[krs]

Thats my point though... with the K-x you dont have to limit yourself to 800

Good points!

[benjikan]

Do you find K10D AF or K100D max usable ISO 1600 a limitation at all? If you do then you should get the K-7 or the K-X, it will turn your 70-200/2.8 to a lowlight machine, moreso than getting the 77.

But as others said, bodies come and go, but the glass stays. Great glass doesnt make faster AF or increase ISO performance though!

A good price compromise would either be the 77 and a K20D or a K-x.

[joakimfors]

Thats my point though... with the K-x you dont have to limit yourself to 800

Neither do you if you get the K-7… but yeah, it's a tough decision. I have the K-7 and shoot regularly at ISO 1600, but I'd also like to have the FA 77 (I already have the DA 70 and it's a beauty). Perhaps you should just flip a coin.

I guess it all comes down to the things that make the K-7 a better camera than the K10D like faster fps, focusing, size, build etc. Do you need any of those or is the allure of the magical FA 77 stronger.

Personally I wouldn't give up my K-7 for a FA 77. However, I'd gladly spend some money on an FA 77 if I didn't already have a DA 70 (not that my sub par photography skills can utilize either of them ).

Edit: OK, get the black FA 77… you can sell it to me in a few months if you don't like it.

[yeatzee]

The K-7 is such an upgrade from those two cameras, that I go against what I would normally say and recomend you get the camera. You already have great glass in that range, and the larger max F-stop isnt going to help much with the
K10d and K100d in low light considering their ISO limitations.

[krs]

Is is it safe to say that I can effectively gain the equivalent of one F-Stop going from the K10D to the k7,, meaning the pictures will be as good at ISO 1600 with the K7 as they are at 800 with the K10, which would be the same as being able to shoot my 2.8 aperture lenses at 2.0?

[braver]

Nobody mentioned video, which may be a must for shooting kids. I have a K10D which I absolutely love, but I got a K7 instead of an extra camcorder. But then I also got a 77mm right after it. Which is hard to manually focus when shooting the video, but absolutely great to shoot at night with! The exhilarating feeling one gets walking home at night and making cool shots at ISO 800 and 1600 of the night lights!

[WerTicus]

id get the da 70mm over the fa 77mm any day. That only saves your 200 bucks however so you cant have both the 70 and a k7...


maybe a kx and a 70mm?

[tomtor]

Is is it safe to say that I can effectively gain the equivalent of one F-Stop going from the K10D to the k7,, meaning the pictures will be as good at ISO 1600 with the K7 as they are at 800 with the K10, which would be the same as being able to shoot my 2.8 aperture lenses at 2.0?

Yes, that would be correct, but you will not have the shallow DOF that comes with the 77 wide open. Note that sometimes wide open the DOF of the 77 is too shallow.

If you just want to shoot with less light, I'd get the K-X body only and continue enjoying your zooms.

You should buy the 77 if you want a beautifull rendering compact prime.

I have the 77 and the 50-135, I don't use the 77 explicitly for low light shooting, I use it when I find the 50-135 too big or when I want to play with shallow DOF.

[RuiC]

I do think the 77m is calling my name. So is the K7, and the Sigma 10-20/Pentax 12-24, and the .....

That's why I'm changing my name to NoName