[ytterbium]

The other thing that isn't mentioned is that Pentax tends to put stronger screw drive motors in their upper end cameras. The K7 really pushes screwdriven lenses pretty fast -- faster than the kx/k2000 did in my experience. This of course doesn't apply to SDM driven lenses.

Yeah. It can really be seen with heavier low end lenses, like sigma 70-300 APO. Where my k200d struggled at larger fine tuning steps, k10d just zapped it violently in place.

But isn't this battery voltage related? I can clearly see AF being much faster when there are fresh batteries in grip and old ones in body. Switching to grip power gives nice speed boost.
Higher end bodies use Li-Ion's which have ~7.4V instead of 4.8V from 4xAA's.

I wonder what LiIon voltage/construction K-r uses. Single cell? (3.7V).

[WMBP]

Imaging resource found they could print larger sizes from the K-x than the K-7 (!), in their tests. For me, once cameras deliver images capable of being printed larger than A2 - possible from both K-7 and K-x - the resolution is pretty academic.

Yes—and no.

Yes, I do agree that over, oh, 12MP, the megapixel contest is a bit silly.

And yet, IF you have really good lenses AND a sensor that captures more megapixels, then you do get more detail, for larger prints. And if you never need to make a huge print, you can crop more tightly and still have a tremendous photo.

I think that most photographers are discovering that there is a sweet spot in there somewhere, at least given the average power of today's computers and average capacity of today's storage. That sweet spots seems to be somewhere around 14MP. 12MP is great on the low side, 16MP is great on the high-res side. But bigger files do take up more space, and even more noticeably take significantly longer to load in your processing software. Those of us who shoot pro are the ones most likely to want higher res files, but at the same time we're the ones who are trying to process 800 files in the next two days and so a five-second load time for every picture really matters to us.

So I want to get the maximum resolution I can get -- so long as it doesn't cause me to have to spend hours more processing images from a shoot, and so long as it doesn't exceed the resolution/acuity of my lenses.

A better reason to buy the K-5 is the big viewfinder, and sturdy metal WR construction, twin wheels and top dial. These things are luxuries really, but wonderful to have (hence my decision of the K-7 over the K-x).

Right, but I'm rethinking these things completely now, because of the cost of the K-5 and because of the fact that the digital camera world seems to be in such flux. I believe that, with rare exceptions arising from very special needs, cheaper cameras can take photos that are every bit as good as the more expensive cameras. Differences between bodies are differences in usability, durability, convenience, etc., not basic picture-taking ability. So I have just about decided that I would prefer to have cheaper cameras that I can replace more often, so as to keep up with the improvements in technology. If I buy a new Pentax any time soon (not yet decided) there's a better than even chance it would be a K-r rather than a K-5.

Will