K20D to K7

Dom · 04-21-2010, 07:02 AM

I've got both a K20D and a K7. I still use my K20 a lot I like the way it fells. When you press the shutter release you know you've taken a photo. It's very much a photographers camera.

The K7 is lighter faster and quieter. I some times think the K7 even with the battery grip is a little too light. 5.2 fps is great for sport just remember to shoot in short bursts or you'll have too many photos to go through.

patrickt · 04-21-2010, 07:14 AM

When the K7 came out I looked at it and bought a K20. Hey, I'm cheap. That and I am not interested in spiffy new features, live movies or live view, than I am with the camera doing what it's supposed to do, take photographs.

For the money, the K7 didn't offer me what I wanted.

**iCrop** · 04-21-2010, 08:49 AM

For me, going from the K20D to the K-7 was like going from the *istD to the K10D. The K-7 is faster, lighter and quieter. It's definitely a step or three ahead.

Uncle_dad · 04-21-2010, 09:16 AM

After waiting since the K-7 came out I may about be ready to pull the trigger on one as the price must be getting near as low as it will get. Anyone think it will drop much lower ?? It's around $890 ish now.

JeffJS · 04-21-2010, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Uncle_dad

After waiting since the K-7 came out I may about be ready to pull the trigger on one as the price must be getting near as low as it will get. Anyone think it will drop much lower ?? It's around $890 ish now.

Eventually.. How long do you want to wait? I don't think it's going to drop like a rock in the near future however.

**germar** · 04-21-2010, 12:09 PM

Can anyone comment on the performance of the DA* 16-50 on the K7 vs. the K20D?

I have a K20D/DA *16-50 that hunts for focus whenever I'm using it wide or in dark-ish conditions, often locking up completely with an error. Considering many comments in this thread that the K7 is better at autofocus, perhaps it is also better with this lens?

Anyone have an opinion of the DA*16-50 and the K7 versus the K20D?

Thanks!

germar

robgo2 · 04-21-2010, 12:29 PM

Prices for the K-7 have come down to a level that you simply cannot lose much by getting one. Even if you hate it (very unlikely), you will be able to sell it at only a small loss. I can see no reason to favor the K20D, unless you want a larger body. In all the ways mentioned by others, the K-7 is a superior camera.

Rob

JeffJS · 04-21-2010, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by germar

Can anyone comment on the performance of the DA* 16-50 on the K7 vs. the K20D?

I have a K20D/DA *16-50 that hunts for focus whenever I'm using it wide or in dark-ish conditions, often locking up completely with an error. Considering many comments in this thread that the K7 is better at autofocus, perhaps it is also better with this lens?

Anyone have an opinion of the DA*16-50 and the K7 versus the K20D?

Thanks!

germar

I am quite happy with the AF performance of the DA*16-50 on the K7. I think it's really the AF assist that helps as I was pretty happy with it on the K20 as well when using the 540 or 360 flash units. I do note that it doesn't hunt very much if at all on the K7 (mine still works and is still quiet). Right now I cannot do a compare as I've sold the K20d. Don't know what others will report though.

Uncle_dad · 04-21-2010, 05:34 PM

I want to pull the trigger on a K-7 and let the wifey retire the ist DL and use the K20D but I just got a Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 100-300 F4 with 1.4TC so it's more waiting for the money to build up rather then the price to come down at this point. And then of course we need the underwater P&S for the trip next month and so on and so on. Can't forget the ultra wide either. Damn it never ends does it !!!!!!!!!!! And what about the tripod head for shooting panos ?? Anyone have a money tree for sale ???

Derridale · 04-21-2010, 05:53 PM

For all those who mentioned that the K7 has a better white balance, I'd just make the point that if you shoot in RAW, as many in here do (including me) then the white balance is totally irrelevant.

