If you had to pick today, would you get a K7, or a K-x?

rustynail925 · 01-12-2010, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by nulla

Are you saying people do not know the price difference between the two?

K-7 is the prefered camera because of features.

What you are trying to say is if you only had $600 what camera would you choose.

The Kx gives great value yes... the K-7 when compared to competitors gives extra great value.

Cheers

Neil

No what im trying to say is that the OP stated that "if money was not an issue" and I suggested that the k7 vs kx for the price just to level the competition..
I voted for the K7 since the OP said if money was not an issue.
But for the price I would choose Kx

pakuchn · 01-12-2010, 10:35 AM

OK, so money is not the object and someone will get a K7, does that person really think that K7 will provide better pictures quality? I still think that if K-x had top LCD screen, and RED dot and cost was $1200.00 for body only, people would be getting it. And I'm sure most people that own k-7 dont even know how to use it or understand protography. Just just get the best stuff, hoping to become a "pro". I'm amazed that we all take so much time to talk about camera, lenses, but never talk about process, secrets of taking images, things other then body and lenses.

johnmflores · 01-12-2010, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by pakuchn

I'm amazed that we all take so much time to talk about camera, lenses, but never talk about process, secrets of taking images, things other then body and lenses.

That's because buying is so much easier than learning. We are an instant gratification culture, after all...

pakuchn · 01-12-2010, 10:52 AM

Good point. I know a woman that owns a K-x and makes $67,000 on the side as a side job taking wedding pictures. She does have a fast lens and quality flashes, but when I asked you, why do you own a K-x and not something high end, she tells ms. 90% is knowing how to take pictures, 8% is a lense, 2% everything else.

Also, I know $67K is not alot, but as a side job on weekends only.

It's like getting a Ferrari and driving it in downtown Chicago or NYC? You cant even use the speed, people get things because they cost lot and they want to feel special because they have it. But, forget that end the end they got a camera to take pictures and K7 is junk in low light, church, indoors, anything where lights might be a problem.

GeneV · 01-12-2010, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by rustynail925

No what im trying to say is that the OP stated that "if money was not an issue" and I suggested that the k7 vs kx for the price just to level the competition..
I voted for the K7 since the OP said if money was not an issue.
But for the price I would choose Kx

Kudos for remembering the OP. Most of us get into these long threads and never look at that.

I can answer that I will be buying a K-x, but I don't know if I will be buying a K-7. The K-x serves a specific purpose that my K-10/20 bodies do not serve as a travel camera.

Also, I have a half dozen batteries, a grip and a couple of chargers for the K10/20 that I would have to duplicate.

pakuchn · 01-12-2010, 12:10 PM

Let me ask.

Between Kx and K20D are both the same regards to low and high ISO?

GeneV · 01-12-2010, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by pakuchn

Let me ask.

Between Kx and K20D are both the same regards to low and high ISO?

No. Aside from the quality difference reported by many, they don't even have the same min and max.

pakuchn · 01-12-2010, 12:46 PM

Thank you Sir.

Pentaxor · 01-12-2010, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by dcmsox2004

how can pentax make any $$profit when the 55-300mm was and is routinely going for about $300 bucks, thus making the k-x a $350 dollar dslr ???
sounds nutz to me... but then again, maybe i am....
seriously, production costs must be bargain basement for pentax with the k-x manufacture...... to be able to afford to heavily discount these bundled packages through authorized retailers... and on the other hand, lest we not forget the hefty lens price increases over the last year or so............perhaps this enables pentax to 'give' the k-x away (figuratively)...

dave m

Dave M, you may not know this but productions costs are way below than what most people think them to be. for people who worked in a production line and even in some stores know this. the $300 DA55-300 could have a production value of less than 30 bucks (maybe 15 bucks). just think how shops which sell some $10 shirts still make money? in truth, you are buying a shirt which only cost 50cents to make. it's all about the concept of marketing.

GeneV · 01-12-2010, 01:05 PM

I'm home with a cold (dangerously bored) and just pulled the trigger on purchasing a K-x. The package with the 55-300 is just too tempting, even though I doubt I would ever have actually paid $400 for that lens on its own.

pakuchn · 01-12-2010, 01:09 PM

Just wondering, how much did you pay for it and where did you get it?

