[RonHendriks1966]

(k20 ive heard is about the same iso wise as the 7 or slightly less good-but ill leave that to people whove actually used both

I think the biggest difference between the two is that the K20D has banding, more in the blue channel, at hi iso's wich are not a problem in the K-7. So K20D has less noise in hi iso, but K-7 looks better.

[rena]

Ok folks...I really appreciate all the comments But I've made my decision and I don't think I'll regret it. I'm not a techno freak by any stretch (sorry if I may offend some of you...) I am a green, and I mean very green, amateur enthusiast who just wants a good dSLR body to start off; that wasn't too technical to operate. My hobby will be taking me mainly to the great outdoors to shoot nature and landscape shots in natural light (so high ISOs are not critical to me at this juncture). Most books I've read to date tell me that I'll probably use ISO1600 on very few occasions, so why spend the extra $$ for high ISOs? Also, (and this will be true with my new K7) there are features that I'll probably never use during the camera's lifespan. Again, the reason I chose the K7 over the K5. My biggest concern is the body and lens weather-sealing because I plan to be in some damp and dusty environs once I getting rolling. And the big kicker (for me) is the price. I'm chomping at the bit to get out there and start using my camera and I just couldn't wait for the price of the K5 to get to where I was willing to part with my hard-earned money. I can buy the K7 and at least one decent lens and a few essential gadgets for the price of the K5 body alone. The old saying holds true. Money talks! I am now the proud owner of a K7, a basic kit lens to get me started and a bag to lug it around the woods and fields. I'd love to chat all day on this forum, but I want to get outdoors and start playing with my new addition to my family! Wish me luck in my endeavours and maybe I'll post a few good shots once I learn how to take them!

[FullertonImages]

Why don't you shut up as all you are doing is showing your ignorance. I've done the test, and here is the result.



This was done at ISO 1600, GX10 on the left (same sensor and RAW output as the K10d) and the K7 on the right (100% crops), shot RAW and converted using ACR default. As you can see, the GX10 actually has less noise and more DR than the K7. And before you bitch, the gx10 image is a little soft due to being slightly out of focus, but that doesn't affect the noise output.



It's you fanboys who are misinformed. You hate to be told that your 4 year old camera can take just as good a pic, and maybe better than the newer model. All APS-C sensored cameras will give approximately the same RAW output at a given ISO up to ISO 1600, the newer models just do it faster and with more bells and whistles. Beyond ISO1600, the design of the sensor and how the manufacturer cooks the RAW output has a lot to do with how "noisy" the RAW file will look.

Want more proof?

From DXO Mark. Note at ISO 1600 the K10D has less S/N ratio than the K7, and the K20d is better than both the K10d and the K7. The only time the K7 is better than the K10d in noise is above 1600 because the K10d doesn't go any higher.



Then let's also look at DR, the K10d at ISO1600 has almost a full stop more DR than the K7 and about 2 stops more at ISO100.



The K7 is a better camera in just about every respect that the K10d except for IQ, and we all know that is because of the sensor chosen in that model. The new sensor in the K5 is revolutionary, just like the one in the K10d was. It took till now for APS-C to make a huge jump in IQ in the K5 and D7000. I suspect that for the next few years while we will see improvements in camera design we may only see incremental changes in IQ and not quantum leaps.

Ok now that I have shown you the truth you fanboys can start flaming. It seems that is what you are best at.

Looks to me like the K-7 has significantly more edge detail, better contrast and is all around sharper. The K10 looks smeary, and has little detail. The K-7 just has a little more luminance noise, which could have been easily fixed with NR. Lack of detail can't be fixed. And also, you should be comparing them at a giving image size, like 4x6, not 100%. So the K-7 is even better looking than this test lets on, because you aren't comparing how the two cameras would perform at a given print size.

[hitechrr]

I also think the k10 had a better image. I had a k10 and I now have a k20 and k7. I find that my k7 is grainy even at iso200. My next cam will be a k5 when the price is down to the $700 range.

[Scorg]

On a bit of a sidenote regarding comparisons, has anyone made the move from a K100D to the K7 and if they did, how did they find the transition regarding the images and iso noise?

Since afair the K100D performed better then the K10D did for noise at high ISO.

[Fontan]

Stop shooting in JPEG mode, people.

[yusuf]

What about k-x? getting discontinued too?