which upgrade from a Km?

needtime2scrap · 10-18-2010, 10:52 AM

So I've been shooting with a Km for the past year or so and while I'm happy with the size of the camera I'm feeling really limited when I shoot in low light. I've been wanting to upgrade to the K-7 but with the K-5 out and sounding fabulous I'm not sure what to do. I'm wanting something with better low light capabilities and to be honest 2 dials for adjusting shutter/aperature. I shoot in manual 75% of the time and it drives me crazy to be forced to press a button and dial then just dial to adjust stuff.

I know everyone must be sick to death of all these types of posts but I really could use some advice. Dh says to go with the K-7 due to $$ but honestly he doesn't know much about cameras or photography.

Adam · 10-18-2010, 11:05 AM

I would say K-7 as well. Definitely your best bet if you'd like to have easy manual control and improved IQ.

Blue · 10-18-2010, 11:08 AM

You have the K-m. The KM was a film body from the late 70s. I think your best bet would be the K-r or the K-7. However, you may be able to pick up a K20d used . . .

needtime2scrap · 10-18-2010, 11:12 AM

Sorry I must have missed the dash button

I thought that the K-5 was supposed to be a big improvement over the K-7? Or is it too new to say this?

Blue · 10-18-2010, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by needtime2scrap

Sorry I must have missed the dash button

I thought that the K-5 was supposed to be a big improvement over the K-7? Or is it too new to say this?

I think its safe to say it definitely is a big step up. Moving up from the K-m, everything is a step up, especially regarding mf.

WerTicus · 10-18-2010, 12:08 PM

With regards to the low light performance of the K-7 K-m and K-x
K-r and K-5 will have slightly better than K-x performance.

DxOMark - Compare sensors

So i would be getting a K-5 or K-x if i were you, but only the K-5 will do everything you want

kp0c · 10-18-2010, 12:45 PM

I don't know if I misread or something, but I think there might be a confusion about the OP's camera model. I believe he has a Digital K-m also known as the K2000... anyway. I used one for a few days I really understand the OP when he says he feels limited in low light. ISO 800 seems to be the absolute max I could use on it.
That being said, I think that a K-7 would give you really could result compare to your K-m. Would a K-5 be better ? Off course, "much" better some would say. But at the end of the day, the K-7 is years ahead of your K-m, in terms of build quality, image quality and probably every single aspect anyone could think of (the K-m is still a nice camera though).
Price wise, in your situation, the K-7 seems a logical upgrade. Keep an eye on the marketplace, lots of member will be selling their K-7 for shiny new K-5, so you can get one for a very very good price.
And then, when the next model comes out, in 15 months lets say, you can get yourself a nice K-5 for a good price as well !
But, if you have money burning your pocket, a K-5 would be the ultimate upgrade I guess.

Fl_Gulfer · 10-18-2010, 01:00 PM

If money is a object I'd get a New K-X for $425.00. The New K-R is $800.00 and there isn't that much difference in the 2.
I have a K-7 and I'm not happy with it ...compared to my K20d I think it's a push. Except for the size

Blue · 10-18-2010, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by kp0c

I don't know if I misread or something, but I think there might be a confusion about the OP's camera model. I believe he has a Digital K-m also known as the K2000... anyway. . .

No confusion. Look at post 3 & 4.

Originally posted by Fl_Gulfer

If money is a object I'd get a New K-X for $425.00. The New K-R is $800.00 and there isn't that much difference in the 2.
I have a K-7 and I'm not happy with it ...compared to my K20d I think it's a push. Except for the size

The new AF system may be significant. We'll have to wait and see on that one.

needtime2scrap · 10-18-2010, 01:55 PM

Yup, just clarifying, I have the K-m aka K2000. Its been great, except in low light. I rarely bump it up past 800 iso because its just terrible! I'm talking just taking photos of my 2 year old in the living room

I can get a K-7 now used for about $700, just body. I don't need the lens I have some good ones. The thing is I could wait to save up for the K-5 but by the time I could they'll introduce the K-3 or whatever

A person could wait a lifetime for the "perfect" camera. I want something that's better in low light, has the 2 dials for shutter speed/aperature control, reasonably fast AF, and not weigh a ton.

dexmus · 10-18-2010, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by WerTicus

With regards to the low light performance of the K-7 K-m and K-x
K-r and K-5 will have slightly better than K-x performance.

DxOMark - Compare sensors

So i would be getting a K-5 or K-x if i were you, but only the K-5 will do everything you want

+1. That comparison clearly shows the deficiencies of k-7 sensor when compared to an entry level k-x. If I were you I will wait for the same kind of tests for the k-r and k-5. But even without the tests, it can be safely assumed that both k-5 and k-r have the same or better performing sensor than k-x. Additionally, k-r gives you a better Af and visible focus points in the viewfinder.
k-5 gives you all that and a weather sealed body, more controls outside the menu.

