[deejjjaaaa]

The K-7 is not replacing the K20D, it aims higher.
.

marketing bs - positionwise it stands exactly where K20D was standing when it was released... to aim really higher you to offer a better specs than top APS-C models from competition and K-7 still can't beat D300 on ISO, AF-C, FPS

[offertonhatter]

well it depends how soon D400 will arrive and what will be there... K-7 still can't beat D300 which is 2 years old camera on many parameters... and BTW D300 was a bigger change from D200 than K-7 is from K20D (let us put a marketing mantra about K-7 not being a replacement for K20D aside - it is a replacement as a top of the line APS-C camera from Pentax, period).

Can I ask which perameters? I have done a side by side check of each of the rivals, and the only thing that the D300 had over the K-7 was the 51AF points and the 6fps against 5.2fps. apart from that, the K-7 was equal if not superior to the D300. I can send you the spreadsheet if you want.

As for the D200, the K10D was again very close if not better.

[gazonk]

K-7 still can't beat D300 on ISO, AF-C, FPS

It wouldn't surprise me if it beats D300 on high ISO - aren't the D300 and the K20D pretty similar?

[Kunzite]

Deeejaaaaaaa: Please, read again. It aims higher, not really higher; and than K20D, not D300.
With 100% viewfinder, magnesium alloy shell, improved performance and a ton of new features, I'd say yes, it really aims higher. Maybe not as much higher as some of us wanted, but neither is the price.

[offertonhatter]

and who would want to shoot at 25600 with an FA50 F1.4 anyways? 800iso with SR on and F2 always seems to work.......

[deejjjaaaa]

Deeejaaaaaaa: Please, read again. It aims higher, not really higher; and than K20D, not D300.
With 100% viewfinder, magnesium alloy shell, improved performance and a ton of new features, I'd say yes, it really aims higher. Maybe not as much higher as some of us wanted, but neither is the price.

that it aims higher does not make it some how not a replacement for K20D... if you will look at competition and check what were changes (dpreview is at your service) from D100 to D200 to D300 you will see they they were significant (there were changes from plastic to allow, much more significant changes in AF system and much more significant changes in sensor department, etc) and that did not make D200 somehow not a replacement for D100 or D300 not a replacement for D200... so apart from the naming convention K-7 is pretty much "K30D"...

[deejjjaaaa]

and who would want to shoot at 25600 with an FA50 F1.4 anyways? 800iso with SR on and F2 always seems to work.......

somebody who is after the moving target

[deejjjaaaa]

aren't the D300 and the K20D pretty similar?

after some NR

[Prognathous]

K-7 still can't beat D300 which is 2 years old camera on many parameters...

Can you list those "many parameters"?

Prog.

Edit: For the record, here are K-7 advantages over the D300:

- In-body image stabilization (SR)
- HD video (720P, control over aperture and brightness, stereo mic socket, contrast-detect AF)
- $400 less expensive
- 175 gram lighter; significantly smaller
- DNG support (with lossless compression)
- Digital level with manual or automatic correction using sensor tilt
- Pixel remapping
- Digital preview
- The green button; ISO, WB and Menu button accessible using the right hand; RAW button
- Automatic AF correction based on ambient light color temperature
- 3-exposure HDR; Multiple exposures up to 9 exposures (without tone mapping or overexposure)
- HyperProgram
- Higher resolution (14.6 MP vs. 12.3MP)
- LCD color calibration
- Cold weather support down to -10 degree C
- Dust alert
- Composition adjustment via sensor shift
- Copyright embedding in EXIF

I think "many" is suitable in this case. Now let's see the D300 list! :-)

[xxxxx]

The K-7 is the "true" rival to the EOS 50D, D300, E-3 and Sony's replacement for the A700.

The K20D was never a rival to the above, more like a niche above the 40D, D90, E-30 and A350/A380.

The K20D was, in my opinion, a halfway house camera (not a bad thing - I love mine), whilst the Hoya takeover was taking place, take some aspects of the already in R&D K-7, put it in the K10D body to tide you over. Canon have done the same with the 5D mk2, get something on the market whilst develop a true replacement.

Now Pentax is at the crossroads. The K20D is still a stunning camera, yet does not have the build or features of the K-7.

If Pentax have the capacity (and I don't see why not?) then then could have a range of 4 APS-C cameras to suit the market

K-m for entry level (ala Nikon D60, EOS 1000D, E-420, A230)
K200D (and replacement) for more advanced, with sealing, better AF focal points sensor (ala 450D/500D, E-520, A330/A80)
K20D (and replacement) like the top line K-7 but with plastic body, still sealed, better sensor and more "pro like" than the K200D, (ala 40D(I know its magnesium), D90, E-30)
K-7 for the top APS-C spec to rival, and does, the D300, 50D, E-3.

Mind you it does depend on capacity.

In the meantime I cannot see Pentax stopping the K20D in the next 8-12 months.

Just speculating, with price of K20D body less than $700 bucks now in US, it probably makes sense for them to kill it and focus on K7.

[philbaum]

Just speculating, with price of K20D body less than $700 bucks now in US, it probably makes sense for them to kill it and focus on K7.

I don't know about that. As long as a company has products that sell, why cut the run short? There are folks out there that will not or cannot buy a K7 at this time, but would spring for a K20 with similar IQ (if thats the case) without all the extras such as HD video. On the other hand, there are many that want the latest technology in a camera, and can pay for it. Why not sell to both markets if the capacity exists.

I remember the old volkswagon buses and cars, kept building them year after year. People bought them for a coupla decades and grew fond of them. Why kill something off because its been around for 18 months? If its a capacity issue, maybe i can understand that.

So if you can get K20D now for less than $700..... Is what K-7 offers that K20D does not really worth $600 plus to you guys? To me it probably is, but then you really need to look at the pictures, and test shots, because of the firmware issues, do not look all that hot. It is hard to say. What if we wait for anothrer 6 months and K-7 is $1,000 and K20D $450?

So is K20D the real bargain at the moment?

[deejjjaaaa]

Now let's see the D300 list! :-)

ISO (High ISO - less noise in raw) and Dynamic Range (more)

AF (Multi-CAM3500 = 51-point, 15 cross-type + Auto-focus tracking by color using RGB AE sensor) - AF-C is way better, AF-S - I hope that at least that will be on par

FPS - more

12 bit raw and 14-bit raw

lossless or lossy compression in raw

shatter lag is less

Flash system support/control external flashes - way better than Pentax can (and will) ever (unfortunately) offer

Flash X-Sync: 1/250 sec (up to 1/320 sec with reduced guide number)

viewfinder - better (100% @ 0.94x vs 100% @ 0.92)

lens mount includes a mechanical AI aperture ring connector

Nikon users (I am not) will be able to list much more small details like you did for K-7...

[deejjjaaaa]

What if we wait for anothrer 6 months and K-7 is $1,000 and K20D $450?

I doubt there will be any new K20D at that price 6mo later... used of course - but not new ones.

[kiamon]

No one here mentioned the obvious.

The main difference is the K7 takes video since their ability to take good shots should be very close in the right hands.

The question to be answered: "Is taking video worth paying [$1300 for the new K7] vs. [$600-700 for a K20d]"

How many people can shell out an extra $700 for video and some extra features? Is it worth it?