If you had to pick today, would you get a K7, or a K-x?

Nilnoc · 12-24-2009, 08:15 AM

I dithered between the two cameras and was leery of the K-7 price. But I got the K-7 two weeks ago after combining Bing cashback, Pentax rebate and a good B&H price on the K-7 kit with WR lens. I wanted my first WR lens, though the 18-55mm isn't necessarily the lens I really wanted.

Anyway, for about US$970, I'm very happy. I'd been shooting with the K10 for the last two years, and I know the K-X would have left me unsatisfied. Some people act like high ISO performance is the be-all & end-all for DSLRs. For me, it's just one feature on a list of desirable features, and the K-7 has more features I want. I would have liked it in red, though.

Actually, I'll still be shooting with the K10D whenever my wife is there shooting the K-7 with me. And my *istDS is there with a screw lens adapter installed to use my several 40 year old SMC Takumars.

gooberlx · 12-24-2009, 09:32 AM

I made this exact choice yesterday and went with the K7. High-ISO performance is mitigated a little as I shoot RAW and post-process, anyway.

For all the other features, the K7 rules the roost. I like to shoot where I live in Colorado, in all kinds of environments, so build quality and weathersealing were especially important for me.

Even though it's twice as expensive as the k-x, it's a helluva lot cheaper than when it was initially released. I'm giving my entire Canon kit to my father for Xmas and switching to Pentax. Been wanting to switch for a looong time, since the K10D was released, and I'm overwhelmed with glee I could finally do it.

ggray · 12-24-2009, 10:25 AM

The K-7 is my first DSLR. I bought the K-7 after researching many cameras including the K-X. The K-7 just had more to offer in capabilities. I am very happy with my choice and glad I could afford to purchase the K-7. The K-7 is replacing the Panasonic Lumix FZ50 I have been using and the FZ50 suffered from high ISO issues also but served me well for years. The K-7 is a real step up for me and has much better high ISO performance and many exciting features to work with than my old FZ50. The K-7 will keep me busy with all it's potential till the next camera comes out that I can't resist. High ISO quality is not a major drawback to me and K-7 has capabilities beyond my expectations. With some post processing it is a non issue to me anyway you look at it. The K-X is a great camera for the price but it wasn't enough to make me move to my first DSLR.

K-7 capabilities that influenced my decision, were mostly based on what I have read, are:
Higher resolution,
Higher max shutter speed,
Metering system capabilities,
Auto focus lamp,
Faster continuous drive capabilities,
Viewfinder capabilities,
larger LCD with more resolution,
K-7 is a little larger and heaver,
Weather seal and cold resistance on K-7,
External mike for video shooting.

I keep and use cameras for a long time and the solid feel a camera has and features to support many situations are a real issue. Time, images captured and loved will tell how great this camera is. I spent enough years shooting and processing film that I have been spoiled with the powerful capabilities the digital imaging systems we now have provide us. This camera is a quantum leap from the old Spotmatix I loved and used for years, can't wait to see what the future will hold for photography.

Merry Christmas To All And A Happy New Year.

JohnBee · 12-25-2009, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by ggray

The K-7 is replacing the Panasonic Lumix FZ50 I have been using and the FZ50 suffered from high ISO issues also but served me well for years.

You made an excellent choice!
There is much to love about the K7!
It's a phenomenal body and packed with features that makes a Lumix FZ50 look like trash

PS. I might of been a little too harsh on the Lumix, I actually owned one(for a short while)

javarob75 · 12-26-2009, 06:41 AM

If money is not an issue, the K-7 is definitely the way to go. I have shot with Nikon and Canon in the past, and have not regretted ditching both to purchase a pentax system. The K-7 is amazing!

Pentaxor · 12-26-2009, 01:06 PM

images coming from a camera (K-7) with an alleged "inferior IQ".

High ISO (3200) jpeg shot with completely NO in/off camera NR application.

another HIGH ISO (3200) jpeg shot completely without NR.