Given that I have two K20Ds, each with battery grip, it would cost me a bomb to upgrade both bodies and both battery grips, as the battery grip for the K7 is not the same as the one for the K10/K20. And for me, it's just not worth it. I've spent the money instead on a DA35 and a DA15 lens

And don't forget that the limiting factor for most people on here (with a few notable exceptions) is the photographer behind the camera, not the equipment.

mel · 04-21-2010, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Derridale

For all those who mentioned that the K7 has a better white balance, I'd just make the point that if you shoot in RAW, as many in here do (including me) then the white balance is totally irrelevant.

It's not TOTALLY irrelevant. Sure you can change it post but when you're shooting a performance with tungsten stage lighting and a little of this and that mixed in, you have 2 or 3 run throughs, creating a stills documentation of the production, resulting in a few thousand images, a more accurate white balance means less fine tuning of the color post (and no not on every single image, just the ones deemed keepers. Which can still be a lot).

cwood · 04-21-2010, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by mel

It's not TOTALLY irrelevant.

+1

Getting it right the first time is ALWAYS better than fixing it later.

Mister Guy · 04-22-2010, 07:19 AM

Just joining the throng with a direct point of comparison. I bought a K110D right at the end of their life cycle because it was Pentax and it was the cheapest option that would allow me to use my legacy Pentax glass. I absolutely loved the camera and quality, but for how I was shooting, two factors made me unsatisfied:

1) Frame rate. I was still extremely new to event photography, and overly relied on (well, to be honest, overly rely on) spray and pray. I could get the angle I wanted, and anticipate the action somewhat, but I still missed shots I wanted due to timing. Sometimes, it couldn't be avoided, like first kisses or cutting the wedding cake. The camera simply wasn't fast enough to catch multiple shots of quick action.

2) Image stabilization. Not having it, not knowing what I was missing, I was curious.

A few other smaller factors came into play, but those were the primary ones. Other features on the K20D I learned to love after I got it, but didn't realize I was missing them until they were available, like better low light performance, easier controls, focus calibration, dust removal (I cleaned my K110D weekly and got spots frequently. I rarely clean my K20D and I don't think I've cleaned my K-7 yet).

So I talked myself into a K20D and fell deeply in lust with it. It was so much more comfortable, so much more powerful, so much more study than the K110D, it was like a whole different beast. More than a minor upgrade, it was like stepping up into big boy toys. Sure, except for some fancy flash effects, the K110D could honestly complete with the K20D in quality and couple reproduce almost every image the K20D could take, but the K20D made the process so much easier. I bought a Katz-eye Optics focus screen for it, replaced it easily, and fell more and more in lust with my camera. The K110D fell to use as a backup camera and then ended up a teaching camera for my girlfriend.

Finally, my K110D was stolen off my back porch during a party. Since I'd already been lusting after the rumors of the K-7 and "celebrating" my impending divorce finalization (my home state requires a lengthy divorce process), I jumped for the K-7 to replace the stolen K110D instead of a similar replacement and thanks to excellent customer service from Adorama, managed to pick up someone else's pre-order that got canceled and so managed to get a K-7 day of release. If I lusted after the K20D, I'm in love with my K-7.

The K20D made feature level improvements that were immediate and obvious compared to the K110D. There were additional options, widgets, tools, and accessories that simply weren't available. With the move from the K-7 to the K20D, there just weren't those massive improvements. The three big improvements are marginal and heavily dependent on how you shoot: ISO button and display, HD video, autofocus assist lamp.

However, touch and feel wise, to me, it's the same jump. The K20D fit comfortably in my hands, which are on the smaller side. The K-7 belongs in my hand. The only button that isn't exactly where I want it to be is the green button. I occasionally miss it and tab the autofocus again by accident, which usually doesn't matter because I usually only hit it if I'm manually shooting or in hyper program mode and the lighting changes dramatically.

