To Azile5,

Why not go the whole hog and buy a Canon 1D Mk 4, it is only about four times the price of the K-7. It weights a ton and needs two people to carry it around, but the image quality is better.

May I ask you, how often, really, do you use settings above 800 ISO?

Yo do need to remember the balance between what you pay and what you get for the money. Pentax offer superb value, even if they lag marginally behind some of the high end models from other makers that are also more expensive anyway and have to have IS in each lens instead of in the body, adding further to the cost of ownership.

I have no idea which sensor my camera has and in this world of multi national cross border co-operation it could have been as you suggest.

My comments on the noise levels comes from the review on the 'dpreview' website. But the 'Amatuer Photographer' magazine test found the noise to be better than the k20D, so there you are, who does one believe?

All in all, it is a matter of taste as much as anything. I think the modern cameras are outperforming the film counterparts comparing ASA and ISO for noise, so I am happy. The K-7 is a step up in functionality even if the images are the same as the k20D, which lets face it, are stunning anyway. So who is complaining?

If you are using it for a camera club, you will probably eventually need to go for 1400x1050 resolution. This is becoming the basic size now for most competition entries.

We have a Canon projector and those who are in the know at the club reckon this is probably the best available at the moment. The model is an A80 I think?

The main problem, surely, for Pentax is the funding for development. Going DMF as well as FF dslr and keeping the current cropped dslr community happy will stretch limited funds. This could lead to three systems, all not properly developed and supported. Look how long it took them to produce a ring flash for example.

Someone asked if the K-7 was worth the upgrade from the K10D, instead of the K20D.

Because I cannot find a buyer for the K10D, I now have all three bodies. I will definitely keep the K20D and grip as a second camera, but now that I have had the K-7 and grip for a while, I am beginning to really appreciate the advantages in functionality.

BUT I must say that I am sorry that Pentax decided to make the camera smaller by lopping off the left hand side as they have. I do not find it as comfortable to hold as the K20D. Even so, I would not go back to the K20D as my main camera. There are several reasons, but one of the plus points is the much improved menu setup and particularly the INFO screen, where it is possible to flip across the small matrix of options with the four way controller and then change settings with the rear control wheel, all on one screen. This is so quick! I also like the dedicated ISO button.

The camera level indicator, in the viewfinder, the top plate and on liveview, is useful too and it works in portrait and landscape orientation, something I was not sure of before I bought the camera.

The two seperate trays for the grip, one for normal and one for AA batteries will get some out of trouble when a battery goes flat on a shoot. Just pinch the batteries from your flash gun. Neat idea.

Although I have not used the camera enough yet to judge, the 77 zone metering should be far more accurate than the K20D, which I found mostly underexposed by anything up to 1 stop.

All I can say is this, the K20D is a superb camera, the image quality is great and I do not think that the K-7 will improve much on that, but the functions are far better in the K-7 and well worth the upgrade, especially with the cash back offer.

Finally of course, there is the greatly improved live view and rear screen resolution. So much better for macro work. The video is a nice touch, but by no means essential as I have it on the Canon G10 anyway.

With image quality as good as it is from the K10D, K20D and now the K-7, I see little need for a full frame 35mm equivalent body. Most of us have invested in cropped lenses which will not work on a full frame anyway. I think the market would be limited for such an animal.

The medium format would be welcome, but probably hard to justify for me on price alone let alone the need, or lack of it.

Yes, I would rather have a bit more noise and a sharp image, rather than less noise and a mushy image, as you get from the Nikon D300(s) according to the AP head to head test. The Nikon smooths the noise better, but destroys the detail. It already has less resolution, so how can this be a good thing?

With the recent small price drop of £50 and the cashback offer, the K-7 is very attractive. I have upgraded and the camera performs better than the K20D.

The K-7 will deal with all those dust problems, having an ultra sonic dust removal system.

Thank you for your comment. Regarding the sky, perhaps you have heard of the 'rule of thirds'? Well the sea/sky horizon is just on the third point, so the sky should be just about OK.

On my second image, I have broken this rule because the sea and the sky are both interesting, so neither is dominant. Anyway rules are made to be broken!

I think that the misty image is also interesting, but for different reasons. It has a degree of mistique.