Originally posted by B.Rosenfeld I noticed that the sensors for the KR and K-x are both 12MP. This doesn't seem right. Shouldn't it be more? If not, then the sensors are almost identical and the only improvements are in the camera itself. This being the case, it would make more sense for someone to buy a K7 than a KR. On Amazon, the price for a K7 (body only) is $869. That's practically identical to $875 MSRP, less a lens, but lenses aren't that expensive. In addition, you'd get an additional 2MP instead of the same 12MP as it's predecessor. And when you consider who the entry level DSLRs are marketed towards, the soon-to-be-obsolete K7 would prove to be the better choice. In my opinion, K-x users shouldn't upgrade to the KR, they would be better off with a K7.
The flaw in your logic is the notion that more pixels makes the sensor better. I won't speak for everyone on the forum, but I would guess that a good number of people would strongly prefer a 12MP sensor with better dynamic range and lower noise to a 14MP sensor with less dynamic range and more noise.
I own both a K7 and Kx and although the K7 is a better camera than the Kx in many respects, high ISO performance is not once of them. So if the Kr can close that gap in high ISO performance and add a few features that the Kx is missing, I would say that there would be a significant number of people who might choose the Kr over the K7, even if the street prices are similar.