Low ISO (100) jpeg shot with strong in camera NR (w/o NR, image would show stronger fine details). I will post some low ISO shots w/o NR next time.

unlike some people, I do a lot of "real" shooting first before determining if the camera has some IQ deficiency that would deem it "inferior". it's a lot better than just merely shooting inside a camera store and unable to use the camera's full potential. before some people complain about IQ, they should learn how to use the gadget effectively first. there are a lot of parameters that determine IQ, High ISO does not determine overall IQ, it is just one part of it. sharpness and detail are some of the other aspects the make up overall IQ. and the k-x's sharpness and detail, as far as I have seen in some other people's results and my own results when it first came out, is quite weak in those departments. the notion of having a better sensor does not equate having better IQ overall. someone who immediately thinks otherwise that a better sensor would result to better overall IQ has a lame and shallow understanding of the parameters that constitute IQ. a better sensor could tweak one area of IQ but does not entirely tweak the other parameters unless if the sensor manufacturer or designer (not goofball) explore or improve those other areas as well. by then we could say that it is better in general or overall. otherwise, it's not.

if Pentax came out with something that enhances or improves "overall" IQ (which the k-x is not since it's only real strength lie in it's HIGH ISO performance), that is something that I would gladly see. but my needs would be more towards a full-frame which would give me the DOF and FOV that I'm needing. High ISO performance is only a bonus for events that require immediate shooting at extreme lowlight (but it is not what IQ generally is all about or really is). mostly my night shots are still done with a tripod for long exposure shots. overall IQ of the K-7 is generally very good to quite excellent already. the need for a full frame grows as time goes by. the k-x is just not worth it as a primary body nor a secondary body when Pentax releases a full frame. I just don't need another APS-C body that only gives me a Higher ISO capability. I need something that I can use 80-90% most of the time in general situations.

Pentaxian210 · 12-26-2009, 11:44 PM

Ok, I'm one who doesn't even shoot w/ high ISO ever! I have almost never shot over 400ISO w/ my K200D. Because I use studio lighting, I haven't had the need to go 400ISO or above. With that in mind, would not the K-7 be the better choice or a K-20?

Pentaxor · 12-26-2009, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxian210

Ok, I'm one who doesn't even shoot w/ high ISO ever! I have almost never shot over 400ISO w/ my K200D. Because I use studio lighting, I haven't had the need to go 400ISO or above. With that in mind, would not the K-7 be the better choice or a K-20?

it depends on your needs really. IQ-wise they are pretty much the same in a certain way but other factors affect them also. I believe it comes down to metering, ergo, portability, fps, faster AF, shutterspeed, VF, WB, etc.... so those things makes it better. for those who have a tight budget, the K20D will do.

Pioneer · 12-27-2009, 03:33 PM

After comparing them both I have chosen the K7, for reasons beside high-iso performance. For me there was really no contest, the K7 is a great step up from the K200d, which I already use and love. I would definitely enjoy a firmware update that improved the high iso performance for the K7 but that is not a deal breaker. I have already learned that these things can be manipulated in post processing so the additional features of the K7 were the selling point.

Pentaxor · 12-30-2009, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Pioneer

After comparing them both I have chosen the K7, for reasons beside high-iso performance. For me there was really no contest, the K7 is a great step up from the K200d, which I already use and love. I would definitely enjoy a firmware update that improved the high iso performance for the K7 but that is not a deal breaker. I have already learned that these things can be manipulated in post processing so the additional features of the K7 were the selling point.

I just recently updated my K-7 with the japan 1.02 version from 1.02 North American version. some users said that there is some sort of an SR bug that has been fixed inorder to improve proper and spot on focus and improve sharpness. I think there was one who said that there is a slight improvement in NR, maybe. but I have to see it for myself yet when I do some tests.

LeDave · 01-01-2010, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Pioneer

After comparing them both I have chosen the K7, for reasons beside high-iso performance. For me there was really no contest, the K7 is a great step up from the K200d, which I already use and love. I would definitely enjoy a firmware update that improved the high iso performance for the K7 but that is not a deal breaker. I have already learned that these things can be manipulated in post processing so the additional features of the K7 were the selling point.

