Why is nobody selling K-7s?

Depends on the processing. You simply cannot pull shadow detail out of an ISO100 shot n the K-7 like you can at ISO100 on the K-5

I don't think there's been any questioning over the IQ improvements the K5 brought with it - the 14bit capture vs K7s 12 must add something - no doubt there is greater light gathering ability in the lower half of the DR spectrum. Maybe the ETTR concept is not so applicable with such good DR?

But the ability to capture the highest quality is not solely dependant on the technology contained in the sensor and processing engine. It is also a factor of other camera attributes - handling, controllability, and ease of use features that make getting the shot more attainable. These things are what come together to make a great camera also.

I mean, for example, Smeggy - say your Nokia phone was fitted with a K5 sensor (pretend that were possible), but the rest of the phone remained the same, including the camera control options on the screen. It would be fair to say that there would still be many images of all types of genres, that it would be either very difficult to catch or if not impossible using the Nokia. The more limited operation, handling & control features of the camera phone would make this so.

Indeed you might find the K7 a superior capture tool, despite the older sensor. It is these particular features that the K7 offers equally with the K5 that I have been saying are still most valuable to the current users.

Not sure exactly what point you are making Nigel, but if you don't want to replace the K-7 then don't. No need to justify your choice, just enjoy it and take lots of photos.

It's mainly just that the Sony Exmor sensors are just better and more efficient than the old Samsung one in the K7. There's not really much difference in performance between the K5 and (12 bit) K50 in terms of DR... a little bit perhaps but not much. Both are far ahead of the K7.

There certainly is! The lack of noise in the images recorded by this sensor is fantastic. I used to ETTR with the K7. Now (with the K30) it makes more sense to ETTL, and therefore avoid clipping the highlights. Even the jpegs hold up pretty well to having the exposure adjusted in PP.

This is true, and reverting back to the K10D after having the K7 for a bit, I found the metering a lot worse and the camera generally slower and less responsive. And I missed the K7's lovely screen and features like HDR. That said I preferred the K10D ergonomics!

Oh no, I thought I was getting close to making the point by now

I am simply adding a counter argument to those who seem to value only the image quality and dynamic range that a camera offers. Apart from this the K7 offers exactly the same, and I believe that many current K7 owners appreciate this and that if their photography does not immediately demand the higher IQ performance of the K5, then this particular 'upgrade' option may not be very attractive, at this stage.

Personally, yes, I love using my K7 and the long list of features that are identical to the K5. Plus it was bought new as a discontinued model, so my own 'personal lifecycle' with the item is still very young. I watch eagle-eyed on what new things, both IQ-wise and camera operation / control features, Pentax will bring out for us soon!

Nigel, we know the K-7 and K-5 are ergonomically identical.

The slightly bizarre bit is that you are arguing that some "only value the image quality and dynamic range" but in fact it would be pretty strange to discount those things as a distinct advantage. We already accept the ergonomics of the K-5, which does indeed share the same advantages that the K-7 did.

The whole point of image making is the quality of the final result, so I still am bemused by your argument.

Agreed, good point. I was thinking more about noise as the K-7 goes higher up the ISO scale.

Agreed, so am I! However, what camera(s) we all own are our own personal choice. I still love the K-x although I have just given mine to my son, it's a great little camera and performs well at high ISO's, probably much better than a K-7 in this respect. It does not have the alloy body, weather sealing, ergonomics etc. of a K-7 though, so I would not claim that it is 'better'.

Trying to wade through all of the points made in this thread is quite difficult, but if I understand Nigel correctly, the whole argument is about whether or not it is worth trading up to a K-5 (mk1 or mk2) from a K-7 at present. I would say 'yes' - you can buy a Mk1 K-5 brand new for less than £400 at SRS, deduct from this what you would get for selling the K-7 and that seems to me quite a bargain.

The increase in overall IQ, across all types of shooting situations would be significant. You would confidently be able to use the K-5 at 3200 ISO indoors for family shots for example.

Alternatively, you could buy a K-01 and get the high ISO performance of a K-5 for indoor use (not to mention the superb focus peaking for manual focus lenses) whilst keeping the K-7 for low ISO work. The K-01 is available for silly prices right now.

Regards
David

Lets go back to 35mm film SLRs. You chose a brand / system and got a collection of lenses and accessories. You could swap bodies within the system, say between a bottom end consumer grade slr and the top pro-spec model. Using the same lens, for most shooting situations the results would be identical because the image recording medium was the same.

If you are bemused by my argument, how did you ever make a choice of what camera body to buy or upgrade to in those film days? On what criteria or basis did you judge each model?

I would guess in fact, many of the things that I have been saying are identical between the K7 & K5 - handling, operation, controls, body construction, flash system & connections available etc. Eliminate the IQ difference and they're mostly the same. Is it really bizarre that someone might place greater value on these features than on gaining an IQ increase only, when that would involve an expense ?

Film cameras are indeed a different beast and in general people didn't upgrade in the same sort of way as we do now. We couldn't afford it apart from anything else. So it's not really a good comparison, although I know what you're getting at.

We also know what you're getting at regarding the K-7 and K-5, we just don't agree with you. That's life!

Its OK, I'll keep chipping away. Take comfort that there's some things in life you can always rely on

I can easily counter that argument by saying that the Nokia 808, regardless of what sensor it had, can capture images that you'd find impossible to capture with a K-7 or K-5 simply because the jobsworths with the Hi-Viz supermen outfits would frog march you off the premises within nanoseconds.

A mobile phone with a K-5 sensor would be delicious. I'd still want a K-5 DSLR too of course.

Yup people upgraded by buying newer generation film

Sure, Size matters! It doesn't counter the argument though, it applies to different extents in different situations - I didn't say that all images would be more difficult to capture on the camera phone. Obviously you need to be able to get the camera out of the bag But once it is then the K7 body and its features would offer more control over the picture taking process.

[quote:3496ace15f="Smeggypants] Yup people upgraded by buying newer generation film [/quote]That gave them better images, but also they upgraded by looking for improved camera controls, handling features, ease of operation and configurability of the device. These things were valued and paid for if desired. And in many shooting situations would also lead to improved images.

There was no "configurability" Nigel....we were lucky to have aperture priority auto exposure. That was, of course, fiercely resisted by some who thought there was nothing that could replace a hand held meter.

Some things never change.