Pentax is missing a model in the middle, no doubt about it. I've screamed this since theK-x came out without shiny AF points (and someone even sent me a free K-x to shut me up!). nice cam. needs more to compete. A little more would fetch a lot more pricing power and profits.

Problem is, the K-7 may be that model. I have seen it on sale price the same as a Ti2, the latter with kit lens, but the K-7 kit lens is, well, a kit lens.

It's what's above he K-7 that is more worrisome. I do not see a $1,400 Pentax "pro" or other model able to stick in this market without it being FF. Not for investing in DA glass for the next decade. If you have $8,000 to spend on this hobby, you can get a D700 and 3 top lenses plus a stellar flash. The Nikon 24-70 on FF versus the FA 43 + 31 is less expensive and more versatile a system (but a requires a half-ton truck, still, if you have that $8,000......you're a serious photog). This leaves Pentax with the "go smaller" philosophy which benefitted them and Oly well, but this is not exclusive to Pentax.

Pentax doesn't really do well once you scale up an APS-C kit and lens package. In Nikonland, even a move to the D300 gets you quite the ride and the option of FF at some later date. Canon even has the APS-H intermediary and lens choices galore. You can go small with them and go big, or go home. Your choice. Pentax's next step up is the non-campatible MF 645D.

Where does Pentax compete if their prices start falling in the current K-7 territory? A really cheap K-7 with the K-x sensor? That's commodity pricing at 5% market share. That's brand death, exactly like what happened to Minolta.

Making a higher model by spicing up K-7 is not a way to compete, in my opinion, especially if priced ~$1,500 range. To me, that will be a total dud. K-x like camera with nearly all of the K-7 features at the current pricing of K-x is a good way to complete. I dare them to price it even lower. Maybe with lower pricing they can even compete against some of EVIL cameras out there. Where the money is is at the entry level. K-x has proven that. "Pro" model is to me just for show.

Then I think about K-7 like camera with FF sensor priced at around $2,000. Even priced slightly lower at around, say, $1,600, I just don't see the attraction. In many situation the differences are subtle compared to APS-C, and those situations in which FF can demonstrate superiority are not that abundant.

[brecklundin]

just a question that comes to mind while reading this thread a bit....when discussing FF and those of us used to nothing but crop sensor bodies, how conditioned are we to the net focal lengths and DOF inherent in the 1.5x crop factor? Suddenly we lose significant length from our existing line-up.

Not calling that a bad thing because it would be fun to return to the 35mm results I learned on a bit more than a couple decades back with my Miranda (I forget the model, sorry) then ME Super...but right now I am comfy in my set of primes...I do want to fill in on the wide end and eventually grab some sort of Sigma monster zoom again and really might just go with their 8-16mm as it really seems like a winner based on early returns.

but just how many current Pentax shooters would suddenly feel like a fish out of water because of the change in the net focal length as well as the effective DOF (yeah, where is Marc to e'splain that one, right Lucy? ).

I only ask because I created my set of glass based on the 1.5x factor and really would not see myself having the cash to drop on 3-4 additional lenses as well as a FF body anytime in my limited future.

I for one would like to see a K-7 like body with improved ISO, much better flash system as well as a flash that for over $400 comes with a metal foot...fer gawds sakes a Canon 430EX II sells for around two-bills and has a metal foot and the 580EX II is, well, a very nice flash for the price. I just feel flash is an area where Pentax/HoyaTax can improve a body enough to make me want to buy it as long as the flashes themselves are beefed up a bit. Last improved AF-C mode and the final MUST HAVE is full tethering...heck I would actually settle for the ability to feed LiveView to an external monitor in real time as long as we can control settings within LiveView mode in exchange for tethering if there is a heat issue on the K-7 holding the tethering back.

So I don't need much to push me toward a K-7 like body, in fact I WANT a K-7 but given how I am using my K20D these days, I don't see myself buying one before summer is over. And certainly do not see moving to a FF is that is the next option though it would be dern'd well tempting!!

BTW, I am one of the few who does not see the noise on a K-7 as bad at all...my 40D was not great over ISO 800 anyway and I loved that body.