The K-7 has the same rough feature set, and extremely similar quality as a K20D. I doubt, given an entirely library of images, you'd be able to conclusively guess which camera took which set of images without looking. However, how it feels in your hand is pretty severely different. The K-7 is smaller with a slightly different layout. You'll probably either love it, or reject it. You'll probably know within seconds of picking it up whether you prefer the K20D to the K-7, and the additional features aren't enough to drive many to overcome the gut level comfort difference in how the cameras feel.

Currently, I only pick up my K20D when I shoot manual lenses, because I can't yet afford the focus screen for the K-7. As soon as I get a focus screen, I'm strongly considering selling the K20D for a K-x to be the girlfriend teaching / spare body camera.

davef · 04-22-2010, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by telfish

I had a K20 and upgraded to the k7. The reasons.

Better AF particularly in low light, lamp assist in really dark conditions
Better metering, more accurate.
Better viewfinder 100% view
Better build and form factor, combine the K7 with the limited lenses and you have a very special setup.
Better menu system, far easier to navigate.

Picture quality is about the same.

+ another -- also has better frame rate; prefer the K20 for high ISO; menus and form factor are a matter of personal preference.

Dave

SteveM · 04-22-2010, 09:01 AM

There have been a few threads lately trying to compare the K20d to the K7. I have both and my first impression was that the K7 was not much of an upgrade as far as picture quality goes. While it is much the same sensor, there are differences. Some posts have mentioned that the K20d might be better in low ISO, some mention that the K7 is better with blacks/shadows.

When I look back at my pictures taken with both cameras, I see an increase in quality in the shots taken with the K7. I went without a K7 for a few weeks and it was enough to let me know that I should probably sell the K20d. I think there are subtle differences in the sensor between the 2 cameras that have been overlooked.

04-21-2010, 08:49 AM	#33
iCrop Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tucson Photos: Gallery Posts: 292	Big difference For me, going from the K20D to the K-7 was like going from the *istD to the K10D. The K-7 is faster, lighter and quieter. It's definitely a step or three ahead.

04-21-2010, 12:09 PM	#36
germar Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: North Palm Beach, Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 728	*How about with a DA16-50?** Can anyone comment on the performance of the DA* 16-50 on the K7 vs. the K20D? I have a K20D/DA 16-50 that hunts for focus whenever I'm using it wide or in dark-ish conditions, often locking up completely with an error. Considering many comments in this thread that the K7 is better at autofocus, perhaps it is also better with this lens? Anyone have an opinion of the DA16-50 and the K7 versus the K20D? Thanks! germar

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
In Canada: Summer Rebates for K20d or K20d plus lens	Pentaxtic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	07-17-2009 11:34 AM
Magic Lantern Guides: Pentax K20D and MasterWorks: Jumpstart Guide for the K20D.	Reportage	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	02-12-2009 10:24 PM

04-21-2010, 07:02 AM	#31
Dom Guest	I've got both a K20D and a K7. I still use my K20 a lot I like the way it fells. When you press the shutter release you know you've taken a photo. It's very much a photographers camera. The K7 is lighter faster and quieter. I some times think the K7 even with the battery grip is a little too light. 5.2 fps is great for sport just remember to shoot in short bursts or you'll have too many photos to go through.

04-21-2010, 07:14 AM	#32
patrickt Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Oaxaca, Mexico Posts: 247	When the K7 came out I looked at it and bought a K20. Hey, I'm cheap. That and I am not interested in spiffy new features, live movies or live view, than I am with the camera doing what it's supposed to do, take photographs. For the money, the K7 didn't offer me what I wanted.

04-21-2010, 09:16 AM	#34
Uncle_dad Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Edgewater Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 111	After waiting since the K-7 came out I may about be ready to pull the trigger on one as the price must be getting near as low as it will get. Anyone think it will drop much lower ?? It's around $890 ish now.

04-21-2010, 09:26 AM	#35
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by Uncle_dad After waiting since the K-7 came out I may about be ready to pull the trigger on one as the price must be getting near as low as it will get. Anyone think it will drop much lower ?? It's around $890 ish now. Eventually.. How long do you want to wait? I don't think it's going to drop like a rock in the near future however.