Fl_Gulfer · 10-18-2010, 08:26 PM

I may just put my K-7 on the market since it has less than 5000 clicks and 4 short video tests, I can't talk the wife into keeping it ..she still wants a K-X and they are real inexpensive at the moment..

vsl3-e · 10-19-2010, 02:09 AM

from what i've seen the k-7 is an upgrade to the k-m in all aspects (build, resolution, speed) except for noise. I wouldn't go for the k-7 if noise were really important to me, the DxOMark link sent by WerTicus proves that.

mickey · 10-19-2010, 02:50 AM

I would have said the k-7 until I see you mentioned noise.
I would also have said the k-r, but you mentioned that 2 dials would be nice.

It really leaves the k-5.
I finally saved up enough money to buy the k-7 this year, then the k-5 comes out and blows everything (in the Pentax line and others, ahem) away.
I'll spend the next few months and wait until spring to see what price the k-5 comes in at.
I'm really happy with k10, except iso and noise. It's a real workhorse of a camera and daytime/outdoor images are great.
I really can't upgrade and be disappointed in noise again.
I too love 2 dials, or the k-r/k-x I would choose.

Anyway, not sure if that helps, but if you can hang on a bit to see the prices fall and go for the k-5.

simico · 10-19-2010, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by needtime2scrap

Yup, just clarifying, I have the K-m aka K2000. Its been great, except in low light. I rarely bump it up past 800 iso because its just terrible! I'm talking just taking photos of my 2 year old in the living room

I also have the K-m, taking photos of my 2 year old daughter mostly indoors in low light. With proper exposure and some noise reduction ISO1600 is ok for me. The K-7 isn't really better regarding noise. So if you want an upgrade both in high ISO (less noise) and handling (two wheels, more external buttons, better OVF, etc) then buy K-5. I'll probably go this route. If you don't have enough money for it or handling is not that important then buy K-r or K-x depending on your budget.

10-18-2010, 10:52 AM	#1
needtime2scrap Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Northern Canada Posts: 14	which upgrade from a Km? So I've been shooting with a Km for the past year or so and while I'm happy with the size of the camera I'm feeling really limited when I shoot in low light. I've been wanting to upgrade to the K-7 but with the K-5 out and sounding fabulous I'm not sure what to do. I'm wanting something with better low light capabilities and to be honest 2 dials for adjusting shutter/aperature. I shoot in manual 75% of the time and it drives me crazy to be forced to press a button and dial then just dial to adjust stuff. I know everyone must be sick to death of all these types of posts but I really could use some advice. Dh says to go with the K-7 due to $$ but honestly he doesn't know much about cameras or photography.

10-18-2010, 11:05 AM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	I would say K-7 as well. Definitely your best bet if you'd like to have easy manual control and improved IQ. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Upgrade?	Deiberson	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	1	01-26-2010 12:37 PM
DL to K7 upgrade	txsbluesguy	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	11-11-2009 04:34 PM
Upgrade Advice: Upgrade Lenses or Camera	krs	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	07-17-2009 05:24 AM
Upgrade or not?	jamescp	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	07-13-2009 08:36 PM
Upgrade?	Gaelen	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	10-06-2008 07:54 PM

10-18-2010, 11:08 AM	#3
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	You have the K-m. The KM was a film body from the late 70s. I think your best bet would be the K-r or the K-7. However, you may be able to pick up a K20d used . . .

10-18-2010, 11:12 AM	#4
needtime2scrap Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Northern Canada Posts: 14 Original Poster	Sorry I must have missed the dash button I thought that the K-5 was supposed to be a big improvement over the K-7? Or is it too new to say this?

10-18-2010, 11:15 AM	#5
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by needtime2scrap Sorry I must have missed the dash button I thought that the K-5 was supposed to be a big improvement over the K-7? Or is it too new to say this? I think its safe to say it definitely is a big step up. Moving up from the K-m, everything is a step up, especially regarding mf.

10-18-2010, 12:08 PM	#6
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	With regards to the low light performance of the K-7 K-m and K-x K-r and K-5 will have slightly better than K-x performance. DxOMark - Compare sensors So i would be getting a K-5 or K-x if i were you, but only the K-5 will do everything you want

10-18-2010, 12:45 PM	#7
kp0c Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 761	I don't know if I misread or something, but I think there might be a confusion about the OP's camera model. I believe he has a Digital K-m also known as the K2000... anyway. I used one for a few days I really understand the OP when he says he feels limited in low light. ISO 800 seems to be the absolute max I could use on it. That being said, I think that a K-7 would give you really could result compare to your K-m. Would a K-5 be better ? Off course, "much" better some would say. But at the end of the day, the K-7 is years ahead of your K-m, in terms of build quality, image quality and probably every single aspect anyone could think of (the K-m is still a nice camera though). Price wise, in your situation, the K-7 seems a logical upgrade. Keep an eye on the marketplace, lots of member will be selling their K-7 for shiny new K-5, so you can get one for a very very good price. And then, when the next model comes out, in 15 months lets say, you can get yourself a nice K-5 for a good price as well ! But, if you have money burning your pocket, a K-5 would be the ultimate upgrade I guess.

