Which One Kr or K10d

I haven't been a visitor for a long time. Thinking of getting a digital SLR, now this is the question for you all should I go for a new Kr body or a used K10d. Give me a few reasons to go for one or the other. Thanks in advance for your help. I already have the lens' from my MZ7 and still have an 18-55 DA lens.

Cheers
Ned

budget? If it's small, a k10d may be the better bet, but if it's larger and high ISO is what you need, then a Kr is better.

If you want / need a grip: K10.

Bret

Why K10? Cost wise a K-r is more aligned to a used K20 (maybe even stretch to a used K-7 with prices falling).

If you need weatherproofing get the old model. Otherwise unless you particularly like the ergonomics of one over the other then get the K-r

K-r: lighter, faster AF, much better higher ISO performance, bigger and better LCD, current model so more expensive.

K10: ergonomically better (IMHO), water/weather proof, top LCD as well as main screen.

The only issue I'm aware of with the K-r is FF under tungsten (I think this is what I've read). The K10 does have a reputation for focus problems and some users have had to resort to using the fix available from a Russian website that lets you go into the engineers menu. I've had two K10s and one had the FF problem.

Dave

I have both k10 and kr.
Unless you need weather proof (sounds like your lenses are not wr) then go with the kr.

My k10's still get used for studio duty, but the kr is waaaay more fun to play with.... I shoot primarily on manual, but I find the kr's automatic features to be better than the k10 all across the board....
the k10 image quality is easily a match for the kr in the studio, but once you get into lower light, higher iso's the kr is the better camera.

then there is video... the very reason I bought the kr in the first place.... k10 not gonna do it, unless making stop frame animations is your goal...

ps:
link

Thanks to you all looks like it's a Kr then. The higher ISO will be very useful in low light, and as I do not have any WR lens' then the weather proofing will not be an issue. I'll get out and have a look at one. Thanks again for the feedback.

Cheers
Ned

I should have added that the K10 and K20 both offer better eye-relief than the K-r if you use glasses i.e. you can get closer to the eyepiece and so view the full viewfinder. In the K-r, I have to move my eye around to view the info at the bottom.

Dave

If it's possible, I should try to handle both cameras to see which you prefer. The sense of solidity and quality available from a K10 is something to behold, I feel.

I still prefer the IQ of the K10D over the K5 some times...

I can still get fine results with my ds2 in the studio...

but as for the k10 to kr comparison..... they really do come out close image quality wise
so I'm not surprised you'd say that...

how you use your studio lights become a bigger factor than which camera you're using....

I'd bet the Q would even fool some pixel peepers if used in the studio with good lighting...

I've it mainly with landscape photos, the CCD just give another rendition than what the CMOS sensor do.

I have to agree on the K-7 front.

I've taken the plunge (should be arriving tomorrow) since you can get used K-7's for around £420 - £450 now. Not much more than a new K-r. It's very much worth it if you think you'll benefit from it's features.