This is the reason why I chose the K-7 over the K-x also. I was sort of anguished that the K-x didn't have the features of the K-7, or more to say why the K-7 didn't boast such high ISO. It took some time for me to realize that I was angry for nothing, I was asking for more than I needed. It wasn't like I was ever going to shoot at that high of a ISO much anyways, I only wanted it because it had better high ISO and without a real reason of why I truly wanted it. In the end, I was enlightened and realized the K-7 had what I really wanted. I was only distracted by the K-x's high ISO capabilities which fogged my thinking out of any other significant advancements the K-7 had over the K-x. On top of the K-7 is what I really needed and it had the features that I would actually want to use, better base ISO's, AF adjustment, AF illuminator, electronic leveling, etc.

Morbo · 01-03-2010, 09:36 PM

I have read a few reviews (Wired, and Popular Photography) that have said the image quality of the K-7 is not up to snuff, and similarly priced competitor cameras were better by a noticeable amount. If I remember correctly it was mostly a sharpness issue? I can't remember exactly, I think they mentioned textures were soft, and color wasn't a vibrant, etc.

Can anyone attest to this? I am possibly looking to get a K-7, or it's next model coming, in the quasi-not-so-distant-but-kind-of-distant future.

Pentaxor · 01-03-2010, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by Morbo

I have read a few reviews (Wired, and Popular Photography) that have said the image quality of the K-7 is not up to snuff, and similarly priced competitor cameras were better by a noticeable amount. If I remember correctly it was mostly a sharpness issue? I can't remember exactly, I think they mentioned textures were soft, and color wasn't a vibrant, etc.

Can anyone attest to this? I am possibly looking to get a K-7, or it's next model coming, in the quasi-not-so-distant-but-kind-of-distant future.

no real issue and I don't know where you got that impression. there was a comparison between the K-7 and the Canon 7D and another dslr within the same category some months ago which rather falsify that sharpness issue, soft texture and non-vibrant colors. actually the Pentax showed more detail.

the cause of non-vibrance could had been caused by the user's inexperience of the camera's settings and lenses do contribute to the colors as well.

I'm sure you'll find a lot of pictures here that would show if there is really an issue and certainly you wont find a thread here that would make such claim. otherwise, Pentax would had been crucified already by now. the only thing that seems to be of bother to a few is the HIGH ISO performance at 6400 (which is an expanded ISO), which is not really an issue unless if you use the camera at ISO 6400, 85% of the time which I highly doubt. question is, how often do you use a camera beyond ISO 3200 on a normal day?

if you want to feel much safer or satisfied, I suppose you visit a camera store and try out the camera itself. by then you could say if it meets your criteria of sharpness or not. btw, sharpness is tweakable/adjustable in the custom image setting.

raider · 01-04-2010, 03:12 AM

For me, I will still get the K-7 even though the K-x has better high ISO performance. K-7 has certain features that I find invaluable: The TaV mode, the remote shutter release, the batt grip, etc etc. High ISO performance is not everything to me.

SpartanWarrior · 01-05-2010, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by kittykat46

K-7....just shoot RAW, its High-ISO performance is as good as its competitors.

Just about Everything else about the K-7 is a class above the K-X.

Say that agian

if you go here
Canon EOS 7D Review: 15. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review
and scroll down to RAW ISO I think it does really great and beats the 50D
but looking at the 7D how many stops is it better?