10-18-2010, 01:00 PM	#8
Fl_Gulfer Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Gulfer Photos: Albums Posts: 3,054	If money is a object I'd get a New K-X for $425.00. The New K-R is $800.00 and there isn't that much difference in the 2. I have a K-7 and I'm not happy with it ...compared to my K20d I think it's a push. Except for the size

10-18-2010, 01:14 PM	#9
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by kp0c I don't know if I misread or something, but I think there might be a confusion about the OP's camera model. I believe he has a Digital K-m also known as the K2000... anyway. . . No confusion. Look at post 3 & 4. Originally posted by Fl_Gulfer If money is a object I'd get a New K-X for $425.00. The New K-R is $800.00 and there isn't that much difference in the 2. I have a K-7 and I'm not happy with it ...compared to my K20d I think it's a push. Except for the size The new AF system may be significant. We'll have to wait and see on that one.

10-18-2010, 01:55 PM	#10
needtime2scrap Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Northern Canada Posts: 14 Original Poster	Yup, just clarifying, I have the K-m aka K2000. Its been great, except in low light. I rarely bump it up past 800 iso because its just terrible! I'm talking just taking photos of my 2 year old in the living room I can get a K-7 now used for about $700, just body. I don't need the lens I have some good ones. The thing is I could wait to save up for the K-5 but by the time I could they'll introduce the K-3 or whatever A person could wait a lifetime for the "perfect" camera. I want something that's better in low light, has the 2 dials for shutter speed/aperature control, reasonably fast AF, and not weigh a ton.

10-18-2010, 02:00 PM	#11
dexmus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 392	Originally posted by WerTicus With regards to the low light performance of the K-7 K-m and K-x K-r and K-5 will have slightly better than K-x performance. DxOMark - Compare sensors So i would be getting a K-5 or K-x if i were you, but only the K-5 will do everything you want +1. That comparison clearly shows the deficiencies of k-7 sensor when compared to an entry level k-x. If I were you I will wait for the same kind of tests for the k-r and k-5. But even without the tests, it can be safely assumed that both k-5 and k-r have the same or better performing sensor than k-x. Additionally, k-r gives you a better Af and visible focus points in the viewfinder. k-5 gives you all that and a weather sealed body, more controls outside the menu.

10-18-2010, 08:26 PM	#12
Fl_Gulfer Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Gulfer Photos: Albums Posts: 3,054	I may just put my K-7 on the market since it has less than 5000 clicks and 4 short video tests, I can't talk the wife into keeping it ..she still wants a K-X and they are real inexpensive at the moment..

10-19-2010, 02:09 AM	#13
vsl3-e Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Bratislava, Slovakia Photos: Albums Posts: 116	from what i've seen the k-7 is an upgrade to the k-m in all aspects (build, resolution, speed) except for noise. I wouldn't go for the k-7 if noise were really important to me, the DxOMark link sent by WerTicus proves that.

10-19-2010, 02:50 AM	#14
mickey Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	I would have said the k-7 until I see you mentioned noise. I would also have said the k-r, but you mentioned that 2 dials would be nice. It really leaves the k-5. I finally saved up enough money to buy the k-7 this year, then the k-5 comes out and blows everything (in the Pentax line and others, ahem) away. I'll spend the next few months and wait until spring to see what price the k-5 comes in at. I'm really happy with k10, except iso and noise. It's a real workhorse of a camera and daytime/outdoor images are great. I really can't upgrade and be disappointed in noise again. I too love 2 dials, or the k-r/k-x I would choose. Anyway, not sure if that helps, but if you can hang on a bit to see the prices fall and go for the k-5.

10-19-2010, 07:00 AM	#15
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	Originally posted by needtime2scrap Yup, just clarifying, I have the K-m aka K2000. Its been great, except in low light. I rarely bump it up past 800 iso because its just terrible! I'm talking just taking photos of my 2 year old in the living room I also have the K-m, taking photos of my 2 year old daughter mostly indoors in low light. With proper exposure and some noise reduction ISO1600 is ok for me. The K-7 isn't really better regarding noise. So if you want an upgrade both in high ISO (less noise) and handling (two wheels, more external buttons, better OVF, etc) then buy K-5. I'll probably go this route. If you don't have enough money for it or handling is not that important then buy K-r or K-x depending on your budget.