[SteveM]

Here are some great and surprising features of note:
* 100% viewfinder
* mirror lockup
* in-body barrel/pincushion distortion and CA correction
* Check around 2:20 at YouTube - PENTAX K-7 Introduction (what the?)
* electronic level

I'm happy about it.....after all posts of "is Pentax going to make it"....they are coming out with something to compete with.

[soccerjoe5]

My K20D has been fantastic and the only thing I've been really wanting the most for work is HDMI output. That alone would make me want to upgrade.

The things I would find most useful for work:

-HDMI output
-Faster and more consistent AF in variable lighting (with the secondary sensor thingy)
-better LCD
-Mode dial lock
-100% viewfinder
-CA/distortion correction
-Better LiveView

[heatherslightbox]

While the K7 looks tempting, even if I had the money, I'm not sure that I'd run right out and preorder it. I really don't need HD video, nor HDR capability, nor a faster FPS. Granted, things like faster AF and 77 metering points appeal to me, I'm not sure that I really have to have them. On the subject of metering, a good handheld meter ($200-250), would be a whole lot cheaper than a whole new body; it would probably be more useful, especially when I'm using the tripod and need to meter more than one spot.

I'm doing OK with the K20. As a matter of fact, there's a part of me that's telling the rest of me that perhaps I should just hang on to it until it dies.

Heather

[rparmar]

I don't think the K-7 will make anyone a better photographer, though the slew of features will convert many people who would otherwise get a Canon or Nikon. That is a good thing for Pentax.

The confusion over the body line-up really needs to be addressed. It is obvious the K-7 is a successor to the K20D, which apparently is even being phased out of production. Yet we have been told it is a "new concept" camera and the K20D successor is yet to come. I don't buy that, sans evidence of any kind.

There is no sign the K-7 will have better IQ than the K20D, though it will have more noise reduction modes to blur out detail, like Canons do. And it will have lots of in-camera tricks like HDR... all of which are better done on the computer where you have more control and a much larger monitor.

Other claimed features, like the cold resistance, already exist in the K20D. More weather resistant? I doubt it. (And who was complaining before?)

The reduced size is also greatly exaggerated. It's only 50g lighter, for goodness sake.

So I see no compelling reason to upgrade from a K20D, unless you really need video or some other non-photography frill. If you are a machine-gunner the faster frame rate is a draw. If you can't hold a camera straight and can't use Photoshop the built-in level is nice. If you only use JPG and digital lenses then the CA removal will save you a few minutes on the few shots that ever require it. And so it goes.

I don't care about a better display since no image should be judged on the LCD. A better LCD only tempts those who don't know any better into thinking they are looking at their photo. The panel on the K20D is already fine for the purpose.

Two significant improvements are the quieter shutter and faster shutter speed. I also like the fact the focal plane is marked. That's a nice touch.

But still no back ISO wheel in "M" mode, a crippled mount, poorer SD card compartment latch, reduced viewfinder magnification, removed bracketing button and so on.

[ohfrankyboy]

Nope I'll be staying with my K20D, thou the k-7 has some enhance features.
Two thing I dont like is the smaller body and the bettery grip, the K20D size was perfect. I'll wait for what comes next, let's hope it wont be smaller, soon the DSLR will be the size of a compact camera lol

[Wheatfield]

If you are a machine-gunner the faster frame rate is a draw.

I'm going to clarify this for you, since it's all the rage on this forum to be condescending about frame rates.

The advantage of a higher frame rate is not all about the extra couple of frames per second.
This is a true measure of camera responsiveness.
A high frame rate camera will have shorter mirror black out times, will be ready to shoot another frame faster and should have less shutter lag than a slower frame rate camera.
These are very real advantages for people who want the camera to be ready, willing and able because of their photography style, and will be more of an advantage to someone who pushes the button at the right time than it will be to someone who pushes the button and hopes to get something.

Anyone who thinks that frame rates is all about pushing the button and praying just doesn't get it.

[WMBP]

There is no sign the K-7 will have better IQ than the K20D, though it will have more noise reduction modes to blur out detail, like Canons do. And it will have lots of in-camera tricks like HDR... all of which are better done on the computer where you have more control and a much larger monitor.

I agree. For the kind of photography I do, I don't care about in-camera noise reduction at all. Perhaps I should try it out, though. If it's good enough it might save me some time.

The reduced size is also greatly exaggerated. It's only 50g lighter, for goodness sake.

Not a big draw for me. I rather like the size of the K20D and like it even better with the grip. Just feels right. I don't like using the *ist DS because it's so small. I understand that this is a matter of personal preference. I also understand that smaller cameras are less intimidating to subjects - but as you say, the K7 doesn't look MUCH smaller.

So I see no compelling reason to upgrade from a K20D, unless you really need video or some other non-photography frill. If you are a machine-gunner the faster frame rate is a draw. If you can't hold a camera straight and can't use Photoshop the built-in level is nice. If you only use JPG and digital lenses then the CA removal will save you a few minutes on the few shots that ever require it. And so it goes.