View Poll Results: If you had to pick today, which camera would you get?
K7	339	68.48%
K-x	156	31.52%
Voters: 495. You may not vote on this poll

12-24-2009, 10:25 AM	#108
ggray Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Hill Country, TX Posts: 22	K-7 For Me The K-7 is my first DSLR. I bought the K-7 after researching many cameras including the K-X. The K-7 just had more to offer in capabilities. I am very happy with my choice and glad I could afford to purchase the K-7. The K-7 is replacing the Panasonic Lumix FZ50 I have been using and the FZ50 suffered from high ISO issues also but served me well for years. The K-7 is a real step up for me and has much better high ISO performance and many exciting features to work with than my old FZ50. The K-7 will keep me busy with all it's potential till the next camera comes out that I can't resist. High ISO quality is not a major drawback to me and K-7 has capabilities beyond my expectations. With some post processing it is a non issue to me anyway you look at it. The K-X is a great camera for the price but it wasn't enough to make me move to my first DSLR. K-7 capabilities that influenced my decision, were mostly based on what I have read, are: Higher resolution, Higher max shutter speed, Metering system capabilities, Auto focus lamp, Faster continuous drive capabilities, Viewfinder capabilities, larger LCD with more resolution, K-7 is a little larger and heaver, Weather seal and cold resistance on K-7, External mike for video shooting. I keep and use cameras for a long time and the solid feel a camera has and features to support many situations are a real issue. Time, images captured and loved will tell how great this camera is. I spent enough years shooting and processing film that I have been spoiled with the powerful capabilities the digital imaging systems we now have provide us. This camera is a quantum leap from the old Spotmatix I loved and used for years, can't wait to see what the future will hold for photography. Merry Christmas To All And A Happy New Year. Last edited by ggray; 12-24-2009 at 04:20 PM.

12-26-2009, 06:41 AM	#110
javarob75 Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Photos: Gallery Posts: 33	K-7, hands down If money is not an issue, the K-7 is definitely the way to go. I have shot with Nikon and Canon in the past, and have not regretted ditching both to purchase a pentax system. The K-7 is amazing!

12-26-2009, 01:06 PM	#111
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	images coming from a camera (K-7) with an alleged "inferior IQ". High ISO (3200) jpeg shot with completely NO in/off camera NR application. another HIGH ISO (3200) jpeg shot completely without NR. Low ISO (100) jpeg shot with strong in camera NR (w/o NR, image would show stronger fine details). I will post some low ISO shots w/o NR next time. unlike some people, I do a lot of "real" shooting first before determining if the camera has some IQ deficiency that would deem it "inferior". it's a lot better than just merely shooting inside a camera store and unable to use the camera's full potential. before some people complain about IQ, they should learn how to use the gadget effectively first. there are a lot of parameters that determine IQ, High ISO does not determine overall IQ, it is just one part of it. sharpness and detail are some of the other aspects the make up overall IQ. and the k-x's sharpness and detail, as far as I have seen in some other people's results and my own results when it first came out, is quite weak in those departments. the notion of having a better sensor does not equate having better IQ overall. someone who immediately thinks otherwise that a better sensor would result to better overall IQ has a lame and shallow understanding of the parameters that constitute IQ. a better sensor could tweak one area of IQ but does not entirely tweak the other parameters unless if the sensor manufacturer or designer (not goofball) explore or improve those other areas as well. by then we could say that it is better in general or overall. otherwise, it's not. if Pentax came out with something that enhances or improves "overall" IQ (which the k-x is not since it's only real strength lie in it's HIGH ISO performance), that is something that I would gladly see. but my needs would be more towards a full-frame which would give me the DOF and FOV that I'm needing. High ISO performance is only a bonus for events that require immediate shooting at extreme lowlight (but it is not what IQ generally is all about or really is). mostly my night shots are still done with a tripod for long exposure shots. overall IQ of the K-7 is generally very good to quite excellent already. the need for a full frame grows as time goes by. the k-x is just not worth it as a primary body nor a secondary body when Pentax releases a full frame. I just don't need another APS-C body that only gives me a Higher ISO capability. I need something that I can use 80-90% most of the time in general situations. Last edited by Pentaxor; 12-26-2009 at 11:40 PM.

12-27-2009, 03:33 PM	#114
Pioneer Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Wandering the Streets Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,411	K7 After comparing them both I have chosen the K7, for reasons beside high-iso performance. For me there was really no contest, the K7 is a great step up from the K200d, which I already use and love. I would definitely enjoy a firmware update that improved the high iso performance for the K7 but that is not a deal breaker. I have already learned that these things can be manipulated in post processing so the additional features of the K7 were the selling point.

