[Rondec]

There are definitely a lot of improvements in the K5 as compared to the K7, particularly with regard to high iso and dynamic range. The thing to remember is that it is the K5 that is a lot better than the pack, rather than the K7 that is a lot worse than it. The dynamic range in the K7 compares well to the 7D and 50D which were released shortly before and after it. High iso when shooting RAW is just a hair behind other cameras released at the same time.

On the other hand, the K5 has better dynamic range at base iso than medium format cameras and can shoot high iso as well as any other APS-C camera out there. It is also priced accordingly. So, you pay your money and you take your choice. But my K7 continues to work fine and will continue to take photos after the sequel to the K5 is announced.

[cbaytan]

Taken with a completely useless camera---- The K7..

I am jealous, why I can't take pictures like this? May I as what is lens and the firmware version of you K7? Thanks.

[Tony3d]

I just don't get it. Why would the OP feel ripped off? Did he not know what he was buying? Did he expect technology to come to a grinding halt when he bought a camera?

Compare the two cameras, The K7 has nearly the same colour depth as the K5, has an over 10 stops of ev range. It doesn't do so well at high ISO, but that wasn't much of a secret when it was released either.

So, what is the K7 good for?
Well, the average landscape scene is well under 10 stops, probably closer to 6 or 7, and landscapes tend to be shot at low ISO.
It is a good landscape camera.
It also has excellent bit depth, it is a good studio camera.

The reality is, if this is what a person does, the K5 isn't going to make a great big difference to their pictures.. More than likely, there will be some other parameter the person could change to garner a greater technical improvement in their photography.
This is not to say I am not enjoying the extra 3.5 or so stops of DR, or being able to crank the ISO up to 128,000 and still have very good image quality.

I'm just sayin that for a lot of what we do, the K7 is just fine, the K5 addresses what were considered major flaws in the k7.

Why would someone feel ripped off when
a camera company makes a huge product improvement?
Should someone feel ripped of when the car they bought last year gets improved with 40 more horsepower this year?

I guess one reason I feel ripped off is when I bought my K7 I read on Pentax's own site that the sensor in the K7 was redesigned to provide better noise control, only come to find out that the noise, and dynamic range is no better, if not worse than the previous model. I'm sorry, but that just rubs me the wrong way. Then I go on dxomark to find out the sensor scores worse than a 3 year old Cannon Rebel! I thought I was buying a top flight camera. I know people will say the handling is so great, and all the buttons are in just the right place, and the build quality is excellent. I'm not disputing non of that, but let's face it folks to release such a great camera, then equip it with a sensor that's out performed by a 3 year old Rebel, just aggravates me. Then just some six months or so later bring out a KX that has a better performing sensor tells me Pentax knew what they were doing. At the time the K7 was released they could have put in a much better sensor, fact is they didn't. You can say all you want about how great the camera is in other respects, but let's admit it the all important sensor, is what captures your picture. I would think that would be more important than a built in level! I think Pentax had a chance to make a real statement back then, instead they chose to grab up as much money as they could with the K7, then bring out the camera the K7 should have been. I say shame on Pentax, and whoever made that sensor decision hopefully was fired. Sorry, that's just my opinion.

[Lowell Goudge]

How many K7 owners intend to hold on to their cameras for the next couple Years, even though the K5's sensor tends to make our K7's look three years older than they really are? After reading all this info on the K5, I'm really wondering why Pentax brought out such a great body, and put in such a weak sensor. I was looking on dxo mark, and was surprised to see how many much older camera's beat the K7's noise, and dynamic range. Just makes one feel a bit ripped off.

I have never ever sold anything, which accounts for my 6 cameras (3 film and 3 digital) and 32 lenses presently

I will keep the K7 until it fails, and then put it on the shelf.

It still outclasses my K10D and *istD at high ISO, regardless of what others complain about, and it still takes great images. But note, I still also use my K10D and *istD as well, just differently. I am a recreational shooter, meaning I shoot perhaps 10k-12K shots annually. right now, my K7D has 8500 shots on it, since june 09 when I got it, my K10D, has done about 2K shots since that time, and my *istD about 1K.

Basically I use the K7 as my main camera, the K10 as a backup and second body and the *istD for TTL flash with legacy lenses and when I feel like it. It still takes wonderful photos. Before I got the K7D, the K10D was the main camera and *istD the back-up.

