[Pentaxor]

Got your point now. And it's valid, but you're just giving it a greater weight than I do. Which is fine too, I'm just stating the facts.

I look at these things differently. When I use the K-x, I usually limit it at the same ISO as the K-7 when shooting indoors - ISO 800. It is superior to the K-7 at 1600, but I prefer the K-x at 800 to the K-x at 1600. So, just because the K-x is better than the K-7 at 1600 doesn't mean that I am eager to use it at 1600. So the ISO advantage in the end only comes into play in very few situations. Mostly, I decided to use the K-x with my mirror lenses, because there I need ISO 1600 easily.

Coming back to the recommendation of a camera for a beginner, I still think that a higher end body is more desirable, for the following reasons:

- it has better features (better SR, better viewfinder, better shutter, ...)
- it provides more feedback (LCD screen) and more controls, which can make it easier to form good habits of checking and adjusting features
- it will most likely last longer - the shutter is rated and tested for longer, for example

I'm not aware of how much a k-x (brandnew or used) costs nowadays, but the K-7 at $600-$700 makes it an easy buy. if I were on the budget and I were to get a camera today, it's not even a difficult decision which one to pick. the K-7 is just plain better overall. besides, I don't believe that most consumers would look or buy a camera just because of it's High ISO alone. if we were to consider what people shoot most of the time, I doubt that they use past ISO 800 50% of the time. it helps to have High ISO really, but not on all occasions. and I doubt that they would shoot at such sensitivity thinking it would give them the best possible IQ. the K-5 would, but not because of ISO but DR stop equivalent at ISO 1,000.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I definitely agree with you. If you refuse to use the KR at higher ISo then the K7 is better.

That's not what I said. I said that I prefer to shoot at lower ISO and most of the time I can afford to do that. The result being that I need ISO 1600+ only on special occasions. For the rest of the time, I derive more benefit from having a better viewfinder/SR/controls.

besides, I don't believe that most consumers would look or buy a camera just because of it's High ISO alone. if we were to consider what people shoot most of the time, I doubt that they use past ISO 800 50% of the time. it helps to have High ISO really, but not on all occasions. and I doubt that they would shoot at such sensitivity thinking it would give them the best possible IQ.

Right. In fact, I'd say that for me, ISO 1600+ comes into play 1% of the time.

[Michael Barker]

I didn't see anyone mention dynamic range in this thread. DXOmark gives a much higher score to the K-x/K-r, giving it a 1.8 EV advantage in the dynamic range category. But looking at the details of the DPreview tests, the main K-x advantage over K-7 is really only in the shadows, at high ISO: Pentax K-x Review: 17. Photographic tests (DR): Digital Photography Review
Pentax K-7 Review: 18. Photographic tests (DR): Digital Photography Review

In another thread someone linked to more tests:

Imaging resource run standardised tests for this issue :

K7 Digital Cameras, Pentax K7 Digital Camera Test Image

KX Digital Cameras, Pentax K-x Digital Camera Test Image

You'll be looking for differences in shadow and highlight detail. Do the shadows roll off smoothly or suddenly become 'blocked off'.

I think when people talk about the DR advantages of the newer sensors, they mainly mean the hidden dynamic range which can be unlocked through PP, rather than what you can see in a well exposed shot which presents less of a challenge.

Here's another thread:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/77974-lumolabs-k-x...on-2009-a.html

But I think the biggest differences are ergonomics and build quality.

[Pentaxor]

after much bashing the K-7 has received for a long time, the K-7 seems to have made it's own. for what it's worth, the K-7 is more of a great deal nowadays compared to the k-x, while the k-x seemed to have disappeared. I remember people were saying then that the k-x is what the K-7 should had been. guess that DR advantage and noise control isn't all that great on a k-x body. at the end of the day, functionality, ergo and etc... seems to be more of real value.

[Xtrearer]

I am busy organizing an upgrade from my broken K-r (E Dial), to a K-7. I have read that it almost exactly like a the K20d, which is perfect, since my wife has one of those and it rocks! If the K-7 can handle decent images at ISO3200, I'll be happy. Best thing of all, I will only have to pay a fraction more to do the upgrade.

For those of you who have not owned a K-r and would like to go to one, I will say this. It is an entry-level DSLR. Made for people who like to shoot in Auto. It helped me to learn how to do manual shoots, but it was such a hassle. I kept begging my wife so that I could rather use the K20d. I outgrew the K-r in about 5 weeks. I do not like how you have to set everything in the menu, as this breaks the flow while I am working.

There are a lot of things I dislike about the K-r, battery life included, but its an entry level DSLR and should be used as such. If you are looking for something more, go for the K-7 or the wonderful K-5.

[Pentaxor]

I am busy organizing an upgrade from my broken K-r (E Dial), to a K-7. I have read that it almost exactly like a the K20d, which is perfect, since my wife has one of those and it rocks! If the K-7 can handle decent images at ISO3200, I'll be happy. Best thing of all, I will only have to pay a fraction more to do the upgrade.

For those of you who have not owned a K-r and would like to go to one, I will say this. It is an entry-level DSLR. Made for people who like to shoot in Auto. It helped me to learn how to do manual shoots, but it was such a hassle. I kept begging my wife so that I could rather use the K20d. I outgrew the K-r in about 5 weeks. I do not like how you have to set everything in the menu, as this breaks the flow while I am working.

