I think a K7 with a grip looks exactly like a K5 with a grip! Nothing between them frankly.

Looking forwards, eventually we'll all need a new / newer camera - and with the ever marching onward technological advances then we should be assured of performance improvements almost automatically. So no ones complaining about that when it comes. K30 & K50 owners I believe have a lot of image recording grunt there in a great value package - but neither of those cameras is a match for a K7 / K5 in many respects - they're a different beast entirely.

Is it not reasonable now to expect & hope for further developments at the top end in the design, handling, ergonomic and operation aspects. The K7 / K5 shell and controls have served very well, and maybe they should continue to be offered in a future model, but is there not room for an alternative, a split at the top end, FF or not? I'm thinking something a bit larger, with the features of the current battery grip built in to the body. There's plenty of ideas out there about what to include and add - things like extra SD card slots, flip out screens for example.

Then you might start to see a few more K7s come on the market!

This all began with the OP asking why are there so few used K7s up for sale.

The blindingly obvious answer is of course that not many people want to sell theirs! This would be either because its such an excellent camera that they don't need anything 'better', or its still a fairly new item for the individual.

I have really been trying to say all along that, certainly for me, its a mixture of these situations. I think we can now say that actually, the K7 is very versatile ISO wise, and can produce very good images at 1600 -with a bit more effort with noise reduction techniques and reasonably even lighting there's no reason you couldn't get away with even further.

Maybe the K7s out there are doing a good job for their owners. Some people only ever compare on the basis of ISO & AF performance - but there's a lot more thats also important about a camera than those things. The K7 introduced a great deal at its release, and continues to offer those features, the vast majority of which have not been developed on or advanced by the later models in the series.

What, its only the AF then ? Then more of my K7 colleagues will surely be holding out longer then. I'm not sure if there's been any comparisons done on the manual focus performance between the K7 & K5 (No, you're not getting me to do that one ) But the group of K7 owners who are in desperate need of better AF performance right now is probably lower than those looking to better ISO performance?

All the more reason (for the budget-minded) to skip the Mk1 and wait for the MkIIs at discontinued prices - or start saving now!

Wouldn't have made much difference to my party pics as above - all using an 'A' series lens, and most of my landscapes would be on manual focus as well. But I accept higher performance on the 1 AF lens I use would be a plus. But again, not enough to make the upgrade really worthwhile.

I still think there are K7 owners, those looking at the economics as well, who would be better skipping the K5Mk1 - some will want the AF and high ISO capabilities of the MKII if they can justify the expense now - others will be better keeping on extracting the best from the K7s for now until the K5II is 'end of line' - jump to it then at a bargain price, or splash out on the next big thing !

But for me I'd be wanting whatever that is to offer more in ergonomic and handling features, a much wider & fuller upgrade to the K7 - not just IQ improvements.

Now that its finished I thought I should get out and try a few shots of this new icon. Quite difficult to find a spot to get it all in. First I tried from the bridge










Not really close enough, so I got down in between the buildings










hmmm, needs to be more frame filling I think








but no, can't get it all in, so really need to take a few steps back ...










All except the last shot with K7 & 18-55WR. The last one I needed some reach so used the 'M' 75-150 plus 2x telecomverter, total focal length about 260mm. If you're ever down this way, the last one is from Epsom Downs, just across the road from the racecourse. You wouldn't think so eh??

I like this building stuff, so I need to get out into London and start capturing more of the architectural delights!

Thanks for looking.

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.

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 !

Now I think I need to sit down !

You might be right - but lets remember you're only talking about the actual output. To all other intents & purposes what I've said is true. If you didn't ever look at the images from the cameras, but just used them side by side, you wouldn't be able to tell many differences, would you? There still remains some significance to that fact in terms of operability and the application potential of the camera.

I'm really making the point that at the particular life-cycle stages we're at it might be better in the longer term for a K7 owner to hold off in order to upgrade to a K5II when that model is available in a 'discontinued' state.

Light painting .... ah yes - I always felt I wasn't a serious photographer until I'd spent a night out in a graveyard using long exposures ('set b on your camera mode dial - this stands for bulb mode and allows .....') waving a torch around and capturing the gravestones using a range of different coloured lighting gels which I should affix to the torch .... The variety of effects I could capture will truly open up the creative side of my photography .....