Pentaxor · 01-12-2010, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by pakuchn

I still think that if K-x had top LCD screen, and RED dot and cost was $1200.00 for body only, people would be getting it.

No, those are not enough to validate a 1,200 dollar purchase. there are still more things that the k-x lacks that makes it less palatable to the consumers.

Quote:

And I'm sure most people that own k-7 dont even know how to use it or understand protography.

and this makes the k-x owners more intelligible in the fields of photography? I'm sure there are also a lot of k-x users that don't understand photography as well. I could see a k-x user who just simple shoots in auto-mode shooting candid personal photos all of the time, not knowing about exposure use, et.al . from that situation, do you think that it is a good idea to get the k-x or would he be better with a portable P&S which have great IQ in them as well? they can also add a separate HD video recorder if they want to.

the fact is, both the k7 and k-x have their own share of neophytes. the question is, why can't a neophyte own a K7 as a starter camera? is a neophyte incapable of learning?

actually this is more of a price practicality issue. because if we are going to talk about camera specs, the k7 and kx are very different from each other. the debate concerning about people's choice concerning camera preferences is a tricky business and it is up to the consumer what he feels is worth his money and investment.

GeneV · 01-12-2010, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by pakuchn

Just wondering, how much did you pay for it and where did you get it?

$779 from Adorama, with 55-300mm, plus the 18-55mm, batteries, charger and a bunch of other stuff I don't need. It is worth it just for the camera and the walkaround tele. This deal was about $100 less a few months ago.

pakuchn · 01-12-2010, 01:54 PM

That is a very good deal. What flash do you own?

AirSupply · 01-12-2010, 02:22 PM

To GeneV:

You can pick the same kit with just only $643 from Amazon.

View Poll Results: If you had to pick today, which camera would you get?
K7	339	68.48%
K-x	156	31.52%
Voters: 495. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Landscape Need help! Pick the best...	navcom	Post Your Photos!	20	02-16-2010 11:54 AM
Help me pick a lens....	opianstate	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	09-25-2009 03:04 PM
Looking to pick up a ZX-10	maxwell1295	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	12	08-27-2008 01:39 PM
Will you help me pick one?	LaRee	Post Your Photos!	20	04-06-2008 07:56 PM
But I don't want to pick up my toys!	khardur	Post Your Photos!	5	04-05-2007 12:54 PM

01-12-2010, 10:24 AM	#136
rustynail925 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,551	Originally posted by nulla Are you saying people do not know the price difference between the two? K-7 is the prefered camera because of features. What you are trying to say is if you only had $600 what camera would you choose. The Kx gives great value yes... the K-7 when compared to competitors gives extra great value. Cheers Neil No what im trying to say is that the OP stated that "if money was not an issue" and I suggested that the k7 vs kx for the price just to level the competition.. I voted for the K7 since the OP said if money was not an issue. But for the price I would choose Kx

01-12-2010, 10:35 AM	#137
pakuchn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 166	OK, so money is not the object and someone will get a K7, does that person really think that K7 will provide better pictures quality? I still think that if K-x had top LCD screen, and RED dot and cost was $1200.00 for body only, people would be getting it. And I'm sure most people that own k-7 dont even know how to use it or understand protography. Just just get the best stuff, hoping to become a "pro". I'm amazed that we all take so much time to talk about camera, lenses, but never talk about process, secrets of taking images, things other then body and lenses.

01-12-2010, 10:44 AM	#138
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by pakuchn I'm amazed that we all take so much time to talk about camera, lenses, but never talk about process, secrets of taking images, things other then body and lenses. That's because buying is so much easier than learning. We are an instant gratification culture, after all...

01-12-2010, 10:52 AM	#139
pakuchn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 166	Good point. I know a woman that owns a K-x and makes $67,000 on the side as a side job taking wedding pictures. She does have a fast lens and quality flashes, but when I asked you, why do you own a K-x and not something high end, she tells ms. 90% is knowing how to take pictures, 8% is a lense, 2% everything else. Also, I know $67K is not alot, but as a side job on weekends only. It's like getting a Ferrari and driving it in downtown Chicago or NYC? You cant even use the speed, people get things because they cost lot and they want to feel special because they have it. But, forget that end the end they got a camera to take pictures and K7 is junk in low light, church, indoors, anything where lights might be a problem.

