K-x vs K-7: What accounts for the price difference?

fuseboxx · 10-09-2009, 01:05 AM

I'm currently using a K100D that I'm fairly satisfied with, and I'm excited for the creative possibilities that being able to take videos would open up. The videos I've seen from the K-7 have impressed me so far.

What would be so different with the K-x that it's significantly cheaper? Would the quality of the videos and photos be poorer? Are there basic essential features missing? What do you think about these two cameras in comparison?

The most intriguing aspect of these cameras for me is their capability to record HD video, but I'm not sure whether to jump on the K-7 right now or just wait for the cheaper K-x when it comes out.

r0ckstarr · 10-09-2009, 06:48 AM

Here's a comparison on dpreview:
K-7 vs K-x - Hmmm.....: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-09-2009, 07:07 AM

To be fair there is no comparison. The main differences are below from the pentax published specification sheets.

K7
body magnesium alloy over stainless steel frame weather resistant
14.6 MP CMOS 6400ISO
AF system SAFOX VIII+
LCD 3 inch 910,000 points
shutter 1/8000 - 5.2FPS
metering EV0-21, 77 segment
Viewfinder 100% penta prism .92x magnification
Flash GN 13

KX
Body plastic over stainless not weather resistant
12.4 MP CMOS 12800 ISO
AF system SAFOX VIII
LCD 2.7 inch 230,000 points
shutter 1/6000 - 4.5FPS
metering EV1-21, 16 segment
Viewfinder 92% pentamirror
Flash GN 12

fuseboxx · 10-09-2009, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

To be fair there is no comparison.

What do you mean by this?

bdery · 10-09-2009, 10:07 AM

The Kx is smaller, lighter, but lacks the weather seals, the top LCD, the multiple external controls, more advanced features, etc.

If you're satisfied with your current camera, the Kx would be its curent equialent. The K7 is a higher-end tool with more possibilities. But images taken with each camera will look fine.

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-09-2009, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by fuseboxx

What do you mean by this?

what I mean is that by specification, the K7 has a lot of features that cost more.

bigger higher resolution display
penta prism vs penta mirror
more powerful flash
much more rugged overall construction and weather seals
higher performance image processor
higher resolution chip, and don't tell me chip complexity does not cost something
77 vs 16 exposure elements
more sensitive (lower light level) metering.

All these things actually cost something, and while the real mark up is hard to establish, a pro level camera such as the K7 should cost more than the KX.

farfisa · 10-09-2009, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by fuseboxx

I'm currently using a K100D that I'm fairly satisfied with, and I'm excited for the creative possibilities that being able to take videos would open up. The videos I've seen from the K-7 have impressed me so far.

What would be so different with the K-x that it's significantly cheaper? Would the quality of the videos and photos be poorer? Are there basic essential features missing? What do you think about these two cameras in comparison?

The most intriguing aspect of these cameras for me is their capability to record HD video, but I'm not sure whether to jump on the K-7 right now or just wait for the cheaper K-x when it comes out.

I think the video quality will be comparable, but only 24 fps (to some people, this is a plus though--the classic film frame rate). I don't know if they have any different resolutions available--K-7 has a higher res setting, 1534 x 1024 or something, as well as a 1280x720 setting.

IQ from the 12 mp sensor should also be great--fewer pixels usually equals less noise, so again, not a problem.

So if you don't need weather seals, 30fps video, AF assist lamp (though the built-in flash can provide af assist, apparently), focus point selection visible in the VF (big for some) and some of the ergonomic differences (front e-dial), I think you'll be fine with the k-x!

Nowhere Matt · 10-09-2009, 11:35 AM

Yeah I tell people that the K-x is more like a spunky little gremlin K10 that shoots video in mono. You don't get them wet and they have different colors. The K-7 will take you many more places with great quality and features.

I am with you though. If I had some extra change, I would have to spend some more thought on whether a second body would be a red or blue K-x or go for the gusto with improved image quality and pixels with the K-7. The video features do not hold much interest for me so 24 fps, mono versus 30 fps, stereo is a wash in my opinion.

