[KxBlaze]

Has anyone upgraded from a Kx to either the K7 or Kr? What are your thoughts. I have a chance to sell my Kx and with the money I would get either a new Kr or a used K7 (leaning towards the K7).

I initially thought that I would want/need the high ISO capabilities but in actual practice I find I rarely go above 6400 and mostly shoot below 3200. I know the K7 is not great at high ISO but at 3200 how is the noise? I'm also concerned as to why DxO gave the K7 such low scores, anyone know why? The WR would be a huge plus for me.

The Kr offers 6fps over the K7s 5.2, do you think this would be noticeable (I shoot a lot of sports/action)? The high ISO would be a bonus but beyond the fps I cannot really think of other positives of the Kr over the K7, can you?

So what are your thoughts? Should I sell my Kx and get a new Kr, a used K7 or just say F it and keep my Kx? Or maybe something else completely? I have just very recently started to compare the cameras to each other and have read many reviews/comparisons on this forum so I have a base idea but would like to hear some new/fresh perspectives.

[kiwi_jono]

Well I can't answer that but I am in a similar position. I like the K-x but would love to have the WR, bigger viewfinder etc found in K-7 and K-5.
Certainly can't afford the K-5 currently but I have come to the conclusion that the higher ISO performance is often handy and the K-r does not offer much more to me. Thought I might as well keep running with my K-x until the K-5 finally comes down (which may not be until another model comes out).
Also interested in others that have upgraded.

[heasley]

I upgraded from the K-x to the K-7 a few weeks ago. I'm extremely happy with the upgrade. In terms of build and control options the K-7 is in another universe to the K-x. I am really enjoying the quality controls. The larger and clearer LCD is a great upgrade as well.

Having said that I found that I rarely utilised the excellent high ISO performance of the K-x. I preferred shooting in at ISO 200 unless absolutely necessary to go higher.

I don't bother shooting above ISO 800 on the K-7 as it gets pretty noisy beyond that.

Given your intention to shoot action/sports you may need high ISO in order to get sufficiently fast shutter speed to catch the action.

I hope this helps.

[heasley]

I forgot to add: I have the FA43 and FA77 and the seem to focus faster on the K-7 (compared to K-x). Oh and the view finder is noticeably brighter and clearer for manual focusing.

[hcc]

The Kr offers 6fps over the K7s 5.2, do you think this would be noticeable (I shoot a lot of sports/action)?

I have a K-7 and I shoot a lot of action. The frame rate difference between K-r and K-7 is very small (almost nothing). But the K-7 has a bigger buffer memory than the K-7 and that is important.

When you want to shoot long bursts, your shots are stored in the buffer before they are written to the card. If the file size is too large or the card too slow, the buffer will fill up and the burst rate will slow down drastically when the buffer is full.

All in all, the K-7 is the better camera for continuous shooting. In fact it is one of the best cameras (of its category) across all brands for that: both in terms of frame rate and buffer memory.

[rawr]

So far I don't feel I have exhausted the capabilities of my K-x.
The quality of my lenses, and my poor camera craft, are letting me down more than the camera is.

Of course I would like a K-7, K-r or K-5, but thinking strictly in terms of photographic output, rather than gear lust, ergonomics etc, it's hard to justify an upgrade.

Better lenses rather than better body for me, at this stage.

[arv]

I have K-x, and if to switch now I would go for K-7. Brighter viewfinder and better magnification, SAFOX+ for artificial light, individual AF adjustment for every lens and WR would be main reasons. Possibility to revise magnified pics on K-7 (i.e. using both dials) is also something I miss on K-x, and I guess K-r is the same as K-x. I prefer flash or tripod, and high ISO use very rare. 2 EV stops are fine for post processing, but better possibilities for focus (both AF and manual adjustment) are no less important. IMHO the best would be to wait a year and get K-5 .
A.

[JHD]

Having both a Kx and a K7 I wouldn't let one go for the other. I recently added a Sony NEX-5 which also excells at high ISOs, but I still can't let go of the Kx or K7. Different cameras with different strengths and weaknesses.

[EricR]

Went from K20D + K-x to K-7 + K-r. But now I only have the K-r and sold the K-7 also. The K-7 is a fine camera but I use ISO 800 and above a lot and although the K-7 can deliver good quality up to ISO 1600 with some noise reduction, the K-r RAW-files are much cleaner to begin with.

If you need the controls and more functionality, buy a K-7, but for me WR, double wheels and more functionality was not really needed. The only thing I miss is the Pentaprism, but otherwise the K-r is the best camera I have had until now and it kept me from buying a K-5. It's that good.

I don't deliver stellar pictures but my last work done with the K-r I consider my best work also. Sure composition and using light in the right way is the main part of photography but the K-r is also an important factor in the quality of my pictures.

[StepOne]

Now K-x is enough for me, maybe i'll go upper next year. Don't want to do this now because will not be the k-r or k-5

[einstrigger]

I initially thought that I would want/need the high ISO capabilities but in actual practice I find I rarely go above 6400 and mostly shoot below 3200. I know the K7 is not great at high ISO but at 3200 how is the noise? I'm also concerned as to why DxO gave the K7 such low scores, anyone know why? The WR would be a huge plus for me.

You shoot mostly below 3200, but where do you typically end up? If it's mostly at 3200, then the K7 is going to be challenging. I'd say the K7 is good up to ISO 800, beyond that you're going to need post processing software like Topaz to clean up noise.

My journey went from K-x, K-7, k-5, and now nothing. K-x and K-7 were both sold and K-5 was returned due to sensor stains. I still shoot, but I mostly borrow my wife's K-r Having experienced all these cameras, I'd say wait and keep using the K-x until you can afford the K-5. It really is a drastic improvement from the other 3 Pentax.

[KxBlaze]

I have a K-7 and I shoot a lot of action. The frame rate difference between K-r and K-7 is very small (almost nothing). But the K-7 has a bigger buffer memory than the K-7 and that is important.

Good point, I did not think about the buffer sie.

Having both a Kx and a K7 I wouldn't let one go for the other. I recently added a Sony NEX-5 which also excells at high ISOs, but I still can't let go of the Kx or K7. Different cameras with different strengths and weaknesses.

This would be by far the best option for me but unfortunately I cannot afford both cameras and since I have the option of selling my Kx, I started to think about replacements, wish it were additions though.

You shoot mostly below 3200, but where do you typically end up? If it's mostly at 3200, then the K7 is going to be challenging. I'd say the K7 is good up to ISO 800, beyond that you're going to need post processing software like Topaz to clean up noise.

I would say mostly 1600 of indoor family shots. Those are about 75% of my photos. I do no get out as much as I would like but if I did then I'm sure I'd be shooting 100-400 max and that's where the K7 would shine.

Only if I could keep my Kx and get a nice used K7 or sell most of my gear and get a K5. I'm still completely undecided as to what to do. Thanks for all the input, the more perspectives the better.