K7 vs K20D

windflower · 08-04-2009, 12:37 PM

Okay. I have read reviews of both until my head is swimming.

Do you think there is enough difference in the two to warrant spending almost double for the K7?

Thanks.

LeDave · 08-04-2009, 12:41 PM

I've seen and felt the K-7 at the K-7 Road Tour, it's definitely worth it. It's a really nice improvement to all of the previous Pentax cameras, I fell in love with the super quiet shutter sound. It seems extremely high-tech, I was overwhelmed when comparing it with my K-m/K2000. But that's only if you are willing to shell out the cash. If you're on a budget then that's a different story.

Pentaxor · 08-04-2009, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by windflower

Okay. I have read reviews of both until my head is swimming.

Do you think there is enough difference in the two to warrant spending almost double for the K7?

Thanks.

unless you don't have the K20D, the K-7 is a logical choice. if you don't have a budget for a K-7, then go for the K20D. problem solved.

windflower · 08-04-2009, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

unless you don't have the K20D, the K-7 is a logical choice. if you don't have a budget for a K-7, then go for the K20D. problem solved.

Thanks. I am on a fixed income and also I have some mobility problems. (Right now I am using a walker because I have no knee in my left leg. Hopefully in September, I will get a new knee -- 4th one in 8 years -- and will be able to back to using one or two canes and thus have more mobility. Even so, I am not sure I can justify in my own mind spending around CAN $1600.

I don't have to decide within a certain period of time, so I can continue to mull things over. :-)

**Rondec** · 08-04-2009, 01:14 PM

If you are on a fixed income and have limited mobility, a smaller camera like the K2000 maybe a better option. The reality is that it is you and not the camera that decides what kind of photos it will take and while there are more bells and whistles on the upper end cameras, you can make great photos with entry level cameras too.

heliphoto · 08-04-2009, 01:16 PM

I have both, and I'd say it depends on your intended use - the advantages of the K-7 for me are:

Video (way cool since I don't have another video cam)
faster Auto Focus (AF)
way better AF in low light (for near subjects especially - people etc, not as big a difference for landscapes since the low light focus assist light doesn't reach the horizon ).
faster "Machine gunning" - 5 fps sure is fast, but I don't shoot that way all that often.
really nice shutter feel/sound - not worth paying for, but it is an improvement.

If these features won't help you get better photos (ie, if you don't need faster FPS or faster AF), the K20D will IMHO give you equal image quality, and offers great bang for the buck...

**Kerrowdown** · 08-04-2009, 01:40 PM

Get equipment that suits your needs, this doesn't always need to be the lastest available.

Me, I'd get two K20D's for the price of one K7D

netuser · 08-04-2009, 02:43 PM

I just sold my k20d

(waiting payment)

I also have a k200d. so now I will probably get a k7

The video feature just seems great.
Thanks for the statement above heliphoto

**Ash** · 08-04-2009, 02:48 PM

If you can get down to a store that has both, go there and have a test drive of both of them.
You will then know what you value in the camera to warrant spending your money on.

ivoire · 08-04-2009, 03:22 PM

If you have a nice lens collection and can afford the K7, buy it. Otherwise, get a K20 and the lens of your affordable dreams

Pentaxor · 08-04-2009, 04:24 PM

well the knee....I mean the K20D would be most suited for you considering your dilemma. it's a great cam in it's own right and I believe you can do magic with it as long as you know what you are doing.

Wheatfield · 08-04-2009, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by windflower

Okay. I have read reviews of both until my head is swimming.

Do you think there is enough difference in the two to warrant spending almost double for the K7?

Thanks.

If the K20 can keep up with what you want to do, then the K-7 probably isn't worth it.

iht · 08-04-2009, 10:36 PM

The K-7 is also a much lighter camera (in terms of weight, of course!). The K-7 comes in at under 700g, whereas the K20D is over 800g.

Of course the weight comes down to personal preference. As for me, I still own a *ist DS because of its light weight. I wouldn't want to lug around anything too much bigger than that on a long trip.

Wombat · 08-05-2009, 06:14 AM

Do you even need a DSLR? With your mobility challenges, would you be better off with a compact camera, which you can easily hold in one hand? For half the price of a K20 you could get a top-of-the-range compact that will take stunning photos and will conveniently slip into your pocket.

Wheatfield · 08-05-2009, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Wombat

Do you even need a DSLR? With your mobility challenges, would you be better off with a compact camera, which you can easily hold in one hand? For half the price of a K20 you could get a top-of-the-range compact that will take stunning photos and will conveniently slip into your pocket.

Living in Saskatchewan, the OP won't be mobility challenged forever.
Our health care is sometimes a bit slow, but the knee replacement will happen.

08-04-2009, 12:37 PM	#1
windflower Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 24	K7 vs K20D Okay. I have read reviews of both until my head is swimming. Do you think there is enough difference in the two to warrant spending almost double for the K7? Thanks.

