[Frogfish]

I mean, how many times do you really need High ISO?

Lots actually, here's just a few and I'm sure anyone could add more if they think about it :

When shooting birds you need to keep the shutter speed up, for BIF 1/1250 - 1/1600, often high ISO is the only way to do that. Any poor or failing light and you need to get that ISO up to keep the shutter speeds up - even for shots other than BIF.

When shooting indoors whenever flash is banned or not feasible (think churches, art galleries etc.). Even restaurants etc.

When shooting sports and again a high shutter speed is required to freeze the action - especially if indoors (martial arts, basketball, gym etc.). Flash usually banned.

In theatres, concerts or children's recitals - again often no flash permitted.

The list goes on .... I found situations like the above to be quite limiting on occasions with the K7. And a 1.4 is very often not enough or the FL far too short.

Since buying the K5 none of these situations have proved any sort of obstacle. The Kr has a good sensor and that makes a big difference.

[HEEGZ]

Richard978, I bought my K-7 for the WR as I take it with me hiking, etc. It sounds like this would be a better camera for you than a K-x or K-r due to it having WR. The WR kit lens that comes with it serves pretty well for starters, or you can always buy better quality lenses if you have the money to do so. I am comfortable using my K-7 up to ISO 1600 without NR in software and 2200-3200 with NR software applied. Fast lenses help quite a bit as well. Overall I think you will be better off with the K-7 based on your comments above.

[1r0nh31d3]

Sorry to not let this drop but I looked again at hcc's post and I can't figure what I must be missing in his post that implies he is comparing the K& to other brands of cameras rather than the ISO of the KR in question? What exact part of his post are you inferring this from?

Without wanting to mis-quote, I think hcc was implying that the K-7 is as good as any of the other major brands at this price point

I agree with frogfish that high ISO is important in lots of instances, I think many in this thread are dismissive of the fact that being able to shoot in lower light with a faster shutter speed or more aperture options is a big deal. I am for sure an amateur photographer but when did the flexibility to use a faster shutter speed in lower light or not having to shoot with a wide open aperture by default in lower light not become a big deal to photographers?

I think to your average joe user (which almost all forum members are, I think we can all safely admit that most of us are not pros) the higher iso capabilities far out weight the weather sealing and duel wheel controls.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Since buying the K5 none of these situations have proved any sort of obstacle. The Kr has a good sensor and that makes a big difference.

But the K-r is not a K-5. And it's not a K-7 either. The K-5 may be a clear improvement over the K-7, but when changing the discussion to K-r you're throwing a lot of features out and whatever advantage the K-r sensor may offer is now offset by the loss of build quality, controls, and body features. Even dpreview got the relative ratings of these cameras right: K-5 83%, K-7 74%, K-x 73%, K-r 71%.

[cbaytan]

I like the build quality of the K7 but the ISO issues worry me. Is the extra £200.00 for the K7 worth it now the KR has been released.

.

I am a strict ISO100 shooter so I don't know about high ISO but, *my* K-7 is a low light IQ loser even in 100 ISO, so I've switched back to K200D which has also a solid WR body.

[Frogfish]

But the K-r is not a K-5. And it's not a K-7 either. The K-5 may be a clear improvement over the K-7, but when changing the discussion to K-r you're throwing a lot of features out and whatever advantage the K-r sensor may offer is now offset by the loss of build quality, controls, and body features. Even dpreview got the relative ratings of these cameras right: K-5 83%, K-7 74%, K-x 73%, K-r 71%.

Those DPReviews figures are misleading because they are not against a baseline 100 for all cameras, those are percentages for the market in which they are considered to fall (e.g. Pro, Semi-Pro, Advanced Amateur, Beginner and so on).

The Kr also offers a lot of features (whilst not up to the level of the K5) that are nonetheless substantial and a major improvement over the Kx and in some cases over the K7 : ISO to 25,600, Safox 9, 3 inch screen, VF confirmation in the viewfinder, AF assist, IR simple and a choice of batteries !

Another factor that may come into play though is the physical size - personally I couldn't take a Kr over the K7 simply because it feels too small in my hands !