K-7 is clearly a better system than a reworked, red K2000. But I just cannot get over the thought of having a red or blue slr.

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-09-2009, 12:07 PM

I think the question is what value you place on the features of the K7 over the Kx.

I went up from the K10D and wanted superior metering, as well as resolution. the Kx has the same old metering as the K10D.

The proported 12800 ISO of the Kx is interesting, as for colors, black is beautiful

dreamnet · 10-09-2009, 12:15 PM

i believe mony talks
if you have enough budget , K-7 , or else K-x
For me K-x first

Pentaxor · 10-09-2009, 01:16 PM

for a neophyte, the K-x would be ideal because it generates interests from the user because of it's size, added portability and lightness, color, and cuteness.

for me, as a person who has/had handled bigger dslrs, the added size and weight were becoming more bothersome and not worth the attention it was getting from people. if a small dslr could do the work of that of a pro/semi-pro camera, then why not get one?

Sew-Classic · 10-09-2009, 05:35 PM

Personally, I thought 10mp was plenty, but I'm glad to see that they improved the guide numbers of the flash on the KX vs. the K2000/km. But the pop-up flash is still really only something I use when desperate.

I don't see the point of having 11 auto-focus points on the KX vs. 5 on the K2000/km when you have no indication which point the camera has chosen. I just used center point only on the K2000.

Now, I did try the K20D before I bought the K2000. Honestly, the K20D was just too large for me (I have small hands).

Now, I recently tried and like the feel of the K7, so much that I bought one. It does have a number of features that neither the K2000 nor the kx have, that I actually use. The video is not something that I've even tinkered with yet.

The bigger veiwfinder is wonderful and worth the price of admission alone for my old eyes. Besides, I used film slr's in the past, and the first thing about DSLR's that made me say 'wtf' was the tiny viewfinders.

I put the pentax magnifier on both the K2000 and the k-7. The k-7 viewfinder is just worlds better to me.

Anyhow, I've loaned out my k2000 to a dear & trusted family member to try, but I plan to keep it as a back-up body. Really fun little camera, and it helped me fall for Pentax DSLR's. Takes very nice photos too. Heck, I submitted one to a local paper that I took with the k2000 on the first day I played with it, and they publlished it on the front page!

fuseboxx · 10-09-2009, 06:52 PM

In terms of IQ, to what existing Pentax DSLR is the K-x comparable to? Like I've said, I'm currently using the K100D and I'm fairly satisfied. However, if I'm going to upgrade because I want the video function, I'd also prefer that the body I'll upgrade to takes significantly better photos as far as overall IQ is concerned.

Am I reading this right? The K-x supposedly handles high ISO noise better than the K-7?? And its 24fps might even be better than the K-7's 30fps???

So all things considered, the increased price of the K-7 has much more to do with its high-end features rather than its advantage in photo and video quality?

Are these correct? Because generally... I don't really care a lot of high-end features... what I want is quality: Image quality & Video quality. If these can be had with the K-x in the same way as the K-7, then I'm sold.

Pentaxor · 10-09-2009, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by fuseboxx

In terms of IQ, to what existing Pentax DSLR is the K-x comparable to? Like I've said, I'm currently using the K100D and I'm fairly satisfied. However, if I'm going to upgrade because I want the video function, I'd also prefer that the body I'll upgrade to takes significantly better photos as far as overall IQ is concerned.

Am I reading this right? The K-x supposedly handles high ISO noise better than the K-7?? And its 24fps might even be better than the K-7's 30fps???

So all things considered, the increased price of the K-7 has much more to do with its high-end features rather than its advantage in photo and video quality?

Are these correct? Because generally... I don't really care a lot of high-end features... what I want is quality: Image quality & Video quality. If these can be had with the K-x in the same way as the K-7, then I'm sold.

hold your horses there, there is no way that a 24fps is better than a 30fps. and if you think that having a higher ISO noise performance means better IQ, then you are closing into the pitfall that most neophytes are driven to. higher ISO noise performance does not equate automatically with better IQ. it involves factors that revolve to it. IQ is not solely related with ISO noise, but also involves sharpness, accuracy, rendition, metering (this is not only a feature but also contribute to IQ result as well), resolution, etc....

it is not that the K-x will not be capable to produce stunning image, it is rather the K-7's features affect the IQ for better results in a different level.

fuseboxx · 10-09-2009, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

there is no way that a 24fps is better than a 30fps.

