[richard978]

New to digital photography but had a look at various cameras and despite owning a very good EOS Canon Film camera....I'm migrating to Pentax.

The K5 is out of my budget so its between the Kr and K&

I'm a little confused about how to choose between the KR and the K7. I've read so much bad press about noise and poor auto focus on the K7 but not sure how much of it is true.

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.

Your help would be appreciated.

[imtheguy]

Selecting a solution, camera in this case, begins with requirements. If you can list yours it will make choosing easier.
-Do you need weather proofing?
-How important is high iso shooting? (concerts versus wildlife)
-Movie mode requirements?
-Usability (different buttons and dial options, different menus) if you can take test shots or at least see them.

Just trying to get you started. If you have no requirements, then either one will work just as well for you.

[Frogfish]

I have the K7 but if I were you (and don't need WR) then I'd go for the Kr.

The K7 can take superb photos and ergonomically it's better (IMO) - but it's high ISO handling and AF tracking are no-where near as good as those of the Kr. And those two improvements alone will help you immensely as this is your first DLSR. I imagine you'll end up with far more keepers with the Kr.

[richard978]

Selecting a solution, camera in this case, begins with requirements. If you can list yours it will make choosing easier.
-Do you need weather proofing?
-How important is high iso shooting? (concerts versus wildlife)
-Movie mode requirements?
-Usability (different buttons and dial options, different menus) if you can take test shots or at least see them.

Just trying to get you started. If you have no requirements, then either one will work just as well for you.

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.

[kari]

Personally, coming from a K-x and considering an upgrade, it would definitely be the K-7 over the K-r. The build quality and weather-sealing and handling and much better OVF is what I'm after. I've found that I rarely use ISO above 1600 shooting outside, which is what I bought the camera for. I don't know about AF, but the K-7 AF seems at least reliable where it seems to be an issue with AF in low/Tungsten light with the K-r. If the AF on the K-7 is as good as the K-x (which I think it is), it's good enough for what I do.

[Pepe Guitarra]

I want to buy a second camera. I currently have the Kx and am looking towards teh K5, but with so many issues about spots on the sensor, I am afraid to buy it. I think I will get a K7 instead. Thanks for your input.

[WoRaS]

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.

If you like long hikes then weight and size of camera may be important for you. That's why I use K-x (and in week or two) upgrading to K-r. Quality of materials used to build these bodies are really high and I think you rather do not need weather proofing. I was using my K-x in many dusty places (rainy or snowy mountains, dunes, beaches) and nothing bad happened.

For 99% of time external controls of K-x (K-r is very similar) are enough and you do not have to play with menus very often.

Additionally, users report that AF in K-r is better than in K-7 (I didn't have chance to test it by myself).

[bymy141]

I want to buy a second camera. I currently have the Kx and am looking towards teh K5, but with so many issues about spots on the sensor, I am afraid to buy it. I think I will get a K7 instead. Thanks for your input.

Pepe,

The sensor issue has been resolved by Pentax for some time now.
Since there has been great demand for the camera, the early stock has been sold.
I would not worry.

I have both a K-7 and a K-5, the K-7 takes *great* photos up and until 3200 ISO, the K-5 goes ways beyond that...
If you can afford the K-5, go for it.

- Bert

[hcc]

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.

If you shoot outdoor, the WR of the K-7 is definitely a bonus. Further the K-7 is good as any others at low ISOs.

Like you I shoot outdoor and I am glad that I have the K-7. (I considered seriously the K-x, but I am convinced that it would not have lasted in foul weather.)

For outdoor, the main weakness of the K-7 is the low-light conditions. Some talk about high-ISO but who cares. Really you want to be able to shoot at dusk and dawn. I bought a fast prime especially for these occasions and the results are astonishing. One year ago, I was shooting at sunrise with other colleagues using Canon and Nikon (+kit lenses). I was first out to shoot even in the very low light with my Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f1.4 and the others could not shoot decent photograhs until 20-25 minutes after I started.

In simple terms: a good lens is a simple way to shoot in low-lights with the K-7 and it works.

Hope that the comments will help.

[chongmic]

Does the Kx or Kr really work in temperature below 0 deg Celcius (32degF)

[BeerBelly]

I've used mine for extended periods at -5 to -10 and it worked without a problem. I think the bigger issue than the body are the batteries that might darin quickly in those conditions. My k-r has been with me on the beach, in the rainforest and in the snow. No problems so far.

[Designosophy]

I upgraded from the K-x to the K-7, and I prefer the k-7. One of the reasons is the viewfinder of the k-7 is a bit larger and brighter than the k-x because of its pentaprism. I do a lot of manual focus photography. Even with an AF lens, some situations require manual adjustment, and the better viewfinder of the k-7 and the LED autofocus indicators are helpful.

I also prefer the feel and balance of the k-7. It doesn't feel heavier than the k-x and the size works better for me. I have average hands.

I do prefer the high-ISO and low-light performance of the K-x. It is nice to be able to increase the exposure of underexposed photos in post-processing without getting tons of noise, and low-ISO photos are marvelously noise-free.

I do find a huge difference with fast lenses. If you can't get the K-5, then the K-7 and some fast glass is a great combo. I love my M 50mm f1.4, and you can find one used fairly inexpensively.

[1r0nh31d3]

Sorry if this seems like a dumb question but are you saying the K-7 performs as well at high ISO as the KR? I had not heard this from anyone before I bought my KR. If I knew the K7 handled high ISO just as well as the KR I would have bought the K7.

D'oh! I could have used this info when buying my KR.

If you shoot outdoor, the WR of the K-7 is definitely a bonus. Further the K-7 is good as any others at low ISOs.

[pjthiel]

Further the K-7 is good as any others at low ISOs

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; but I understand that the the K-r is particularly good at higher ISO compared to the K-7. I'm just not sure how much this matters to the average user.

As a K-7 owner, low-light performance has not been an issue thus far, and that's just shooting with the standard (relatively slow) kit lens. I have the maximum ISO set at 800.

A fast, quality prime will give your K-7 solid low-light performance if and when you need it. If you are on a tight budget, the FA-50/1.4 would be a great lens to have in the bag.

[Macario]

I have the K-7, and I love it. I haven't had real problems with the AF, and I do shoot surf with a 400mm lens. Also the high ISO noise is made worse than it is. I mean, how many times do you really need High ISO? To minimise it it, when shooting in the highs, I do a +1 compensation and shoot in RAW. Also I have had pics projected at my photoclub that I took with 3200 ISO, and there was not that much Noise present. YEs there was noise, but it wasn't unpleasant (maybe it also had to do with that I converted the pic to B&W)
When you look at the photo's at 100% you will for sure see noise, but when printed at A4, you really do not see that much, even at A3 it isn't that bad, unless you look very closely. But personally I do like to look at photo's from a decent distance, atleast 1-2 meters away.

SO don't let all the talk about the noise put you off. The K-7 is a very capable camera.