[1r0nh31d3]

But the K-r is not a K-5. And it's not a K-7 either. The K-5 may be a clear improvement over the K-7, but when changing the discussion to K-r you're throwing a lot of features out and whatever advantage the K-r sensor may offer is now offset by the loss of build quality, controls, and body features. Even dpreview got the relative ratings of these cameras right: K-5 83%, K-7 74%, K-x 73%, K-r 71%.

I agree with you but keep the OP in context with what your saying. He is completely new to digital photography. When you were brand new to photography what did you need more. more flexible shooting parameters or more controls and setting to change, weather sealing etc.

For someone just getting into photography I would recommend the KR over K5 K7 every time. I suppose if money is no object get the best camera in the line up and be done with it. But for shear value and filling the needs of a beginner I am surprised that anyone is arguing the K7 over the KR.

[HEEGZ]

For someone just getting into photography I would recommend the KR over K5 K7 every time. I suppose if money is no object get the best camera in the line up and be done with it. But for shear value and filling the needs of a beginner I am surprised that anyone is arguing the K7 over the KR.

Depending on usage, WR and a second e-dial were deciding factors for me. The price is close enough to be almost irrelevant.

[Nowhere Matt]

I agree with you but keep the OP in context with what your saying. He is completely new to digital photography. When you were brand new to photography what did you need more. more flexible shooting parameters or more controls and setting to change, weather sealing etc.

For someone just getting into photography I would recommend the KR over K5 K7 every time. I suppose if money is no object get the best camera in the line up and be done with it. But for shear value and filling the needs of a beginner I am surprised that anyone is arguing the K7 over the KR.

Agreed. And it is not that the K-r will turn to pudding or crumble in your hands the instant you take it out in the elements or on a walking trail.
I think the K-7 can be a forgiving instrument in the introduction to digital single lens reflex camera photography and is a camera that you can grow into as you advance your skills and expectations.
On the other hand, the K-r may will be a very capable tool and less of an initial investment for someone with very little preconceived notions about ergonomics and features of certain other dslr cameras.

[hcc]

Without wanting to mis-quote, I think hcc was implying that the K-7 is as good as any of the other major brands ....

I think that some misread my orignal message. I simply re-phrase two points:

*At low ISO, the K-7 is as good as any other body and some threads suggested that the K-7 was better than the K-x (at low ISO).

*The debate for high-ISO is another issue. My main interest is to shoot in low-light conditions, irrespective of the ISO. The simple/simplest solution is a fast lens. With my Voigtander 58mm f1.4 and K-7, I have been able to take some amazing shots outdoor at dawn and dusk, and indoor under pretty dim lighting. Even my 'slower' f1.8 and f2.8 lenses (coupled with K-7) gave excellent shots indoor without flash.

Some may argue that the discussion should focus solely on the camera body. However the ultimate results (your photographs) are closely linked with your lens selection. In fact a number of Pentaxians think that the lens is more important than the camera: good glass is worth every penny.

Coming back to the orginal threads, everyone has different needs. The OP should think carefully of his/her needs. For example, in my case, I shoot almost 80% outdoor; I need WR and I like some better control of my camera; in that instance, the K-7 is a better choice than the K-r.

[1r0nh31d3]

I can definitely agree with everything you have stated here. And I would like to reinforce that you should try and spend what your budget will allow for nice glass, it makes a world of difference over kit lenses.

I think that some misread my orignal message. I simply re-phrase two points:

*At low ISO, the K-7 is as good as any other body and some threads suggested that the K-7 was better than the K-x (at low ISO).

*The debate for high-ISO is another issue. My main interest is to shoot in low-light conditions, irrespective of the ISO. The simple/simplest solution is a fast lens. With my Voigtander 58mm f1.4 and K-7, I have been able to take some amazing shots outdoor at dawn and dusk, and indoor under pretty dim lighting. Even my 'slower' f1.8 and f2.8 lenses (coupled with K-7) gave excellent shots indoor without flash.

