Why is nobody selling K-7s?

Low light Capabilities - High ISO Setting.
Of the last 20 weekly/ monthly competition winners, where ISO data was recorded pans out as follows:-

ISO 800 = 2
ISO 640 = 1
ISO 200 = 6
ISO 160 = 3
ISO 100 = 8

I also looked across different categories in the general gallery, including pictures contributed by members who have contributed to this topic. I found it very difficult to find many photographs shot above ISO 800.

Only a learner who will not rush to upgrade his K7.

Regards to all

Brian

Gave up after the first couple of lines

Well done for lasting that long

Image quality would clearly be important for most, but its not the only consideration when upgrading, is it? I've heard plenty of wishlists here that include ergonomic or other physical handling features, and none of the K7 successors offer anything of this.

Finally! Its great to get some balance into this.

OK, so anyone who shoots in the lower ISO ranges will not necessarily reap the full rewards of a K5. But I'm not content with the K7 solely for this reason - as an amateur I can only justify 1 high spec camera plus the bits to go with it. So my K7 has to fulfill many more rolls than just shooting landscapes at ISO100.

It needs to be a versatile, reliable, and high performing in a wide range of shooting situations - family stuff, video, indoors and higher iso stuff. I believe that it does this all extremely well.


Here it is in action at ISO 800 - no flash, 'A' 28mm f2.8



















And again, the next 3, at ISO 1600 this time - same lens




















OK - the K5 is going to do better, I'm not denying that. But ISO 800 / 1600, with a tiny bit of minus EC, can give you a huge range of shooting opportunity, and the IQ is great for many output purposes.

Only the pixel peepers are going to be complaining with this, surely? OK, there might be the odd speck of yellow colour noise in the blacks !

The K-7 shares a sensor with the K20D and up to ISO400 this is absolutely fine. beyond that noise does steadily creep in.

The difference becomes apparent when we switch to the K-5, where up to ISO1600 can be used freely and it's good far beyond that. I just use the ISO I need without any worry. The K-5 AF is also dramatically faster.

However, I still use a K20D as well as the K-5 and will continue to do so while it has life left in it.

What a lovely set of images Nigel and certainly a great advert for the K-7 and the 'A' 28mm f2.8. Of course I'm not omitting the skill of the photographer either, in getting the best from this kit

Appreciate the snide comments. I will not bore you again.

Regards: Brian

Cheers. I'm just trying to put this upgrading issue into a wider context. I stand by my earlier points about the differences between the models - in so many respects they are the same cameras. Many people thinking of upgrading a K7 will be looking at improvements and new features beyond just whether they can shoot at ISO 1600 and beyond with no concerns.

I'm saying that the K7 remains essentially the same camera that was very effective and usable form the start, with almost every operational feature that the current K5II still has. And the IQ can be very good at higher ISOs and gives us excellent usability in many real-life situations.

Appreciate the snide comments. I will not bore you again.

Regards: Brian[/quote]Er have I missed something here: The link in MattyH's posting was to a page that, at least on my computer, was very difficult to read, the text full of what I call "ad traps" i.e. move over the text with a mouse and an advert pops up. I fail to see how the fact the page was rendered as far as I am concerned, unreadable, has caused you offence

Whatever it is, I'm missing it too.

Lets move on.

Lost on me that one

Reason the Link was posted was it is the only refrence I could find on the web to a Pentax FF Camera being released in September.

So to say we are all non the wiser what will happen next month.

No snide comment was meant on my side, I just think you read into it more then you should of done.

There's benefits of the higher dynamic range at lower ISOs too if you do a lot of editing which involves raising shadow levels

I could never choose a camera based upon some micro sample of competition entries by other people. Not sure what the logic is there?

I have both a K5 and a K7, they probably get equal use and probably share equal plaudits for what I think are my best shots.

If the light is low, I will tend to favour the K5 for the reasons already stated. But in full light with a low ISO the K7 is superb.

Would I sell or exchange the K7 to help fund a K5 II, possibly, but only if I really thought the extra investment of cash would significantly improve my photography....but there my forum friends, is a completely different debate all together.

Not surprised. Looks like some sinister hack/porn/spamsite with a badly copied and pasted rip off of Rice high's text, with no paragraph breaks.

There's also some racist dating site links at the bottom and on the right sidebar there's links to "torrents" - "child models" "instragram private profile hack", etc

I think these type of websites automatically hoover up other people's content to generate google rankings and thus expose people to nefarious spam and worse.

Better run malware detection software now if you've clicked on it.