What do people mean when they say that 24fps is already film quality, though? Does this mean 30fps is better than film quality? In what way? Smoothness? Fluidity? Basically: what is the significance of the K-7 being 30fps to the K-x's 24fps?

Originally posted by Pentaxor

and if you think that having a higher ISO noise performance means better IQ, then you are closing into the pitfall that most neophytes are driven to. higher ISO noise performance does not equate automatically with better IQ. it involves factors that revolve to it. IQ is not solely related with ISO noise, but also involves sharpness, accuracy, rendition, metering (this is not only a feature but also contribute to IQ result as well), resolution, etc....

Copy that. I understand that noise handling is only a part of what goes into excellent IQ. But considering the specs, it seems that the only IQ-related difference of the K-7 is the megapixels. What inference can we then draw regarding the IQ of the K-x vs the IQ of the K-7?

Originally posted by Pentaxor

it is not that the K-x will not be capable to produce stunning image, it is rather the K-7's features affect the IQ for better results in a different level.

This brings me back to my point: All things considered, what can we deduce about how the IQ/VQ of the K-x will compare to the IQ/VQ of the K-7? My reason for asking is that I'm a marginally satisfied K100D user who is looking for a reasonable upgrade and these are the two bodies I'm considering. My focus is on the quality, not the high-end functions...

10-09-2009, 01:05 AM	#1
fuseboxx Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 12	K-x vs K-7: What accounts for the price difference? I'm currently using a K100D that I'm fairly satisfied with, and I'm excited for the creative possibilities that being able to take videos would open up. The videos I've seen from the K-7 have impressed me so far. What would be so different with the K-x that it's significantly cheaper? Would the quality of the videos and photos be poorer? Are there basic essential features missing? What do you think about these two cameras in comparison? The most intriguing aspect of these cameras for me is their capability to record HD video, but I'm not sure whether to jump on the K-7 right now or just wait for the cheaper K-x when it comes out.

10-09-2009, 07:07 AM	#3
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	To be fair there is no comparison. The main differences are below from the pentax published specification sheets. K7 body magnesium alloy over stainless steel frame weather resistant 14.6 MP CMOS 6400ISO AF system SAFOX VIII+ LCD 3 inch 910,000 points shutter 1/8000 - 5.2FPS metering EV0-21, 77 segment Viewfinder 100% penta prism .92x magnification Flash GN 13 KX Body plastic over stainless not weather resistant 12.4 MP CMOS 12800 ISO AF system SAFOX VIII LCD 2.7 inch 230,000 points shutter 1/6000 - 4.5FPS metering EV1-21, 16 segment Viewfinder 92% pentamirror Flash GN 12 Last edited by Lowell Goudge; 10-09-2009 at 07:12 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
WooWhoo -- Pentax Canada Price Drops :D :D and one price increase	Jack Simpson	Pentax News and Rumors	45	05-06-2009 10:10 PM
Any difference?!!!	mchud	Pentax DSLR Discussion	13	11-24-2008 07:23 AM
Price difference	magnum1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	06-08-2008 07:52 AM
And the Difference is ?	Jesus	Photographic Technique	15	09-26-2007 02:13 PM
What's the difference between ...	kjao	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	12	06-17-2007 08:57 AM

10-09-2009, 06:48 AM	#2
r0ckstarr Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,507	Here's a comparison on dpreview: K-7 vs K-x - Hmmm.....: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

10-09-2009, 09:39 AM	#4
fuseboxx Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 12 Original Poster	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge To be fair there is no comparison. What do you mean by this?

10-09-2009, 10:07 AM	#5
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	The Kx is smaller, lighter, but lacks the weather seals, the top LCD, the multiple external controls, more advanced features, etc. If you're satisfied with your current camera, the Kx would be its curent equialent. The K7 is a higher-end tool with more possibilities. But images taken with each camera will look fine.

