K7 Mk2?

I went for a K7 instead of a K5,yes,the 7 needs lots of light, but it is at least stable. Then I started to think, why didn't Pentax just change the sensor in the K7 and call it a mk2 K7,and while they're at it they could design and develop a high sensitivity CCD sensor!!! I hope you are reading this Pentax.
Regards
Chris

Pentax did used the K7 as the base and put in a new sensor and a new AF system... one works great the other has some firmware issues it seems

CCD is now probably out of the way since you can't really film with them i believe because they get too hot and if you plan to sell a lot then CMOS are cheaper in the end to make.

Stefan,
Point taken.
But shouldn't we be given a choice over cmos/ccd??

Regards
Chris

If we get that choice we also need to pay for that...
and CCD ask for a different camera design (hardware) as well...

weather sealed, built like a tank, ccd...... sounds like you want a k10

What would you see as the advantage of using a CCD in a DSLR as opposed to the current trend for CMOS?

cmos cameras are even beating out ccd's in video cameras.... I suspect that unless a major breakthrough happens, that changes the game again, cmos is the winner...

John,
Having tried a KX,KR and now a K7, I notice a marked difference in image production, when I used a K200 I could use images straight from camera, in RAW but with little post processing. So, I notice a major difference in sharpness, ccd wins every time for me,but I wanted an up to date model(k7)which is fantastic but requires a lot more user input in terms of PP,for me cmos has 'a look'. So a bit of a dilema,do I buy a K10/K200 or stay with the 7 and let the lumix LX3 satisfy my CCD preference.

Regards
Chris

I wonder if it's the CCD that's making the difference or something else in the processing, because there has been a steady increase in image quality as each model type came along.

The K20D was much better than the K10D and the K-5 is much better than the K20D. At large image sizes or with extensive cropping the difference counts.

If you shoot JPEG you can adjust the parameters to give the look you want - sharpness, contrast, saturation, and of course the image style as well. I use natural but others may prefer Bright or even Vivid.

Have you thought of creating a Lightroom preset that recreates the CCD look?

For me, the difference between the CCD and CMOS 'look' are pretty academic at lower ISOs... by which I mean you would only really notice at 1:1 crops... and even the K7 is better at high ISOs!

I am sure the number of people who would prefer CCD would not be remotely enough to justify a parallel line of CCD cameras...

With studio lights(meaning low iso, due to powerful lights), the kr does not exceed the image quality of the k10, in practical use.
It is only in low light or things requiring fast af that the kr beats the k10.
If the k5 is capable of making a better image in my studio, I doubt the difference would be noticible in the finished product to most people... If the k10 sensor represents the last generation ccd sensor, I could really care less, it is what comes out of the camera that matters.

Up till now I have only used the Pentax conversion software, perhaps it it is time for me to look at using alternative software, thanks for your help and advice one and all.
Regards
Chris

I use Adobe Lightroom and 'Silver Efex Pro' and 'Colour Efex Pro' Plugins.

Pretty much all I need. The cataloguing features of Lightroom is worth it's weight in Hold already, never mind the 'developing' features.

Don't agree with the later though.. from the photo's i've seen i prefer the K10D with the lower ISO's, higher ISO's are a different story though...

But the cells on the CCD are larger and all the pixels gets aplified by one amplifier and converted to bits also by one converter so the differences between the pixels are very low so you get a more even image and you will notice that at lower ISO's.
CMOS has a lot of things on the chips so the sensitives cells are slightly smaller but the bonus is that every cell has his own converter and amplifier (as far as i know) and that's why the noise is lower at higher ISO's but since it's hard to get all the components the same you can see slight differences between the pixels at lower ISO's.

Don't agree with the later though.. from the photo's i've seen i prefer the K10D with the lower ISO's, higher ISO's are a different story though...[/quote]But would any of that make any difference in a print though Stefan? An A2 print from the K20D wouldn't show up the 'slight differences between the pixels' which you might be able to see at 1:1. And it would look better than an A2 print from the K10D because of the extra resolution.