Why is nobody selling K-7s?

I can't understand why people fiercely resist something that don't have to use.

Can we look at it this way?

You can buy a NEW K-5 for £440, assume you trade in the same camera you could be lucky to receive £300 in p/ex. You'd still need to find £400 just for a K-5ii....the K-7 being an older model would command a lower resale figure and I would assume that in many cases:

a) that there were many who p/ex-d when SRS had their £100 offer took the plunge then
b) those who didn't now realise the camera is worth more to them than the small amount they would be offered so are happy to wait for the next gen of cameras.

Nigel - out of curiosity - what did you have before the K-7?

You would be very lucky to get £300 i was offered that by srs for a k-5 when they where £499 against another mkii

i think £250 maybe more likely for trade in now.

The K7 is my first ever digital SLR, and my first ever Pentax camera. I made the decision to jump in to the brand based on how good the K7 felt, handled, the controls and features I could see in the shop - and an excellent price for all I was getting. I knew the Pentax name meant quality historically - and that was plainly evident from the item in my hands. I had no opportunity to view any images properly or process anything from the camera.

But I was aware of the sensor size and the details of its specifications, which were superior to the competing brands offerings lining the shelves beside me. In terms of control and operating features the K7 was the only camera in the shop that offered so much without going hundreds of pounds over my budget.

I was using a Panasonic bridge-type digital camera for about 3 years alongside a fairly simple Canon film SLR and a small collection of lenses. I was scanning a lot of my negs at that time and editing them.

So in all the respects I have been highlighting, the K7 was a big leap up for me.

ok. you got the SLR that ticked all your boxes and you feel the K-5 doesn't bring anything new for you...that's fine

Many of us have bought into each new generation, sometimes missing a model, for me the K-7 wasn't such an advance over the K20D and I prefer the ergonomics of the old K10D/K20D - the K-5 did move the goalposts sufficiently for me to get one. Likewise, much as I covet the K5ii/S I will bypass those and see what the K-3 looks like..

I don't think anyone disagrees with you about the general performance of the K-7, it is now something of a forgotten model, the Samsung chip was very good, but the K-5 does trump it at extremely high ISOs, not quite D3 rivalling, but good enough.

Fine pics by the way

I can't understand why I keep following this thread when I don't have to read it!

It seems to me that both the original post and the direction it has taken are (to quote Edmund Blackadder) "like a broken pencil - - - - pointless."

Philip

The K20D is a good few years old now - but it clearly has ongoing value to you. Do you keep it because it offers anything practical in particular that the K5 doesn't, or is it more of a familiarity / nostalgia type of thing (like people have collected older cameras for decades) ?

Also, these two cameras (K20D & K7) have been referred here as having the same sensor. I wonder is that really true? I only know the K7 personally, but I was thinking about some details covered in my guidebook to the K7, 'Magic Lantern Guide' written by Peter Burian. Here he talks about the advances over the 'previous model', and refers to the 'Prime 11 Image Processor' and '4-colour Processing' as being newly significant.

He also lists things like the continuous shooting speed, AF assist lamp, and other things as well as being improvements. There's a long list actually but I don't have the book with me, but it certainly makes it sound like the K7 was a good distance on from the K20D.

I keep the K20D because it's more than adequate for eBay images and as a backup.

The alternative is I upgrade it but I resent getting peanuts for a mint camera of 11,000 exposures. I'll run it till it dies and see how many exposures it will do before it does die.

Also, replacing a piece of satisfactory kit would be in this instance pure indulgence and although I want to, I'm not going to.

It makes good sense - peoples 'personal life-cycle' on any partictular item can be very long indeed. No doubt my k7 will become the 'backup' and 'adequate for ...' item in the future for me!

But is Peter Burian exaggerating in painting the K7s image processing capabilities as a significant advance at the time it was introduced?

The 'Prime 11 image processor' and '4-colour processing' are nothing to do with the sensor. They are to do with what the camera does to process images captured by the sensor. Umpteen different cameras can have the same sensor, but could all have different processing engines. It's a bit like different computers having the same hard drives and different CPU's!

Sorry to say it, but I tend to agree with Mr. B's quote regarding this particular thread:

Like Phillip I can't resist reading it, but when I have read it I come away wondering why I bothered!

Best wishes
David

I don't know either - only you could explain why you do it !

I'm just focussing on the OPs question, trying to dig down a bit - its not about me liking my K7 - but more about the K7s features and its position in the life-cycle of Pentax DSLRs.

"Hi,
There's a lot of K-5's for sale in the buy/sell section but virtually no K-7s.
How come?
I don't think that everyone with a K-5 is upgrading to the K-5 II/IIs but not anyone with a K-7.

Just curious,
Pa"

You may not live long enough

Use it for time lapse photography to speed the process up

As John said why sell something for peanuts when it does the job ?

Well I would hope the K-7 and the K-5 will outlast my photographic years. Eventually I may have to have something more portable (lighter) than either.

Of course, you are referring to the extra special long-term endurance we can all look forward to from our quality Pentax cameras!

Perhaps 'configurability' (as we understand it to mean now, like options on an electronic menu) is not the right word - in fact, it may not be a real word at all !

But film era photographers had options, choices and customisations to consider, both for their decision making when purchasing a new camera, and during their practical shooting operations, depending on the sophistication of the model - that is something that hasn't changed surely.

I've got this old book about the Pentax SLR sytem from the late 70's. It details all the control functions and options available at the time

- eg you had the Super Progam which was designed for mostly automatic operation

- the MF which added more sophisticated add-ons such as the data backs and motor drives with varying speeds, and included focus confirmation in the viewfinder even for manual lenses (we still have that) and the first AF lens

- the MX which added a range of Motor Drives including a 250 exposure option on a single roll, single shot and continuous options in 2 speed settings, plus TTL flash

- and the top LX, which had 8 focussing screen options, DOF preview, all the motor drive options plus FP & Flash sync connections and more.

These were surely the things that reviewers pored over in detail and buyers studied and considered in making their choices, and of course that photographers in the field had to learn about and choose the most efficient set up and priority for each type of shoot. Today our best cameras offer many of the same things plus many more items and configurations related to digital capture and operations.

The image quality issue, ie upgrades to film stock over time, was an entirely separate matter, not connected to cameras at all. It seems a pity to me that now so much of the discussion on cameras is focussed on the image recording aspects, IQ, DR, high ISO performance etc etc. Wouldn't our cameras become much more exciting things to talk about again if we focussed more on what they offer us apart from just the images they record?