08-04-2009, 01:16 PM	#6
heliphoto Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Region 5 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,539	I have both, and I'd say it depends on your intended use - the advantages of the K-7 for me are: Video (way cool since I don't have another video cam) faster Auto Focus (AF) way better AF in low light (for near subjects especially - people etc, not as big a difference for landscapes since the low light focus assist light doesn't reach the horizon ). faster "Machine gunning" - 5 fps sure is fast, but I don't shoot that way all that often. really nice shutter feel/sound - not worth paying for, but it is an improvement. If these features won't help you get better photos (ie, if you don't need faster FPS or faster AF), the K20D will IMHO give you equal image quality, and offers great bang for the buck...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K20D, Battery Grip, NEW K20D battery, cable remote (Worldwide)	Albert Siegel	Sold Items	6	09-23-2010 08:02 AM
In Canada: Summer Rebates for K20d or K20d plus lens	Pentaxtic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	07-17-2009 11:34 AM
Magic Lantern Guides: Pentax K20D and MasterWorks: Jumpstart Guide for the K20D.	Reportage	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	02-12-2009 10:24 PM

08-04-2009, 12:41 PM	#2
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	I've seen and felt the K-7 at the K-7 Road Tour, it's definitely worth it. It's a really nice improvement to all of the previous Pentax cameras, I fell in love with the super quiet shutter sound. It seems extremely high-tech, I was overwhelmed when comparing it with my K-m/K2000. But that's only if you are willing to shell out the cash. If you're on a budget then that's a different story.

08-04-2009, 12:44 PM	#3
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by windflower Okay. I have read reviews of both until my head is swimming. Do you think there is enough difference in the two to warrant spending almost double for the K7? Thanks. unless you don't have the K20D, the K-7 is a logical choice. if you don't have a budget for a K-7, then go for the K20D. problem solved.

08-04-2009, 01:00 PM	#4
windflower Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Saskatchewan Posts: 24 Original Poster	Originally posted by Pentaxor unless you don't have the K20D, the K-7 is a logical choice. if you don't have a budget for a K-7, then go for the K20D. problem solved. Thanks. I am on a fixed income and also I have some mobility problems. (Right now I am using a walker because I have no knee in my left leg. Hopefully in September, I will get a new knee -- 4th one in 8 years -- and will be able to back to using one or two canes and thus have more mobility. Even so, I am not sure I can justify in my own mind spending around CAN $1600. I don't have to decide within a certain period of time, so I can continue to mull things over. :-)

08-04-2009, 01:14 PM	#5
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,668	If you are on a fixed income and have limited mobility, a smaller camera like the K2000 maybe a better option. The reality is that it is you and not the camera that decides what kind of photos it will take and while there are more bells and whistles on the upper end cameras, you can make great photos with entry level cameras too.

08-04-2009, 01:40 PM	#7
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,867	Get equipment that suits your needs, this doesn't always need to be the lastest available. Me, I'd get two K20D's for the price of one K7D

08-04-2009, 02:43 PM	#8
netuser Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Azores Islands, Portugal Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,236	I just sold my k20d (waiting payment) I also have a k200d. so now I will probably get a k7 The video feature just seems great. Thanks for the statement above heliphoto

08-04-2009, 02:48 PM	#9
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	If you can get down to a store that has both, go there and have a test drive of both of them. You will then know what you value in the camera to warrant spending your money on.

08-04-2009, 03:22 PM	#10
ivoire Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,381	If you have a nice lens collection and can afford the K7, buy it. Otherwise, get a K20 and the lens of your affordable dreams

08-04-2009, 04:24 PM	#11
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	well the knee....I mean the K20D would be most suited for you considering your dilemma. it's a great cam in it's own right and I believe you can do magic with it as long as you know what you are doing.

08-04-2009, 05:41 PM	#12
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,991	Originally posted by windflower Okay. I have read reviews of both until my head is swimming. Do you think there is enough difference in the two to warrant spending almost double for the K7? Thanks. If the K20 can keep up with what you want to do, then the K-7 probably isn't worth it.

08-04-2009, 10:36 PM	#13
iht Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Sydney, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 528	The K-7 is also a much lighter camera (in terms of weight, of course!). The K-7 comes in at under 700g, whereas the K20D is over 800g. Of course the weight comes down to personal preference. As for me, I still own a *ist DS because of its light weight. I wouldn't want to lug around anything too much bigger than that on a long trip.

08-05-2009, 06:14 AM	#14
Wombat Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 901	Do you even need a DSLR? With your mobility challenges, would you be better off with a compact camera, which you can easily hold in one hand? For half the price of a K20 you could get a top-of-the-range compact that will take stunning photos and will conveniently slip into your pocket.

08-05-2009, 06:32 AM	#15
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,991	Originally posted by Wombat Do you even need a DSLR? With your mobility challenges, would you be better off with a compact camera, which you can easily hold in one hand? For half the price of a K20 you could get a top-of-the-range compact that will take stunning photos and will conveniently slip into your pocket. Living in Saskatchewan, the OP won't be mobility challenged forever. Our health care is sometimes a bit slow, but the knee replacement will happen.