04-21-2010, 12:29 PM	#37
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Prices for the K-7 have come down to a level that you simply cannot lose much by getting one. Even if you hate it (very unlikely), you will be able to sell it at only a small loss. I can see no reason to favor the K20D, unless you want a larger body. In all the ways mentioned by others, the K-7 is a superior camera. Rob

04-21-2010, 04:53 PM	#38
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by germar Can anyone comment on the performance of the DA* 16-50 on the K7 vs. the K20D? I have a K20D/DA 16-50 that hunts for focus whenever I'm using it wide or in dark-ish conditions, often locking up completely with an error. Considering many comments in this thread that the K7 is better at autofocus, perhaps it is also better with this lens? Anyone have an opinion of the DA16-50 and the K7 versus the K20D? Thanks! germar I am quite happy with the AF performance of the DA*16-50 on the K7. I think it's really the AF assist that helps as I was pretty happy with it on the K20 as well when using the 540 or 360 flash units. I do note that it doesn't hunt very much if at all on the K7 (mine still works and is still quiet). Right now I cannot do a compare as I've sold the K20d. Don't know what others will report though.

04-21-2010, 05:34 PM	#39
Uncle_dad Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Edgewater Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 111	I want to pull the trigger on a K-7 and let the wifey retire the ist DL and use the K20D but I just got a Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 100-300 F4 with 1.4TC so it's more waiting for the money to build up rather then the price to come down at this point. And then of course we need the underwater P&S for the trip next month and so on and so on. Can't forget the ultra wide either. Damn it never ends does it !!!!!!!!!!! And what about the tripod head for shooting panos ?? Anyone have a money tree for sale ???

04-21-2010, 05:53 PM	#40
Derridale Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 412	For all those who mentioned that the K7 has a better white balance, I'd just make the point that if you shoot in RAW, as many in here do (including me) then the white balance is totally irrelevant. Given that I have two K20Ds, each with battery grip, it would cost me a bomb to upgrade both bodies and both battery grips, as the battery grip for the K7 is not the same as the one for the K10/K20. And for me, it's just not worth it. I've spent the money instead on a DA35 and a DA15 lens And don't forget that the limiting factor for most people on here (with a few notable exceptions) is the photographer behind the camera, not the equipment.

04-21-2010, 07:22 PM	#41
mel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,531	Originally posted by Derridale For all those who mentioned that the K7 has a better white balance, I'd just make the point that if you shoot in RAW, as many in here do (including me) then the white balance is totally irrelevant. It's not TOTALLY irrelevant. Sure you can change it post but when you're shooting a performance with tungsten stage lighting and a little of this and that mixed in, you have 2 or 3 run throughs, creating a stills documentation of the production, resulting in a few thousand images, a more accurate white balance means less fine tuning of the color post (and no not on every single image, just the ones deemed keepers. Which can still be a lot).

04-21-2010, 07:25 PM	#42
cwood Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: California Posts: 851	Originally posted by mel It's not TOTALLY irrelevant. +1 Getting it right the first time is ALWAYS better than fixing it later.

