How do you find your K7

At the price it now sells for it's probably the best value for money camera around. If you want a well built and designed camera that produces photos of excellent quality then this is the one. It may not do 'extreme' stuff as well as the latest models but for that you have to pay the extra cost (equivalent to a top notch lens).

I had a K-7 and upgraded to the K-5 which I liked for the brief period I had it before sending it in to have its sensor stain sorted. Actually apart from the better high ISO and possibly faster AF and more fps the handling is very similar. I really like the small light but solid body and greatly prefer the grip and general handling to the K20D. If you cannot afford the current price of the K-5, the K-7 is a bargain and you will not be disappointed.

Thanks everyone for sharing with me your thoughts on the K7. I am waiting till i sell my bike (pedal type) so as i can afford to spend the cash, so watch this space.

snappy, you have a pm.

i went from the K10D to the K20D to the K7. I switched from the K20D to the K7 because of the faster AF of the K7 at the time.

I have managed to take good photos even up to ISO3200 though I have not tried 6400.

I had an *istD before the K-7.
There are lots of good things about the K-7 such as faster start up, better AF, Shake Reduction, much better WB etc.
On the down side (& I've been criticised before for saying this) the image quality isn't the K-7 high point. It's noisy & for 14MP v 6MP the image detail is less than overwhelming.
Do I like my K-7. I love it but wish the sensor was better - the K-5 sounds nice but I won't be upgrading in a hurry. After all I didn't replace the *istD in a hurry either. The major factor that got me thinking about a new camera was travel photography where the *istD was painfully slow to wake up, focus & shoot - by then the moment was gone. Apart from that the *istD was surprisingly good.

"I did sell it for the K-5 as I was looking for better AF and in that respect I am not completely convinced its that much better than the K-7"

...which If true, means you spent hundreds of pounds for AF which is not any obvious improvement and also means that Pentax AF STILL lags behind Nikon & Canon by some margin...

I love the handling of the K7 but I find the noise a bit of an issue. I find noise becomes apparent st ISO 200, which is the setting I use the most because the D-range setting does not work at ISO 100. For that reason alone I will be getting a K5 someone soon. If you intend shooting at anything above ISO 400 my advice would be spend another £300 and get the K5.

"I love the handling of the K7 but I find the noise a bit of an issue. I find noise becomes apparent st ISO 200, which is the setting I use the most because the D-range setting does not work at ISO 100."
Same story here. The K-7 dynamic range isn't good enough so I also run it at iso200 so as I use the DR expansion all the time. Processing a photo shot the other day at iso200 where the sky was flat produced unacceptable noise. Disappointing.

I have both the K7 and the K5. I love the K7 - great camera, ergonomically everything just fits and I'm delighted the K5 replicates the K7 in that regard. There is no doubt that the AF in the K5 is superior to that of the K7. Not only my opinion but that of many testers - a Google search will validate that. Even that early youtube video showed this - using the same lense and same settings on both cameras, K5 was far faster.

However does that mean the K7 AF is poor ? Not in my book. I can say that over the year I have used it that the number of shots lost to a 'slow' AF are not more than a handful, though I'm not a sports shooter. Noise was maybe a larger concern but then - unless you print straight from the camera - again not a real issue because it cleans up very well with just a little PP. However I would rarely use the K7 over 800 ISO and never over 1,600; that was the main reason I bought the K5 - because of the new lease of life the high ISO capability gives to slower but excellent, lenses.

Most of the shots on my SmugMug account below were taken with the K7 (only very recent shots over the last month were with the K5).

At the new low market price for the K7 it's a steal.

Upgraded from a K10D and was very pleased with the differences. Of course, I'm looking over the K5 a little, but I doubt I'll have any reason to upgrade again till I've had the K7 for at least another two years.

ISO 1600, /50 at f8. 43mm Ltd.

[IMG]http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a119/Sandeha/Mdeo_standup/08.jpg[/IMG]

CS2. I sometimes use Noiseware but not on this one.

The K7 is the only digital I've owned so I have no great basis for comparison. It's the sturdiest digital I've ever used for any amount of time, you can achieve professional quality shots with it, performs for me pretty much all around. It's also very simple to use after a short time, the menus are no nonsense. I also agree with what Pete [Transit] said above, at the current prices it's nothing short of a bargain!

Again, the only long term exposure I had to a DSLR before hand was a Canon 350d which belonged to my Brother's Mrs, it was understandably nowhere near the K7 in any respect.

Sorry about my lack of technical language, I'm pretty amateur.

P.S., good to see a fellow Scot on here!

I started off with the Km, then upgraded to the K7. What a fantastic camera it is.
I just used the 2 kit lenses and have to say I can't fault anything the camera does.
From in the house with the kids to outside in the p*&sing rain the camera gives brilliant results every time.

Good post and all very true,

To the op, what about a sh K7.

There are better ways of increasing 'dynamic range' in post processing, preferably using LR3. The DR function slows the camera performance down, does not seem to tackle the noise created by 'pushing ISO' in the shadow areas, and limits you to jpeg which A) are known to show worse noise than RAW files and B) reduces your chance of improving the shot in PP. The K-7 is no friend to the jpeg shooter, at least not one who pixel peeps!