My K10D and *istD both have split image finders installed for manual focus lenses.

My K7 has lots of life left in it, and assuming I go to the K5 or a later body some time in the next year or two, The camera that will most likely not get a lot of use will be the K10D. But then again, it still may get used because I hate changing lenses.

[Tony3d]

I just don't get it. Why would the OP feel ripped off? Did he not know what he was buying? Did he expect technology to come to a grinding halt when he bought a camera?

Compare the two cameras, The K7 has nearly the same colour depth as the K5, has an over 10 stops of ev range. It doesn't do so well at high ISO, but that wasn't much of a secret when it was released either.

So, what is the K7 good for?
Well, the average landscape scene is well under 10 stops, probably closer to 6 or 7, and landscapes tend to be shot at low ISO.
It is a good landscape camera.
It also has excellent bit depth, it is a good studio camera.

The reality is, if this is what a person does, the K5 isn't going to make a great big difference to their pictures.. More than likely, there will be some other parameter the person could change to garner a greater technical improvement in their photography.
This is not to say I am not enjoying the extra 3.5 or so stops of DR, or being able to crank the ISO up to 128,000 and still have very good image quality.

I'm just sayin that for a lot of what we do, the K7 is just fine, the K5 addresses what were considered major flaws in the k7.

Why would someone feel ripped off when
a camera company makes a huge product improvement?
Should someone feel ripped of when the car they bought last year gets improved with 40 more horsepower this year?

I guess one reason I feel ripped off is when I bought my K7 I read on Pentax's own site that the sensor in the K7 was redesigned to provide better noise control, only come to find out that the noise, and dynamic range is no better, if not worse than the previous model. I'm sorry, but that just rubs me the wrong way. Then I go on dxomark to find out the sensor scores worse than a 3 year old Cannon Rebel! I thought I was buying a top flight camera. I know people will say the handling is so great, and all the buttons are in just the right place, and the build quality is excellent. I'm not disputing non of that, but let's face it folks to release such a great camera, then equip it with a sensor that's out performed by a 3 year old Rebel, just aggravates me. Then just some six months or so later bring out a KX that has a better performing sensor tells me Pentax knew what they were doing. At the time the K7 was released they could have put in a much better sensor, fact is they didn't. You can say all you want about how great the camera is in other respects, but let's admit it the all important sensor, is what captures your picture. I would think that would be more important than a built in level! I think Pentax had a chance to make a real statement back then, instead they chose to grab up as much money as they could with the K7, then bring out the camera the K7 should have been. I say shame on Pentax, and whoever made that sensor decision hopefully was fired. Sorry, that's just my opinion. I do use the built in level from time to time, but I'm stuck getting anything useable over 1600 iso for the rest of the time I own the camera.

[paperbag846]

How many K7 owners intend to hold on to their cameras for the next couple Years, even though the K5's sensor tends to make our K7's look three years older than they really are? After reading all this info on the K5, I'm really wondering why Pentax brought out such a great body, and put in such a weak sensor. I was looking on dxo mark, and was surprised to see how many much older camera's beat the K7's noise, and dynamic range. Just makes one feel a bit ripped off.

Don't worry about it. Use your K7 until it breaks. When that happens, the K-5 will sell for 300 bucks . Every year, this technology is going to get better and better. You have a very capable camera which actually takes stunning images at ISO 100 - 400, and very usable ones at 800 ad 1600. The longer you wait, the better the ISO will be. Besides, the successor to the K-5 will have all sorts of upgrades such as even BETTER AF than the K-5's improvements!

[Wheatfield]

I guess one reason I feel ripped off is when I bought my K7 I read on Pentax's own site that the sensor in the K7 was redesigned to provide better noise control, only come to find out that the noise, and dynamic range is no better, if not worse than the previous model. I'm sorry, but that just rubs me the wrong way. Then I go on dxomark to find out the sensor scores worse than a 3 year old Cannon Rebel! I thought I was buying a top flight camera. I know people will say the handling is so great, and all the buttons are in just the right place, and the build quality is excellent. I'm not disputing non of that, but let's face it folks to release such a great camera, then equip it with a sensor that's out performed by a 3 year old Rebel, just aggravates me. Then just some six months or so later bring out a KX that has a better performing sensor tells me Pentax knew what they were doing. At the time the K7 was released they could have put in a much better sensor, fact is they didn't. You can say all you want about how great the camera is in other respects, but let's admit it the all important sensor, is what captures your picture. I would think that would be more important than a built in level! I think Pentax had a chance to make a real statement back then, instead they chose to grab up as much money as they could with the K7, then bring out the camera the K7 should have been. I say shame on Pentax, and whoever made that sensor decision hopefully was fired. Sorry, that's just my opinion.