04-22-2010, 07:19 AM	#43
Mister Guy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 244	Just joining the throng with a direct point of comparison. I bought a K110D right at the end of their life cycle because it was Pentax and it was the cheapest option that would allow me to use my legacy Pentax glass. I absolutely loved the camera and quality, but for how I was shooting, two factors made me unsatisfied: 1) Frame rate. I was still extremely new to event photography, and overly relied on (well, to be honest, overly rely on) spray and pray. I could get the angle I wanted, and anticipate the action somewhat, but I still missed shots I wanted due to timing. Sometimes, it couldn't be avoided, like first kisses or cutting the wedding cake. The camera simply wasn't fast enough to catch multiple shots of quick action. 2) Image stabilization. Not having it, not knowing what I was missing, I was curious. A few other smaller factors came into play, but those were the primary ones. Other features on the K20D I learned to love after I got it, but didn't realize I was missing them until they were available, like better low light performance, easier controls, focus calibration, dust removal (I cleaned my K110D weekly and got spots frequently. I rarely clean my K20D and I don't think I've cleaned my K-7 yet). So I talked myself into a K20D and fell deeply in lust with it. It was so much more comfortable, so much more powerful, so much more study than the K110D, it was like a whole different beast. More than a minor upgrade, it was like stepping up into big boy toys. Sure, except for some fancy flash effects, the K110D could honestly complete with the K20D in quality and couple reproduce almost every image the K20D could take, but the K20D made the process so much easier. I bought a Katz-eye Optics focus screen for it, replaced it easily, and fell more and more in lust with my camera. The K110D fell to use as a backup camera and then ended up a teaching camera for my girlfriend. Finally, my K110D was stolen off my back porch during a party. Since I'd already been lusting after the rumors of the K-7 and "celebrating" my impending divorce finalization (my home state requires a lengthy divorce process), I jumped for the K-7 to replace the stolen K110D instead of a similar replacement and thanks to excellent customer service from Adorama, managed to pick up someone else's pre-order that got canceled and so managed to get a K-7 day of release. If I lusted after the K20D, I'm in love with my K-7. The K20D made feature level improvements that were immediate and obvious compared to the K110D. There were additional options, widgets, tools, and accessories that simply weren't available. With the move from the K-7 to the K20D, there just weren't those massive improvements. The three big improvements are marginal and heavily dependent on how you shoot: ISO button and display, HD video, autofocus assist lamp. However, touch and feel wise, to me, it's the same jump. The K20D fit comfortably in my hands, which are on the smaller side. The K-7 belongs in my hand. The only button that isn't exactly where I want it to be is the green button. I occasionally miss it and tab the autofocus again by accident, which usually doesn't matter because I usually only hit it if I'm manually shooting or in hyper program mode and the lighting changes dramatically. The K-7 has the same rough feature set, and extremely similar quality as a K20D. I doubt, given an entirely library of images, you'd be able to conclusively guess which camera took which set of images without looking. However, how it feels in your hand is pretty severely different. The K-7 is smaller with a slightly different layout. You'll probably either love it, or reject it. You'll probably know within seconds of picking it up whether you prefer the K20D to the K-7, and the additional features aren't enough to drive many to overcome the gut level comfort difference in how the cameras feel. Currently, I only pick up my K20D when I shoot manual lenses, because I can't yet afford the focus screen for the K-7. As soon as I get a focus screen, I'm strongly considering selling the K20D for a K-x to be the girlfriend teaching / spare body camera.

04-22-2010, 07:37 AM	#44
davef Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Ontario Posts: 433	Originally posted by telfish I had a K20 and upgraded to the k7. The reasons. Better AF particularly in low light, lamp assist in really dark conditions Better metering, more accurate. Better viewfinder 100% view Better build and form factor, combine the K7 with the limited lenses and you have a very special setup. Better menu system, far easier to navigate. Picture quality is about the same. + another -- also has better frame rate; prefer the K20 for high ISO; menus and form factor are a matter of personal preference. Dave

04-22-2010, 09:01 AM	#45
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	There have been a few threads lately trying to compare the K20d to the K7. I have both and my first impression was that the K7 was not much of an upgrade as far as picture quality goes. While it is much the same sensor, there are differences. Some posts have mentioned that the K20d might be better in low ISO, some mention that the K7 is better with blacks/shadows. When I look back at my pictures taken with both cameras, I see an increase in quality in the shots taken with the K7. I went without a K7 for a few weeks and it was enough to let me know that I should probably sell the K20d. I think there are subtle differences in the sensor between the 2 cameras that have been overlooked.