Pentax K-30 vs Pentax K-7

Winner
Pentax K-30

100

Pentax K-7

71

Runner-up

Reasons to buy the Pentax K-30

Low noise at high ISO
Low light performance
1,129 ISO
Full HD
Movie format
1080p @ 30fps
Great color depth
Color depth
23.7 bits
Wide dynamic range
Dynamic range
13 EV
 

Reasons to buy the Pentax K-7

External mic jack
External mic jack
Record higher quality audio with a microphone
Shutter lag
Barely any delay taking photos
93 ms shutter lag
Fastest shutter speed
Fast shutter speed
1/8000 of a second
Image stabilization
Image stabilization
  1. Sensor shift

galleries

Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Pentax K-30.
Explore our gallery of 50 sample photos taken by the Pentax K-7.

competitors

Pentax K-30 Competitors

Pentax K-50

Pentax K-50

Entry-level DSLR

$443 body only

$480 with 18-55mm lens

Light sensitivity Better maximum light sensitivity
Size Slightly smaller
Nikon D7200

Nikon D7200

Entry-level DSLR

$799 - $997 body only

$1,072 - $1,297 with 18-140mm lens

Screen resolution Much higher resolution screen
Movie format Lower frame rate movies
Image stabilization No image stabilization
Canon Rebel T5i

Canon Rebel T5i

Entry-level DSLR

$431 - $649 body only

$560 - $599 with 18-55mm lens

Screen resolution Significantly higher resolution screen
External mic jack Has an external mic jack
Color depth Worse color depth

Pentax K-7 Competitors

Nikon D90

Nikon D90

Entry-level DSLR

$700 body only

Dynamic range More dynamic range
Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
HDR Lacks in-camera HDR
Pentax K-3

Pentax K-3

Entry-level DSLR

$953 body only

$867 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Low light performance Much lower noise at high ISO
Shutter lag Significantly more shutter lag
Pentax K-5

Pentax K-5

Entry-level DSLR

$800 body only

$1,549 with 18-55mm lens

Movie format Higher resolution movies
Dynamic range More dynamic range
Shutter lag More shutter lag

discussion

Pentax K-30
K-30
Pentax

Report a correction
Pentax K-7
K-7
Pentax

Report a correction

Showing 0 comments