01-12-2010, 12:06 PM	#140
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by rustynail925 No what im trying to say is that the OP stated that "if money was not an issue" and I suggested that the k7 vs kx for the price just to level the competition.. I voted for the K7 since the OP said if money was not an issue. But for the price I would choose Kx Kudos for remembering the OP. Most of us get into these long threads and never look at that. I can answer that I will be buying a K-x, but I don't know if I will be buying a K-7. The K-x serves a specific purpose that my K-10/20 bodies do not serve as a travel camera. Also, I have a half dozen batteries, a grip and a couple of chargers for the K10/20 that I would have to duplicate.

01-12-2010, 12:10 PM	#141
pakuchn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 166	Let me ask. Between Kx and K20D are both the same regards to low and high ISO?

01-12-2010, 12:44 PM	#142
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by pakuchn Let me ask. Between Kx and K20D are both the same regards to low and high ISO? No. Aside from the quality difference reported by many, they don't even have the same min and max.

01-12-2010, 12:46 PM	#143
pakuchn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 166	Thank you Sir.

01-12-2010, 12:58 PM	#144
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by dcmsox2004 how can pentax make any $$profit when the 55-300mm was and is routinely going for about $300 bucks, thus making the k-x a $350 dollar dslr ??? sounds nutz to me... but then again, maybe i am.... seriously, production costs must be bargain basement for pentax with the k-x manufacture...... to be able to afford to heavily discount these bundled packages through authorized retailers... and on the other hand, lest we not forget the hefty lens price increases over the last year or so............perhaps this enables pentax to 'give' the k-x away (figuratively)... dave m Dave M, you may not know this but productions costs are way below than what most people think them to be. for people who worked in a production line and even in some stores know this. the $300 DA55-300 could have a production value of less than 30 bucks (maybe 15 bucks). just think how shops which sell some $10 shirts still make money? in truth, you are buying a shirt which only cost 50cents to make. it's all about the concept of marketing.

01-12-2010, 01:05 PM	#145
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	I'm home with a cold (dangerously bored) and just pulled the trigger on purchasing a K-x. The package with the 55-300 is just too tempting, even though I doubt I would ever have actually paid $400 for that lens on its own.

01-12-2010, 01:09 PM	#146
pakuchn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 166	Just wondering, how much did you pay for it and where did you get it?

01-12-2010, 01:33 PM	#147
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by pakuchn I still think that if K-x had top LCD screen, and RED dot and cost was $1200.00 for body only, people would be getting it. No, those are not enough to validate a 1,200 dollar purchase. there are still more things that the k-x lacks that makes it less palatable to the consumers. Quote: And I'm sure most people that own k-7 dont even know how to use it or understand protography. and this makes the k-x owners more intelligible in the fields of photography? I'm sure there are also a lot of k-x users that don't understand photography as well. I could see a k-x user who just simple shoots in auto-mode shooting candid personal photos all of the time, not knowing about exposure use, et.al . from that situation, do you think that it is a good idea to get the k-x or would he be better with a portable P&S which have great IQ in them as well? they can also add a separate HD video recorder if they want to. the fact is, both the k7 and k-x have their own share of neophytes. the question is, why can't a neophyte own a K7 as a starter camera? is a neophyte incapable of learning? actually this is more of a price practicality issue. because if we are going to talk about camera specs, the k7 and kx are very different from each other. the debate concerning about people's choice concerning camera preferences is a tricky business and it is up to the consumer what he feels is worth his money and investment.

01-12-2010, 01:41 PM	#148
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by pakuchn Just wondering, how much did you pay for it and where did you get it? $779 from Adorama, with 55-300mm, plus the 18-55mm, batteries, charger and a bunch of other stuff I don't need. It is worth it just for the camera and the walkaround tele. This deal was about $100 less a few months ago.

01-12-2010, 01:54 PM	#149
pakuchn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 166	That is a very good deal. What flash do you own?

01-12-2010, 02:22 PM	#150
AirSupply Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Minnesota Posts: 153	To GeneV: You can pick the same kit with just only $643 from Amazon.