Well, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, but you don't know what sort of contractual obligations Pentax had with Samsung, and you don't know what sensor options were available to Pentax at the time.
If they had dropped the Kx sensor in, they would have been pilloried by the chronic complainers because they were moving backwards WRT pixel counts, no matter that high ISO noise would have been a miraculous improvement.

FWIW, I found moving from the K20 to the K10 was an improvement in IQ, although the K7 didn't raise the ISO bar any higher.
The K20 was, I found OK up to 640, the K7 was good to ISO 800.

Anyway, if you had done your research properly at the time, you would have found all the stuff you are complaining about now and could have, perhaps, made a better decision, perhaps buying a Rebel instead of what you purchased.
And you would still be unhappy because Canon would have released a new and improved camera in 6 months, and you would be saying shame on Canon now.

[MetteHHH]

... I say shame on Pentax, and whoever made that sensor decision hopefully was fired. Sorry, that's just my opinion. I do use the built in level from time to time, but I'm stuck getting anything useable over 1600 iso for the rest of the time I own the camera.

Hmm... yes, I can see your point of view. A friend from Norway did warn me: Given the upgrade history of Pentax, he said, K-7 would most likely be an upgrade of the physical build, and the next model would feature more of a sensor upgrade. So I was warned, I did consider waiting, and there we go. I have still got quite a few great shots out of my K-7, which I don't think my previous K-10 could have handled equally well.

But I don't see why you would expect there to be any negative consequences for the employees who made the sensor decision for K-7. On the contrary it looks like it was a good business decision, even if it didn't make you or me happy. If they had put a better sensor in K-7, there is no way I would even be considering an upgrade any time soon. As it is, I do. And it looks like a lot of K-7 owners in here are upgrading. That translates to profit, as far as I can see, for Pentax?

[Tony3d]

Hmm... yes, I can see your point of view. A friend from Norway did warn me: Given the upgrade history of Pentax, he said, K-7 would most likely be an upgrade of the physical build, and the next model would feature more of a sensor upgrade. So I was warned, I did consider waiting, and there we go. I have still got quite a few great shots out of my K-7, which I don't think my previous K-10 could have handled equally well.

But I don't see why you would expect there to be any negative consequences for the employees who made the sensor decision for K-7. On the contrary it looks like it was a good business decision, even if it didn't make you or me happy. If they had put a better sensor in K-7, there is no way I would even be considering an upgrade any time soon. As it is, I do. And it looks like a lot of K-7 owners in here are upgrading. That translates to profit, as far as I can see, for Pentax?

Exactly. That's my point. It was profit driven, totally forgoing what's best for their customers. If they did the right thing, they would have placed the customers first ahead of profits! It amazes me how people can see this as a good thing.

[Wheatfield]

Exactly. That's my point. It was profit driven, totally forgoing what's best for their customers. If they did the right thing, they would have placed the customers first ahead of profits! It amazes me how people can see this as a good thing.

Are you completely daft?
Everything companies do is profit driven. If what they do is also good for their customer base, they are rewarded by profits.
Evidently, the marketplace doesn't agree with your view, since by all accounts, the K7 was a very good seller indeed, and brought several notable improvements, such as AF speed, a metering system that worked, an AF system that was relatively colour blind and much better ergonomics.

Or perhaps you would have preferred to whine about a 12mp K7?
Because I am sure you would have been the first on the block to complain about 2 fewer megapixels, judging by your activity on this thread.

Tony, you need to get away from the computer for a while and go take some pictures. And do better research before you buy your next camera, not that it will likely affect your level of disappointment with whatever you buy.

[EdMaximus]

Actually, I heard Pentax was going to release new firmware for the K-7 to allow galloping unicorn capturing.

That's the main feature I was waiting for. I guess I can ditch the K-5 and get another K-7. Thus saving some money to buy the FA 31ltd again.