OK, right about now I am feeling the urge to buy a K-7....muuuuust resist....have to resits the intoxicating effects of the endorphin release of pressing the BIN or CHECKOUT buttons....hehehehe....

Anyway, I guess my point and question was, as a group are mainstream current Pentax shooters willing to accept the change in how they use their lense lineup if there is an option to move to a FF body? I am not even if I would LOVE to know the option was there.

[civiletti]

I think the performance of the K-7 suffers because Pentax prioritized video quality. That's understandable, given the competition. They had more experience when the K-x was designed, and it's video and still performance are top of its price range. The K-7 has many great features. Better sensor performance [for stills] would convince me to buy.

A low-price full frame would be wonderful, but I doubt that is likely in the near future. If I were wealthy, I'd buy a Nikon FF system. If I were very wealthy, I'd buy a 645D system.

[Christopher M.W.T]

I think the performance of the K-7 suffers because Pentax prioritized video quality.

And you know this because....?

[brecklundin]

And you know this because....?

and you know it's not true because....?

not only did I not get a sense the poster was trying to be intentionally provocative but did preface the comment with "I think..." as to indicate it was a personal feeling and nothing that could be substantiated...it's as valid as any other guess why the sensor has been somewhat problematic from the get go on the K-7...problematic to the point of requiring a firmware work around for the whole green-line-syndrome. Then again HoyaTax never admits to ANY problems...

[thibs]

Lol you're really desperate to find BS against Pentax.
It is no pentax sensor
video is not the only difference but fps is as well. In fact video is probably more of a side effect of fps gain rather than the opposite.
Other sensors were only 24fps video and with worse rolling shutter problems
It was impossible marketing wise to go lower Mpix than 14,5 from the k20.

It is not as if Canon and Nikon never had such problems. But with those strangely it is acceptable.

[fzwo]

I think the performance of the K-7 suffers because Pentax prioritized video quality.

You would not say that if you were really into video.

While image quality in video mode on the K-7 is quite good (even though it's not what it could have been; Falk hat a blog post or two about that quite a while ago), video was obviously not taken seriously enough to give us manual control over ISO, shutter speed or audio level; important frame rates weren't implemented, and they did not even name the resolutions the way any videographer would.

No, video was very probably not what hindered performance of the K-7 (whose internals, by the way, are shared to a great degree with the 645D and are sometimes even said to be more or less a by-product of that camera).

[civiletti]

And you know this because....?

Of course, there is no knowing. Why, though, give the K-7 a sensor with lower dynamic range than either the K-10 or K-20? Why is the DXO sensor score for the K-7 lower than that of the K-x, K-20, or K-10?

[nosnoop]

Of course, there is no knowing. Why, though, give the K-7 a sensor with lower dynamic range than either the K-10 or K-20? Why is the DXO sensor score for the K-7 lower than that of the K-x, K-20, or K-10?

Whatever the reason, video implementation is probably the last thing you can blame.

[civiletti]

You would not say that if you were really into video.

Compared to the K-20, there was more emphasis on video with the K-7. What, you say the K-20 did not have HD video? My point, exactly.

Look, for many users the K-7 is a great camera. For someone interested in high detail, high dynamic range landscapes, it does not provide significant improvement over its predecessors. HDR is not useful in all situations. A high native dynamic range sensor is.

[zackspeed]

K-7 will be available,same with K-x.
But new Sensor in Topmodel.
No more Samsungsensor.New Line has one actually and a complete new Sensor.
Biggest point is speed,much more speed than before.
In every range.For a good price i think.
The rest is to hard to translate for me.Japanese info.
Thats all from me till Photokina.
Best regards

[Asahiflex]

K-7 will be available,same with K-x.

What do you mean with this line? Both cameras are already available. I think you wanted to say something different

[zackspeed]

mean still available with news at same time and will not end at photokina.

[eigelb]

But new Sensor in Topmodel.

And the sensorsize?

[zackspeed]

ofcouse no canon crop 1.6
good night,long day with k-7 and *300 at beech and saltwater tomorrow