12-24-2009, 08:15 AM	#106
Nilnoc New Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Northeastern Ohio Photos: Gallery Posts: 17	I dithered between the two cameras and was leery of the K-7 price. But I got the K-7 two weeks ago after combining Bing cashback, Pentax rebate and a good B&H price on the K-7 kit with WR lens. I wanted my first WR lens, though the 18-55mm isn't necessarily the lens I really wanted. Anyway, for about US$970, I'm very happy. I'd been shooting with the K10 for the last two years, and I know the K-X would have left me unsatisfied. Some people act like high ISO performance is the be-all & end-all for DSLRs. For me, it's just one feature on a list of desirable features, and the K-7 has more features I want. I would have liked it in red, though. Actually, I'll still be shooting with the K10D whenever my wife is there shooting the K-7 with me. And my *istDS is there with a screw lens adapter installed to use my several 40 year old SMC Takumars.

12-24-2009, 09:32 AM	#107
gooberlx Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Colorado Posts: 49	I made this exact choice yesterday and went with the K7. High-ISO performance is mitigated a little as I shoot RAW and post-process, anyway. For all the other features, the K7 rules the roost. I like to shoot where I live in Colorado, in all kinds of environments, so build quality and weathersealing were especially important for me. Even though it's twice as expensive as the k-x, it's a helluva lot cheaper than when it was initially released. I'm giving my entire Canon kit to my father for Xmas and switching to Pentax. Been wanting to switch for a looong time, since the K10D was released, and I'm overwhelmed with glee I could finally do it.

12-25-2009, 03:20 AM	#109
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by ggray The K-7 is replacing the Panasonic Lumix FZ50 I have been using and the FZ50 suffered from high ISO issues also but served me well for years. You made an excellent choice! There is much to love about the K7! It's a phenomenal body and packed with features that makes a Lumix FZ50 look like trash PS. I might of been a little too harsh on the Lumix, I actually owned one(for a short while)

12-26-2009, 11:44 PM	#112
Pentaxian210 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Atlanta Photos: Gallery Posts: 18	Ok, I'm one who doesn't even shoot w/ high ISO ever! I have almost never shot over 400ISO w/ my K200D. Because I use studio lighting, I haven't had the need to go 400ISO or above. With that in mind, would not the K-7 be the better choice or a K-20?

12-26-2009, 11:54 PM	#113
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Pentaxian210 Ok, I'm one who doesn't even shoot w/ high ISO ever! I have almost never shot over 400ISO w/ my K200D. Because I use studio lighting, I haven't had the need to go 400ISO or above. With that in mind, would not the K-7 be the better choice or a K-20? it depends on your needs really. IQ-wise they are pretty much the same in a certain way but other factors affect them also. I believe it comes down to metering, ergo, portability, fps, faster AF, shutterspeed, VF, WB, etc.... so those things makes it better. for those who have a tight budget, the K20D will do.

12-30-2009, 04:51 PM	#115
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Pioneer After comparing them both I have chosen the K7, for reasons beside high-iso performance. For me there was really no contest, the K7 is a great step up from the K200d, which I already use and love. I would definitely enjoy a firmware update that improved the high iso performance for the K7 but that is not a deal breaker. I have already learned that these things can be manipulated in post processing so the additional features of the K7 were the selling point. I just recently updated my K-7 with the japan 1.02 version from 1.02 North American version. some users said that there is some sort of an SR bug that has been fixed inorder to improve proper and spot on focus and improve sharpness. I think there was one who said that there is a slight improvement in NR, maybe. but I have to see it for myself yet when I do some tests.

