better at low light, high iso shooting. The K7 sort of falls apart above iso 2000 and loses a lot of detail whereas the K5 looks pretty good with minimal noise reduction to iso 6400.
Image quality on the K7 is great at low iso and I doubt the K5 will be much better than it, even with the extra 2 megapixels.
As to the comparisons with Nikon, I have heard an awful lot of whining from Nikon users who thought that the D7000 would be as good as the D300 and have found out differently. High iso and auto focus are decent on the D7000, but deliberately kept under the upper end cameras. Not so with the K5. Someone recently said that with lenses that you pay double to get a 10 percent increase in image quality. I think some similar formula could be applied to camera bodies.