10-09-2009, 10:09 AM	#6
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by fuseboxx What do you mean by this? what I mean is that by specification, the K7 has a lot of features that cost more. bigger higher resolution display penta prism vs penta mirror more powerful flash much more rugged overall construction and weather seals higher performance image processor higher resolution chip, and don't tell me chip complexity does not cost something 77 vs 16 exposure elements more sensitive (lower light level) metering. All these things actually cost something, and while the real mark up is hard to establish, a pro level camera such as the K7 should cost more than the KX.

10-09-2009, 10:12 AM	#7
farfisa Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,274	Originally posted by fuseboxx I'm currently using a K100D that I'm fairly satisfied with, and I'm excited for the creative possibilities that being able to take videos would open up. The videos I've seen from the K-7 have impressed me so far. What would be so different with the K-x that it's significantly cheaper? Would the quality of the videos and photos be poorer? Are there basic essential features missing? What do you think about these two cameras in comparison? The most intriguing aspect of these cameras for me is their capability to record HD video, but I'm not sure whether to jump on the K-7 right now or just wait for the cheaper K-x when it comes out. I think the video quality will be comparable, but only 24 fps (to some people, this is a plus though--the classic film frame rate). I don't know if they have any different resolutions available--K-7 has a higher res setting, 1534 x 1024 or something, as well as a 1280x720 setting. IQ from the 12 mp sensor should also be great--fewer pixels usually equals less noise, so again, not a problem. So if you don't need weather seals, 30fps video, AF assist lamp (though the built-in flash can provide af assist, apparently), focus point selection visible in the VF (big for some) and some of the ergonomic differences (front e-dial), I think you'll be fine with the k-x!

10-09-2009, 11:35 AM	#8
Nowhere Matt Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Nowhere Land Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,362	Yeah I tell people that the K-x is more like a spunky little gremlin K10 that shoots video in mono. You don't get them wet and they have different colors. The K-7 will take you many more places with great quality and features. I am with you though. If I had some extra change, I would have to spend some more thought on whether a second body would be a red or blue K-x or go for the gusto with improved image quality and pixels with the K-7. The video features do not hold much interest for me so 24 fps, mono versus 30 fps, stereo is a wash in my opinion. K-7 is clearly a better system than a reworked, red K2000. But I just cannot get over the thought of having a red or blue slr.

10-09-2009, 12:07 PM	#9
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	I think the question is what value you place on the features of the K7 over the Kx. I went up from the K10D and wanted superior metering, as well as resolution. the Kx has the same old metering as the K10D. The proported 12800 ISO of the Kx is interesting, as for colors, black is beautiful

10-09-2009, 12:15 PM	#10
dreamnet Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 95	i believe mony talks if you have enough budget , K-7 , or else K-x For me K-x first

10-09-2009, 01:16 PM	#11
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	for a neophyte, the K-x would be ideal because it generates interests from the user because of it's size, added portability and lightness, color, and cuteness. for me, as a person who has/had handled bigger dslrs, the added size and weight were becoming more bothersome and not worth the attention it was getting from people. if a small dslr could do the work of that of a pro/semi-pro camera, then why not get one?

10-09-2009, 05:35 PM	#12
Sew-Classic Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Ohio, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 238	Personally, I thought 10mp was plenty, but I'm glad to see that they improved the guide numbers of the flash on the KX vs. the K2000/km. But the pop-up flash is still really only something I use when desperate. I don't see the point of having 11 auto-focus points on the KX vs. 5 on the K2000/km when you have no indication which point the camera has chosen. I just used center point only on the K2000. Now, I did try the K20D before I bought the K2000. Honestly, the K20D was just too large for me (I have small hands). Now, I recently tried and like the feel of the K7, so much that I bought one. It does have a number of features that neither the K2000 nor the kx have, that I actually use. The video is not something that I've even tinkered with yet. The bigger veiwfinder is wonderful and worth the price of admission alone for my old eyes. Besides, I used film slr's in the past, and the first thing about DSLR's that made me say 'wtf' was the tiny viewfinders. I put the pentax magnifier on both the K2000 and the k-7. The k-7 viewfinder is just worlds better to me. Anyhow, I've loaned out my k2000 to a dear & trusted family member to try, but I plan to keep it as a back-up body. Really fun little camera, and it helped me fall for Pentax DSLR's. Takes very nice photos too. Heck, I submitted one to a local paper that I took with the k2000 on the first day I played with it, and they publlished it on the front page!