There are a lot of things I dislike about the K-r, battery life included, but its an entry level DSLR and should be used as such. If you are looking for something more, go for the K-7 or the wonderful K-5.

just an advice for using the K-7, expose correctly or expose to right. we don't want people bashing it again for noise.

[SaikouShadou]

in my opinion if you don't need WR go for the K-r and also an umberella hehe. I myself went of the K-7 cause of the condition that I may be in, so WR for me but WR wasn't just the only reason there were others.

[Xtrearer]

I'm going K-7, since the K-r is an entry level camera. It handles really badly, for me at least. The shutter button kept on giving problems, with both models I was given. Having one E-dial (that breaks the whole time, on multiple models, the two I was given, and 2 were tested in store), makes it fiddly to change Aperture and Shutter
Speed on the fly. I am a upstart Wedding Photographer, and having to take the camera away from my face to set the values, makes me miss shots that were happening while I was fiddling with the camera. With Wedding Photography, this can prove disastrous! There are a bunch of other short comings, for my specific use anyway, that just makes the K-7 so much more appealing than the K-r. One thing I can say about the K-r is that it does take nice pictures. But coaxing it to do so is way too much effort IMHO.

[Designosophy]

The K-7 can do ISO 3200 okay. Here's one of my favorite ISO 3200 photos. Taken on a cloudy day at Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia with an A 135/2.8 at f/6.3, 1/160s. I overexposed a bit and brought it down in ACR.

[Frogfish]

Sorry Designosophy but there is no way that ISO3,200 passes muster for me. Unprintable at my usual size (8x10). Look at the foreground, faces and any shadows .... very noisy I'm afraid.

And that's why my K7 is being sold next week.

[InlawBiker]

It is a tough choice between the K-7 and K-r right now given that they cost about the same and have totally different strengths and weaknesses. If you can decide which is more important to you the choice becomes easier.

The limited controls of the K-r can be irritating despite the great performance. If you're using the camera on a job I don't see how it could be used as anything but a backup. Digging through menus is a chore and no fun, even if using the camera just as a hobby. If you set if for a scene mode and click away though it will work great.

The K-7 on the other hand is a joy to use, but you'll need some skill to work around its limitations. It's very intelligently laid out. I have just got one and found it very easy to adjust the settings I want without even looking at the camera. I picked up my old K200d and immediately started reaching for the APS switch - "Oh no, it's in a menu! But where in the menu? I can't remember, start clicking.... click, click, grrr.."

As an enthusiast/geek I love the K-7 and I can easily work with the noise. I don't want the camera to make choices for me, that's not why I got one. I'm just having fun.

[Designosophy]

Sorry Designosophy but there is no way that ISO3,200 passes muster for me. Unprintable at my usual size (8x10). Look at the foreground, faces and any shadows .... very noisy I'm afraid.

And that's why my K7 is being sold next week.

No kidding it's noisy. I'm not a fan of noise, but I don't mind luminosity noise as much as color noise. At ISO 3200, the K-7 can produce a lot of splotchy color noise if you have to push the exposure at all in pp. (I know, I'm not telling you anything new.) If I had messed with the settings, I could have gotten a shot in this light with lower ISO. But if I had messed with the settings, I wouldn't have gotten this shot, and it's a shot that I enjoy. Not that this photo is worth a serious printing, noise aside, but I am fine with the level of noise exhibited here, even at 8 x 10.

That said, my signature is telling. With the K-7, I just could not do the low-light photography that I enjoy.

[Ben_Edict]

I do a lot of hill walking so a well made camera would be an advantage, but I've not wrecked a camera yet. I shoot landscape and wildlife, but like long exposure etc.

I'm not fussed about video really.

I was in the same path of thinking recently, though I do use my K10 and K20 heavily. I was looking for a third, small and capable camera for walking around without the heavy cameras. Also, I was looking for an improved AF. In the end, I decided to get the K-r. It is a wonderful little camera. Yes, it is scaled down in terms of convenience (smaller viewfinder, onhly one dial, which in my view is the main drawback) Image quality is great and I can routinely use it at ISO 800, which is a setting I very rarely and reluctantly use on the K20. AF and frame rate are simply stunning - what an improvement over the earlier K-series modells!

In terms of weather resistance, I have made the same experience as you did: in 30 years of photography, mostly with not sealed cameras (the LX being the exception, then) I never had any trouble with cameras, even in driving rain or heavy snowing. And it is the same with the K-r. I recently took quite a few images in heavy rain with the tiny camera and it worked flawlessly. No dials broken, no unexpected shutter action (whoever has used the LX with MD really knows, what a "nervous" shutter release buttion is).

My conclusion is: If I was a pure hobby photographer, the K-r would provide me with endless opportunities and I can recommend it without hesitation. For someone working with the camera or being really serious about photography, the lack of the second e-dial would be a deal breaker IMHO.

The smaller viewfinder of the K-r can be easily upgraded, using one of those KPR 1.3x magnification eyepieces. That works nicely.

Ben

[Frogfish]

That said, my signature is telling. With the K-7, I just could not do the low-light photography that I enjoy.

Feeling that !

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Sorry Designosophy but there is no way that ISO3,200 passes muster for me. Unprintable at my usual size (8x10). Look at the foreground, faces and any shadows .... very noisy I'm afraid.

I made 8x10 and 11x14 prints from images that were noisy on my screen, even when viewed at small size, but there was no noise discernible in prints. Everyone should really take one of these noisy images that their cameras produce and print that in large size to see just how little impact the noise has on a print. Don't take my word for it, just try it out!