01-01-2010, 11:18 AM	#116
LeDave Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,067	Originally posted by Pioneer After comparing them both I have chosen the K7, for reasons beside high-iso performance. For me there was really no contest, the K7 is a great step up from the K200d, which I already use and love. I would definitely enjoy a firmware update that improved the high iso performance for the K7 but that is not a deal breaker. I have already learned that these things can be manipulated in post processing so the additional features of the K7 were the selling point. This is the reason why I chose the K-7 over the K-x also. I was sort of anguished that the K-x didn't have the features of the K-7, or more to say why the K-7 didn't boast such high ISO. It took some time for me to realize that I was angry for nothing, I was asking for more than I needed. It wasn't like I was ever going to shoot at that high of a ISO much anyways, I only wanted it because it had better high ISO and without a real reason of why I truly wanted it. In the end, I was enlightened and realized the K-7 had what I really wanted. I was only distracted by the K-x's high ISO capabilities which fogged my thinking out of any other significant advancements the K-7 had over the K-x. On top of the K-7 is what I really needed and it had the features that I would actually want to use, better base ISO's, AF adjustment, AF illuminator, electronic leveling, etc.

01-03-2010, 09:36 PM	#117
Morbo Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: HOUSTON Posts: 797	I have read a few reviews (Wired, and Popular Photography) that have said the image quality of the K-7 is not up to snuff, and similarly priced competitor cameras were better by a noticeable amount. If I remember correctly it was mostly a sharpness issue? I can't remember exactly, I think they mentioned textures were soft, and color wasn't a vibrant, etc. Can anyone attest to this? I am possibly looking to get a K-7, or it's next model coming, in the quasi-not-so-distant-but-kind-of-distant future.

01-03-2010, 10:56 PM	#118
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Morbo I have read a few reviews (Wired, and Popular Photography) that have said the image quality of the K-7 is not up to snuff, and similarly priced competitor cameras were better by a noticeable amount. If I remember correctly it was mostly a sharpness issue? I can't remember exactly, I think they mentioned textures were soft, and color wasn't a vibrant, etc. Can anyone attest to this? I am possibly looking to get a K-7, or it's next model coming, in the quasi-not-so-distant-but-kind-of-distant future. no real issue and I don't know where you got that impression. there was a comparison between the K-7 and the Canon 7D and another dslr within the same category some months ago which rather falsify that sharpness issue, soft texture and non-vibrant colors. actually the Pentax showed more detail. the cause of non-vibrance could had been caused by the user's inexperience of the camera's settings and lenses do contribute to the colors as well. I'm sure you'll find a lot of pictures here that would show if there is really an issue and certainly you wont find a thread here that would make such claim. otherwise, Pentax would had been crucified already by now. the only thing that seems to be of bother to a few is the HIGH ISO performance at 6400 (which is an expanded ISO), which is not really an issue unless if you use the camera at ISO 6400, 85% of the time which I highly doubt. question is, how often do you use a camera beyond ISO 3200 on a normal day? if you want to feel much safer or satisfied, I suppose you visit a camera store and try out the camera itself. by then you could say if it meets your criteria of sharpness or not. btw, sharpness is tweakable/adjustable in the custom image setting.

01-04-2010, 03:12 AM	#119
raider Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Perth, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,989	For me, I will still get the K-7 even though the K-x has better high ISO performance. K-7 has certain features that I find invaluable: The TaV mode, the remote shutter release, the batt grip, etc etc. High ISO performance is not everything to me.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Landscape Need help! Pick the best...	navcom	Post Your Photos!	20	02-16-2010 11:54 AM
Help me pick a lens....	opianstate	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	09-25-2009 03:04 PM
Looking to pick up a ZX-10	maxwell1295	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	12	08-27-2008 01:39 PM
Will you help me pick one?	LaRee	Post Your Photos!	20	04-06-2008 07:56 PM
But I don't want to pick up my toys!	khardur	Post Your Photos!	5	04-05-2007 12:54 PM

01-05-2010, 03:46 AM	#120
SpartanWarrior Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Sparta, Greece. Posts: 104	Originally posted by kittykat46 K-7....just shoot RAW, its High-ISO performance is as good as its competitors. Just about Everything else about the K-7 is a class above the K-X. Say that agian if you go here Canon EOS 7D Review: 15. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review and scroll down to RAW ISO I think it does really great and beats the 50D but looking at the 7D how many stops is it better?