Originally posted by pakuchn But, it does take better pictures when compared to K-7.
yes thats the crux of whole thing.
In reviews conclusion DPR makes few interesting points.
Originally posted by dpreview_kx_review: While at first sight the new model is pretty much indistinguishable from the K2000, a closer look reveals that, from a features and specification point of view, the K-x has quite lot in common with the K-7, a significantly more expensive camera. It comes with the K-7's 11-point AF system and PRIME II imaging engine, along with its abilities to correct for chromatic aberration and distortion when using Pentax DA and DFA lenses. Add 720p HD video, ISO 12800 and 4.7 frames per second continuous shooting to the mix and you've got a, for the the K-x's very attractive price point, impressively well-specified camera.
Further, about image quality.
Originally posted by dpreview_kx_review: Crucially the image quality does not lag behind the technical specification. The image output at base ISO shows good detail and colors but where the K-x really starts to shine is in low light. Its high ISO JPEGs are possibly the best of all current DSLRs with an APS-C size sensor; they certainly beat any of its direct competitors.
Pretty bold claim from one of the most influential review site. And this is when they are being accused of treating pentax cams badly.
Last few days lots of argument with regard to kx and k7, my feeling is that many of the k7 users are not ready to give kx the credit it deserves. It seems that they find it very difficult to acknowledge that kx does indeed has better sensor and better image quality.
I think sayingthat kx is better does not mean that k7 is useless, but somehow it is difficult to understand for many k7 users.