10-09-2009, 06:52 PM	#13
fuseboxx Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 12 Original Poster	In terms of IQ, to what existing Pentax DSLR is the K-x comparable to? Like I've said, I'm currently using the K100D and I'm fairly satisfied. However, if I'm going to upgrade because I want the video function, I'd also prefer that the body I'll upgrade to takes significantly better photos as far as overall IQ is concerned. Am I reading this right? The K-x supposedly handles high ISO noise better than the K-7?? And its 24fps might even be better than the K-7's 30fps??? So all things considered, the increased price of the K-7 has much more to do with its high-end features rather than its advantage in photo and video quality? Are these correct? Because generally... I don't really care a lot of high-end features... what I want is quality: Image quality & Video quality. If these can be had with the K-x in the same way as the K-7, then I'm sold.

10-09-2009, 09:24 PM	#14
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by fuseboxx In terms of IQ, to what existing Pentax DSLR is the K-x comparable to? Like I've said, I'm currently using the K100D and I'm fairly satisfied. However, if I'm going to upgrade because I want the video function, I'd also prefer that the body I'll upgrade to takes significantly better photos as far as overall IQ is concerned. Am I reading this right? The K-x supposedly handles high ISO noise better than the K-7?? And its 24fps might even be better than the K-7's 30fps??? So all things considered, the increased price of the K-7 has much more to do with its high-end features rather than its advantage in photo and video quality? Are these correct? Because generally... I don't really care a lot of high-end features... what I want is quality: Image quality & Video quality. If these can be had with the K-x in the same way as the K-7, then I'm sold. hold your horses there, there is no way that a 24fps is better than a 30fps. and if you think that having a higher ISO noise performance means better IQ, then you are closing into the pitfall that most neophytes are driven to. higher ISO noise performance does not equate automatically with better IQ. it involves factors that revolve to it. IQ is not solely related with ISO noise, but also involves sharpness, accuracy, rendition, metering (this is not only a feature but also contribute to IQ result as well), resolution, etc.... it is not that the K-x will not be capable to produce stunning image, it is rather the K-7's features affect the IQ for better results in a different level.

10-09-2009, 09:41 PM	#15
fuseboxx Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 12 Original Poster	Originally posted by Pentaxor there is no way that a 24fps is better than a 30fps. What do people mean when they say that 24fps is already film quality, though? Does this mean 30fps is better than film quality? In what way? Smoothness? Fluidity? Basically: what is the significance of the K-7 being 30fps to the K-x's 24fps? Originally posted by Pentaxor and if you think that having a higher ISO noise performance means better IQ, then you are closing into the pitfall that most neophytes are driven to. higher ISO noise performance does not equate automatically with better IQ. it involves factors that revolve to it. IQ is not solely related with ISO noise, but also involves sharpness, accuracy, rendition, metering (this is not only a feature but also contribute to IQ result as well), resolution, etc.... Copy that. I understand that noise handling is only a part of what goes into excellent IQ. But considering the specs, it seems that the only IQ-related difference of the K-7 is the megapixels. What inference can we then draw regarding the IQ of the K-x vs the IQ of the K-7? Originally posted by Pentaxor it is not that the K-x will not be capable to produce stunning image, it is rather the K-7's features affect the IQ for better results in a different level. This brings me back to my point: All things considered, what can we deduce about how the IQ/VQ of the K-x will compare to the IQ/VQ of the K-7? My reason for asking is that I'm a marginally satisfied K100D user who is looking for a reasonable upgrade and these are the two bodies I'm considering. My focus is on the quality, not the high-end functions...