None of this matters to me at all. Would rather NOT have to pay for video capability.

I don't care about a better display since no image should be judged on the LCD. A better LCD only tempts those who don't know any better into thinking they are looking at their photo. The panel on the K20D is already fine for the purpose.

Disagree with you here, though. I would have said this until the other day when I saw the display on the Canon 50D, which I think is comparable to the display on the K7. The K7's display isn't just an incremental improvement over the K20D, the way the K20D was an incremental improvement over the K10D. The K7's display is bigger and MUCH higher res. I think it will be useful to me when I need to check to see, for example, if a photo of the bride's wedding ring really is tack sharp. I do agree that you won't know for sure until it's on the computer. And the truth is that I keep instant review OFF most of the time. But there are definitely times when I would find it very useful - useful enough that if I had more money in the bank I'd buy the K7 for this alone.

Two significant improvements are the quieter shutter and faster shutter speed. I also like the fact the focal plane is marked. That's a nice touch.

Also very useful features to me. I've always thought that the shutter noise is a disadvantage of DSLRs. I shoot a lot in churches and if I could shoot noiselessly, I would love to. I like the fact that the weather-sealing on the Pentax K10D/K20D mutes the shutter noise somewhat. If the K7 is even quieter, that's an advantage in my book.

Don't care much about the faster shutter speed or the faster FPS. Don't think I've ever taken a picture at 1/8000th sec. I might use faster FPS occasionally and wouldn't complain about having it - it's just not a big deal for me.

But still no back ISO wheel in "M" mode, a crippled mount, poorer SD card compartment latch, reduced viewfinder magnification, removed bracketing button and so on.

I didn't realize the bracketing button is gone. I use that not often but occasionally. I assume the K7 can bracket, yes? You just have to dig into the menu?

What's "reduced viewfinder magnification" mean?

Will

[rparmar]

These are very real advantages for people who want the camera to be ready, willing and able because of their photography style, and will be more of an advantage to someone who pushes the button at the right time than it will be to someone who pushes the button and hopes to get something.

Right. So you can react and recompose in a fraction of a second, so much so that the difference between 3fs and 5fps matters? Pull the other one.

Or maybe it is really all about machine gunning and hoping for the good image? Please don't try to tell me people don't do this -- I have seen it too often. I am sure that more fps will mean more chances to capture the right image for such shooters. That's just basic logic. But no, it's not my style and I don't rate it that highly among photographic techniques.

[rparmar]

What's "reduced viewfinder magnification" mean?

The K20D had .95x magnification of the image in the viewfinder while the K-7 has .92x. So the image will be smaller, hence harder to manually focus, etc.

Some counter this by saying "get a magnifier" but even if these worked usefully (they don't for me) less magnification is still a reality with or without such an add-on tool.

The K-7 does have (close to) 100% coverage, but that is less useful than the magnification. I can't imagine a situation in which capturing more of the image than expected due to less than 100% coverage is detrimental.

OTOH having significantly more than 100% coverage, so one can see what might be entering the frame, would be very useful for sports and other action photography. I suppose that's a rangefinder advantage.

[Wheatfield]

Right. So you can react and recompose in a fraction of a second, so much so that the difference between 3fs and 5fps matters? Pull the other one.

Or maybe it is really all about machine gunning and hoping for the good image? Please don't try to tell me people don't do this -- I have seen it too often. I am sure that more fps will mean more chances to capture the right image for such shooters. That's just basic logic. But no, it's not my style and I don't rate it that highly among photographic techniques.

Think what you like, and I know there are morons out there who push the button and pray, but there are also morons out there who refuse to see why a responsive camera is a good thing.

[rparmar]

Think what you like, and I know there are morons out there who push the button and pray, but there are also morons out there who refuse to see why a responsive camera is a good thing.

I am glad to see you didn't refute any part of my post. Merely responded with insults... true to your usual form.

[reeftool]

The K7 looks very good but I'm not thinking about upgrading right now. The faster frame rate and better auto focus are a real plus but I would benefit more myself with a couple of better lenses right now. I have limited finances and have to spend where it will do the most good and for me right now that means glass.
A few months down the road after seeing pictures on the forum when this camera is actually available and being used I may change my mind about the upgrade but I still will need the lenses.

[wwwmorrell]

My thought's

For a new buyer moving into DSLR's, the K-7 has more than enough functions to tempt them away from the Canikon offerings.

But for me at the moment, my K20D is more than up to anything I can ask from it.

An upgrade for me to the new model would need just a few more new wizzbang features than the K-7 is offering.

None the less it's a fantastic new addition to the Pentax line.

[Ash]

As with others, I won't be 'upgrading' to the K-7 (but have recently done so with the K20D). It serves as a great sales point with its highly competitive specs, but not everyone 'needs' much more spec power than what's on offer with the K10D/K20D.

I can see how the K-7 can bring Pentax on the map of sports and fast action photography, though...

[ll_coffee_lP]

K10 to K7 upgrade (x2) coming up for me.

The new features are right up my alley for what I shoot.

c[_]