[KansasHorizons.com]

I went with the k-7 but I am not sure it was the best choice at this time.

[mecrox]

I recently made this choice and went with the k-x. Cost played a part, as did my own needs which are simple - I don't need the extra capabilities of the k7 which I am sure are excellent.

It was the sensor in the k-x that swung a large part of my decision, though. Sensor technology is changing and improving so fast that I don't see the point of investing in expensive camera hardware unless you need to for other reasons. I'll keep my k-x for a year or so and then upgrade to what I hope will be a successor with a better sensor next year. FWIW, I've never been convinced by Pentax's dalliance with Samsung and using a Sony sensor in the k-x was very good news to me.

[vk4akp]

If the K7 ran from AA batteries I'd vote that way. But the K-x is just too badly crippled.

So I guess I just wait to see what Pentax brings out next.

(No vote from me)

.-.-.

[zxaar]

If the K7 ran from AA batteries I'd vote that way. But the K-x is just too badly crippled.

So I guess I just wait to see what Pentax brings out next.

(No vote from me)

.-.-.

crippled is very curious word.

I would not use word crippled because it works as intended by its manufacturer.
you probable mean that it has less functions compared to k7, but again one is not paying same price for both cameras , kx costs almost half of what k7 costs. For what you are paying kx is much more a camera than one you expect.

if price is not an issue than i would say k7 is also crippled compared to say D3s, d3s and some of top canons. Because k7 also missing things that these cameras have.

My thinking is that there is nothing like a crippled camera. There is a camera offered by manufacturer for a certain price. Thats all.

[vk4akp]

Nah, Sadly it is too crippled.

Pentax removed far too many basic features.

The more I found out what was missing the more I kept trying to tell myself, well I can do without that I guess.

But I had to draw the line at no in viewfinder focus points.

Personally I wasn't after a camera with all the K7 features for a lesser price.

But I was after one with some basic standard features and something a little extra to make an upgrade worth while.

Oh well. These things just open the gap even more and make it necessary for a mid range model.

.-.-.

crippled is very curious word.

I would not use word crippled because it works as intended by its manufacturer.
you probable mean that it has less functions compared to k7, but again one is not paying same price for both cameras , kx costs almost half of what k7 costs. For what you are paying kx is much more a camera than one you expect.

if price is not an issue than i would say k7 is also crippled compared to say D3s, d3s and some of top canons. Because k7 also missing things that these cameras have.

My thinking is that there is nothing like a crippled camera. There is a camera offered by manufacturer for a certain price. Thats all.

[dtsui]

I am tempted to go for K-x because of its great value for money.
In Australia K7 is almost double the price of K-x so it's hard to justify for a K7 given K-x featurewise is so close to K7, not to mention its great high ISO performance. Whether a rugged body, weather seals, quieter shutter, more buttons and dials, AF adjustment, top LCD, pentaprism viewfinder, AF points overlay and rechargeable Li-ion battery are worth double the price depends a lot on the individual.
The other consideration is the cost of ownership over the relatively short lifespan of digital SLRs because of the rapid pace of technological improvement. Unless one absolutely need those advanced features and cannot live without them the K-x represents much better value for money.
David

[zxaar]

Nah, Sadly it is too crippled.

Pentax removed far too many basic features.

The more I found out what was missing the more I kept trying to tell myself, well I can do without that I guess.

But I had to draw the line at no in viewfinder focus points.

Personally I wasn't after a camera with all the K7 features for a lesser price.

But I was after one with some basic standard features and something a little extra to make an upgrade worth while.

Oh well. These things just open the gap even more and make it necessary for a mid range model.

.-.-.

i think its just a way of thinking. Something that is alright for one may be trouble for others. So you are not wrong about it.

as for me, i am basic shooting type of guy so i am happy that it takes photos. Other than that missing features do not bother me.

[GeneV]

i think its just a way of thinking. Something that is alright for one may be trouble for others. So you are not wrong about it.

as for me, i am basic shooting type of guy so i am happy that it takes photos. Other than that missing features do not bother me.

I thought I would miss those features a lot more than I have. I bought the K-x as a little travel camera to supplement my K20d, whose controls, finder, pc sync, etc I like better. But I have found the little K-x irresistible.

[wizofoz]

I have both and the K-x is a toy in comparison the the K-7, with the one exception of the better high ISO resolution on the K-x. There is no comparison to be made. K-7 wins on every other feature and also on the pice/performance curve. It is the best bang for buck camera on the market today and all the canikonians can eat their hearts (and wallets) out.

How can anyone seriously compare a camera without AF confirmation points with a K-7? Compare a one dial camera to a pro - spec, serious tool? They aren't in the same league. Its like comparing Mozart to some guy who writes songs occasionally. Inane and insane.

Why do I have both? Due to an insurance claim a certain Melbourne camera store decided to gift me one along with the 18-55 lens the were meant to be replacing. (among other things)

I'll keep it at that price for the odd use as an extreme low light alternative and second body, but if and when the mooted K8(?) comes along it will go the way of all things no longer required- ebay!

[mawz]

I went with the K-x. The primary reason being that high ISO work was the primary intended use of the camera, the K-7 just wasn't much better at high ISO than the E-30 it would have been replacing aside from the ISO 6400 setting, the K-x is quite a bit better and also offers 2 extra stops of high ISO range instead of just one.

Most of the limitations of the K-x don't really apply to my use. Dual-wheel isn't a big deal for me (what I'd really like is a G1-style click-wheel) as I tend to work in Av mode almost exclusively outside of very low light and in very low light I set the aperture wide-open and just adjust shutter speed in M, which works just fine with a single-wheel design. I would like the better build, better metering and better viewfinder of the K-7, but the metering and viewfinder of the K-x are already as good or better than the E-30 it was replacing. As to AF points in the viewfinder, I've never found them that useful. I just lock it on the centre point and leave it. The smaller buffer and lack of a locking mode dial are a little annoying, but I can live with them.

Should a K-7 successor arrive with K-x level high ISO, I'll certainly consider upgrading.

[VoodooATL]

No teacher shooting, can I pick the K20D (or 10D) even. Really this is such a great feature of DSLRs why its missing I can't understand. Clients really like it and can provide instant feedback. I have even had models tell me how much they liked it.

I can have the laptop facing the model and myself and a second LCD about 6' back so the client/agency/fashion director or whatever can watch out of the way.

[xxbennie]

k-x view finder not to good in bright light. I find clarity of viewfinder in kx hinders high and low shots. im very happy with kx and understand pentax has to protect higher models

[str8talk83]

focus points not visible in the viewfinder on the K-x....How do you focus then?

[mattdm]

focus points not visible in the viewfinder on the K-x....How do you focus then?

The red focus dots are only approximate indicators anyway. So, instead of having those, you learn about where they would be.

You still get a visual indication of when the AF system thinks it's in focus.

[str8talk83]

The red focus dots are only approximate indicators anyway. So, instead of having those, you learn about where they would be.

You still get a visual indication of when the AF system thinks it's in focus.

How do you know which one you have activated? That would be more of my concern. If you focus/recompose I guess it wouldn't really matter that much. I generally choose the focus point closest to what I want to shoot and change my points frequently. That's why I was curious.