Some may argue that the discussion should focus solely on the camera body. However the ultimate results (your photographs) are closely linked with your lens selection. In fact a number of Pentaxians think that the lens is more important than the camera: good glass is worth every penny.

Comong back to the orginal threads, everyone has different needs. The OP should think carefully of his/her needs. For example, in my case, I shoot almost 80% outdoor; I need WR and I like some better control of my camera; in that instance, the K-7 is a better choice than the K-r.

[Pentaxor]

if you dont shoot nor need High ISO shooting, the K-7 is perfectly fine as long as you know what you are doing. expose it properly, you get great results. use it at ISO 100-1600, you get great to good results. use it with a flash or strobe, you get great results. use it at highly underexposed shots, don't expect a miracle to happen. learn how to exploit your camera's true potential and you'd get great images.

[Pentaxor]

as far as the discussion involving the K-7 and the K-r, these are 2 different systems. one caters the entry level for those with budget deficit and basic photography needs. and one caters the mid-level for those features that they find necessary or better for a bit more money. although I wouldn't necessarily go on the discussion the K-7 is cheaper nowadays, since it is practically more than a generation older than the K-r.

to be much precise on what I meant by that, the K-5 = improved/upgraded K-7, while the K-r = improved/upgraded K-x.

for those who are on a budget and wanted a High ISO performing camera, get the K-r.

for those who can afford and wanted a better IQ at low and High ISO, get the K-5.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Those DPReviews figures are misleading because they are not against a baseline 100 for all cameras, those are percentages for the market in which they are considered to fall (e.g. Pro, Semi-Pro, Advanced Amateur, Beginner and so on).

I just said they got the order right. Whether they did that for the wrong reasons is irrelevant, because I don't have a good opinion about them anyway. That's why I said "Even dpreview..."

The Kr also offers a lot of features (whilst not up to the level of the K5) that are nonetheless substantial and a major improvement over the Kx and in some cases over the K7 : ISO to 25,600, Safox 9, 3 inch screen, VF confirmation in the viewfinder, AF assist, IR simple and a choice of batteries !

I'm not talking about K-r over K-x - that is a different topic and I agree the K-r is the better buy. But between K-r and K-7, only the high ISO is an improvement over the K-7. And the Safox IX, but I'm not sure what difference that makes exactly.

I agree with you but keep the OP in context with what your saying. He is completely new to digital photography. When you were brand new to photography what did you need more.

When I got into photography, my first camera was a completely manual rangefinder. My first digital SLR was the K10D, which I still use. I agree that YMMV but that works both ways.

more flexible shooting parameters or more controls and setting to change, weather sealing etc.

If you're that new to digital photography that you need automatic shooting modes, then you should be looking for a P&S, not an SLR. The only reason you would want an SLR is if you're actually serious about learning to use it. You can also want an SLR to show off, but then you don't need to bother getting advice on the Internet - just buy the most expensive one and shoot with the lens cap on at arms length - everyone will be impressed by your skillz.

[1r0nh31d3]

If you're that new to digital photography that you need automatic shooting modes, then you should be looking for a P&S, not an SLR. The only reason you would want an SLR is if you're actually serious about learning to use it. You can also want an SLR to show off, but then you don't need to bother getting advice on the Internet - just buy the most expensive one and shoot with the lens cap on at arms length - everyone will be impressed by your skillz.

How does wanting more flexibility with your ISO setting turn into only shooting on automatic settings? And you don't need to throw in "just go buy a P&S" that's rude. And most beginners in shooting with a DSLR do use many of their automatic features. I am guessing if you polled most amateur DSLR user you would find they shoot in AV mode, I'm sure they tweek a few settings as well.

Who are you addressing anyway? When did the poster or anyone in this thread starting talking about the automatic settings?

PS I do agree with you that the only real advantage of the KR over the K7 is the ISO. I think what everyone in this thread has said and reiterated a few times in a few different ways is if you want better high ISO performance get the KR. If you wanted a better built body, different style of controls and and weather sealing get the K7. IMHO higher iso capabilities is more beneficial for beginners in most circumstances.