I think he was saying that the K-7 has a lot of features over the K-x.
There are a lot of people here saying the K-7 has no real benefits over the K-x. That's totally wrong. What would be more realistic is whether the many benefits of the K-7 justify the higher price tag for your own photography.
There's a lot of really bad info going to someone choosing between a K-7 and K-x (or other).
K-7 versus K-x has been beaten to death. Another recent thread had a similar issue, I'll re-post some:
It seems that looking at a bunch of 100% test shot crops is giving people the impression the K-x is better than the K-7, and all the competition is better than the K-7. So why did I choose the K-7? It is a remarkable camera. It suits my needs far better than the Nikon or Canon alternatives. When buying the K-7 I never seriously considered the K-x and wouldn't if I bought it over again - I place a big emphasis on the advantages of the K-7.
There are a lot of differences and I won't list them all here as people has been over this a lot elsewhere. Suffice to say the K-x is a remarkably capable 'entry-level' type DSLR, and even provides some features matching higher-class competition. The K-7 is in a different league of cameras, and is superior to a greater or lesser degree in a lot of ways over the K-x. Even in its usually-listed major 'failing' - high ISO - the K-7 is comparable to D300S and 7D when shooting RAW.
I'll leave out a bunch of things here but off the top of my head: compared to the K-x the K-7 has the better viewfinder, better build, superior AF, AF points visibility, top LCD screen, much quieter shutter, slightly faster frames per second, slightly higher MP, front finger dial, weather-sealing. (I also forgot very short shutter black-out). Originally posted by flyer: First off, have you got any use for a "more professional camera"?
You won't be able to tell the difference between a picture taken with the K-X or K7 (unless taken at high ISO, where the K-X rules), so why change?
Flyer's totally right: unless a better tool will help you take better photos, there's no point in it at all. If it will help, go for it. One thing I would say is that you also can't see a difference between a shot you missed with the K-x and one you got with the K-7. A loud shutter and no front finger dial would cause me to miss some shots.
Originally posted by AndrewShirley: If anything I want to purchase a K-X for wedding photography. I would LOVE the K20/K7's new features, but I really want to see a new body come with AF and ISO performance to rival the competiton.
For wedding I assume you would be shooting RAW, mostly using AF-single. This is exactly where the K-7
is on par with the competition in high ISO and AF speed.
Originally posted by epqwerty: The performance benefits of the k7 over the kx is so little
I need fast manual control, place a high value on the viewfinder, quiet shutter and AF viewpoint overlay. For me, those are
not little performance benefits. It depends on your needs.
High ISO - K-x wins. It's slightly smaller, and a decent amount lighter. Apart from that, The K-7 is superior in every way. There's no way round it.
---------------------------------
Anyway, to go back to the original question about K-7 versus a later model, Jasvox has a good point. The K-7 is here now, it's gone down in price a lot since it was introduced. It's a very good camera. Any new one and you will paying the big upfront price.
However, be careful you're not trusting in gear to improve your photography.