[axl]

Quick and simple.
I'm thinking of upgrading my camera. I know K-5 has all the bells and whistles but is touch pricy at the moment. So I'm looking at K-7. My question is: is the AF difference noticable on those two bodies?

Thanks
P

[creampuff]

Like night and day.
I still think it is worth your while to consider the K-5 over the K-7.
After using the K-5, I doubt I will ever go back to the K-7.

[Ash]

One word, Peter: Definitely.
AF speed is one of the big upgrades from K20D, which is much the same as the K10D in terms of AF performance, to the K-7. Also bear in mind that in low light situations the AF assist bulb makes AF function that much faster and reliable for ambient lighting exposures.

[Spock]

I went from a K7 to a K10 and apart from the AF assist light, which I miss, I don't notice feel much of a step down with the K10's autofocus compared to the K7.

Having said that, I don't shoot sports or fast moving objects so perhaps if I did I might have noticed a difference.

[axl]

Like night and day.
I still think it is worth your while to consider the K-5 over the K-7.
After using the K-5, I doubt I will ever go back to the K-7.

I did consider K-5 and it is definitely camera I'd want but at the present situation (baby just 3 months away) I really don't want to spend £975 on new body. I will part exchange my K10D GP but I'll still be painfully short of cash. At the moment I can get minty K-7 (shutter count only 2000) + grip for £700. As I said, I'll part echange my K10D and K50/1.4. And my K50/1.2 may be up for sale. We'll see...

[GeneV]

I've thought about adding a used K7 to my collection for the opposite reason--better metering with older lenses. I'll probably end up saving and going for a K5 once prices and QC settle down. I keep thinking I should sell my K10d for the K7, so that I could build a set of bodies that will share the same accessories as the K5, but there is something about the sensor on the K10d that I don't want to give up--especially for the rather low price it fetches.

[axl]

I know exactly what you mean. I love K10's CCD. Especially the colour output. I wouldn't mind the extra stop of usable high ISO (at present I keep going to 800-1000 and 1600-2000 would be nice to use at times) but to wait for next year or so until I would be able to afford K-5 is not really an option... So K-7 seems a good compromise...

[Northern Soul]

I've gone from a K10 to a K-7 because my K10 broke, and the insurance paid out enough for a K-7.

It's nice, and the video is great for kids (ours is 19 months) but if my hand hadn't been forced by the k10 breaking, I'd have waited for a K5 to be in my price range (either I had more money, or the K5 was cheaper, or both!)

I don't notice the AF being leaps and bounds ahead of the K10.

Keep your lenses for life, replace your body when the old one doesn't do what you need any more.

[bymy141]

As a K10D, K-7 and K5 owner, let me share my experience of working with all 3 bodies:

K10D over K-7:
- I like the colours better
- I like the noise pattern better

K-7 over K10D:
- AF is much better, mostly in low light situations (in daylight with static subjects, all AF works well)
- High ISO gives you 2 stops more
- Better and bigger LCD
- LiveView & Movie modes
- All kinds of handy stuff (loads): (auto) level !!, filters, lens corrections, Shadow / HL comp, etc
- Size & weigth
- Resolution
- Dynamic range
- Dust removal now works!
- AF calibration
- Dial locks

K-5 over K-7:
- Colours are like the K10D again!
- Clean high ISO until near infinity
- Best dynamic range
- Touched up interface
- AF even faster, now works in very low light
- Very usable LiveView AF (great for macro)

K10D over K-5:
- Price

K-7 over K5:
- Price

Hope this helps.

- Bert

[axl]

Thanks Bert.
Did it help? Well, not really, you guys just make me want to buy K-5 and my wallet is just too thin

[axl]

I couldn't care less about LV, nor filters and other stuff.
Colours, ISO, view finder, AF and ergonomics... That's what matters

[v5planet]

I couldn't care less about LV, nor filters and other stuff.
Colours, ISO, view finder, AF and ergonomics... That's what matters

You know, I thought I had no use for LV either, but then I discovered it is EXTREMELY useful for manually focusing in a couple situations where AF cannot be trusted for beans:

1) closeup/macro photography of subjects that prevent you from looking through the viewfinder (pretty much anything close to the ground, honestly)

2) focusing at night or in very low light -- you can manually focus while digitally zoomed in 10x on Live View and get really sharp dead on focus. I do this for star trails on a stationary tripod and astrphotography through my telescope.

Obviously this thread isn't about LV, but it IS a feature that the K-7 has and it's one I've learned to appreciate.

Bert's summary seems helpful to me: basically it sounds like he's saying that the K-7 has all of the features of the K-5, but the K-5's performance in them is higher. Unhelpfully I will add my 2 cents, which are that I think I would also struggle with this decision, as there are clear gains from going up to the K-7, but the K-5 lust would be high.

[Deiberson]

Think of the better shots you'll have for the baby. We're also due in 6 weeks. I'll buy one if you do.

[Ash]

Sounds like the K-7 is well suited to your needs Peter, and the K-5 is even better suited.

I take it that if you were to get a K-5, you would want it with a grip also, thereby making it an even more expensive purchase. Nevertheless, with some extra savings for the next 3 months, would it be feasible to make up the difference for the K-5?

If it's just out of the question, then the K-7 kit is there for cheaper, but knowing that it will compromise on high ISO performance s the biggest and most significant difference. The K-7 colours aren't all that undesirable - just a little more cool/metallic. PP can help to make them what you want, but you shouldn't need anything too drastic.

[Northern Soul]

I'm getting used to my K-7 - there are plenty of options to tweak the JPEG output to get it just how you want it. If you're anything like me, you won't have time for RAW once the baby comes. I went from RAW to RAW+ JPEG to just JPEG. You take a lot of pictures - and so you should!

The K-7 isn't so bad in low light really. I've just been trying stacking images to even out noise, so I took 8 shots of an open book at ISO 6400 last night. The stacked one is much better, obviously, but equally obviously it's not much use for taking pictures of a baby as they do tend to move rather a lot!

Still, you can see that at ISO 6400 it isn't *that* bad.



I'd really recommend getting a flash though, if you don't already have one.

One thing I wish I'd done is consciously take a picture every day and save it in a Word docuument or something with a note of what she did that day - you forget so quickly, and the change and grow up so, so fast!