I've read that review before, and it sort of misses the point. The K-7 is in a class of it's own. It sits above the D90/50D in terms of features and build quality, but it arguably sits below the 7D/D300s in terms of AF and framerate. Perhaps that makes it the middle child, but this is highlighted by the price of the K-7. It's a good £300 cheaper than the D300s or 7D and it's slightly more expensive than the D90. For reviews that "get" the unique selling point of the K-7, have a look at this Leica user's review
and this Sony user's perspective
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you come across as being concerned about "sharpness" so let me ask you this question. Are you considering the Canon 7D?
Take a look at the following 3 samples (click the image to view the full resolution image):
Look at the texture in the grass in the foreground, the roof of the house, the bricks in the wall, the leaves in the trees. The D300s and K-7 images look detailed and they've retained the texture of the objects. In contrast, see the 7D exhibiting Canon's trademark "noiseless image" where the camera smudges fine detail to achieve a "clean" image. Those guys at IR aren't the only people who have noticed this. This reviewer
and this reviewer
are a sample of reviewers on the web who have noticed the very same thing. Just do a Google search for Canon 7D sharpness.
Why do I bring up the Canon 7D? Despite this "sharpness" issue, the Canon 7D is still selling very well and is a very good camera. At the end of the day, if you're taking a photograph then pixel level sharpness does not matter
regardless of what the forums say! The stuff that forum posters fixate over (sharpness, high iso noise, etc) do not actually matter when it comes to actually publishing your photo whether it is on print or on the web.
I hope this post has been useful. I apologize for the rant, but this fixation with aspects of cameras that don't really matter is what's put me off visiting forums.