[GeneV]

I have never ever sold anything, which accounts for my 6 cameras (3 film and 3 digital) and 32 lenses presently

I will keep the K7 until it fails, and then put it on the shelf.

It still outclasses my K10D and *istD at high ISO, regardless of what others complain about, and it still takes great images. But note, I still also use my K10D and *istD as well, just differently. I am a recreational shooter, meaning I shoot perhaps 10k-12K shots annually. right now, my K7D has 8500 shots on it, since june 09 when I got it, my K10D, has done about 2K shots since that time, and my *istD about 1K.

Basically I use the K7 as my main camera, the K10 as a backup and second body and the *istD for TTL flash with legacy lenses and when I feel like it. It still takes wonderful photos. Before I got the K7D, the K10D was the main camera and *istD the back-up.

My K10D and *istD both have split image finders installed for manual focus lenses.

I'm very similar, and I've ended up with a similar collection. I don't own a K7, but when I decide to buy a K5, I may very well buy one. I've found having the K10d invaluable as a companion to the K20d, as they take the same accessories and feel the same in hand. The change in form and accessories (grip, batts, etc.) was a reason why I never jumped to the K7. Existence of a reasonably-priced K7 makes it more likely I'll upgrade my kit in the next year or so.

[Lowell Goudge]

Exactly. That's my point. It was profit driven, totally forgoing what's best for their customers. If they did the right thing, they would have placed the customers first ahead of profits! It amazes me how people can see this as a good thing.

There is another thread running here about someone worried because they bought pentax and are afraid the company will cease to exist in the future.

You have, as I see it, two possibilities, request that pentax deliver everything you want, years ahead of the competition and go broke, or make good profit based decisions, and be around.

I prefer the latter.

Are you completely daft?
Everything companies do is profit driven. If what they do is also good for their customer base, they are rewarded by profits.
Evidently, the marketplace doesn't agree with your view, since by all accounts, the K7 was a very good seller indeed, and brought several notable improvements, such as AF speed, a metering system that worked, an AF system that was relatively colour blind and much better ergonomics.

Or perhaps you would have preferred to whine about a 12mp K7?
Because I am sure you would have been the first on the block to complain about 2 fewer megapixels, judging by your activity on this thread.

Tony, you need to get away from the computer for a while and go take some pictures. And do better research before you buy your next camera, not that it will likely affect your level of disappointment with whatever you buy.

Weatfield and I don't necessairly always agree, but his comment is spot on in this instance.

What is best for the bottom line, when you are not in the #1 position where you can dictate to the market, is to make decisions that keep the majority of the users happy.

OK the sensor was quickly surpassed by other sensors, fine. but that does not make the camera complete junk.

Will I get a K5, probably at some time, perhaps next year, but the K7 is so far ahead of the K10D that was my base camera prior to getting the K7 that I will still have room in my kit for it.

[Lowell Goudge]

I'm very similar, and I've ended up with a similar collection. I don't own a K7, but when I decide to buy a K5, I may very well buy one. I've found having the K10d invaluable as a companion to the K20d, as they take the same accessories and feel the same in hand. The change in form and accessories (grip, batts, etc.) was a reason why I never jumped to the K7. Existence of a reasonably-priced K7 makes it more likely I'll upgrade my kit in the next year or so.

I went the other way, I have never bought a grip so I don't get killed with that issue. Batteries would be nice, but the K7 was so far ahead of the K10/20 in metering that it seemed to be a waste for me to go the K20 route at least for me.

[Tony3d]

Are you completely daft?
Everything companies do is profit driven. If what they do is also good for their customer base, they are rewarded by profits.
Evidently, the marketplace doesn't agree with your view, since by all accounts, the K7 was a very good seller indeed, and brought several notable improvements, such as AF speed, a metering system that worked, an AF system that was relatively colour blind and much better ergonomics.

Or perhaps you would have preferred to whine about a 12mp K7?
Because I am sure you would have been the first on the block to complain about 2 fewer megapixels, judging by your activity on this thread.

Tony, you need to get away from the computer for a while and go take some pictures. And do better research before you buy your next camera, not that it will likely affect your level of disappointment with whatever you buy.

First off I very rarely print my pictures. I stream them from my computer to my 63" plasma where they look stunning! I could care less about the two million pixels. Sorry I just don't buy it.