Re: K7 or Kx
CheekyGeek wrote: You need a license to own a gun, but they let anyone shoot at ISO 6400. Just wanted to underline that one for next year's book. No good without attribution -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On 9/7/2010 3:29 PM, Miserere wrote: On 4 September 2010 20:53, P. J. Alling wrote: Somewhere around the 1990's I read about a doping method for film being pioneered by AGFA that would bring allow film ISO's to exceed 204,800 with acceptable results IIRC. How's that project coming along? --M. Agfa 's dead. I think that says it all... -- "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." -Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
They succeeded. The results are in the Smithsonian. Just to point out, film photography is still one of our most popular studio art courses. On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Miserere wrote: > On 4 September 2010 20:53, P. J. Alling wrote: >> Somewhere around the 1990's I read about a doping method for film being >> pioneered by AGFA that would bring allow film ISO's to exceed 204,800 with >> acceptable results IIRC. > > How's that project coming along? > > > --M. > -- > > \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com > > http://EnticingTheLight.com > A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
> You need a license to own a gun, but they let anyone shoot at ISO 6400. Just wanted to underline that one for next year's book. : ) Darren Addy Kearney, NE -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On 4 September 2010 20:53, P. J. Alling wrote: > Somewhere around the 1990's I read about a doping method for film being > pioneered by AGFA that would bring allow film ISO's to exceed 204,800 with > acceptable results IIRC. How's that project coming along? --M. -- \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
It is much like saying all lenses are sharpest at 2 stops from wide open. Yes, but If you don't how the lens is optimized, as a general rule of thumb it works better than most. On 9/1/2010 6:03 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: One has to wonder how he came to that conclusion. Seems you would actually have to try all the cameras before relying on that. Perhaps it would be better to try the camera in question before making that broad of a generalization. Changes in sensors and support firmware can have a big impact on these kinds of things. Not to mention design goals of a particular camera. It is much like saying all lenses are sharpest at 2 stops from wide open. We know that isn't accurate because lens designs and goals affect that. -- "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." -Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Somewhere around the 1990's I read about a doping method for film being pioneered by AGFA that would bring allow film ISO's to exceed 204,800 with acceptable results IIRC. On 9/1/2010 11:16 AM, Paul Sorenson wrote: It is kind of mind boggling. When I got my first SLR in the early 1960s High Speed Ektachrome, at ASA 160, was a big step up in speed. :-) On 9/1/2010 9:53 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote: I freely admit that I don't think I am really understanding the implications of ISO 12,800. It's like a person being 20 ft. tall. My mind has trouble associating that number with that property. I noticed that one high end Nikon had a max sensitivity of 102,400. That's like trying to grasp an f0.1 aperture. It makes mathematical sense in terms of EVs but I never thought I would see such a thing. On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Paul Sorenson wrote: Here's another K-X example if you need low light capabilities. Pretty much a straight import into LR3 - at ISO 12,800. The noise isn't objectionable at normal viewing. (K-X, fa80-...@320mm,1/1...@f5.6) http://www.studio1941.com/photos/content/IMGP0631_large.html -p On 8/31/2010 1:34 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: One big difference for me was that with the K20 and earlier I really had to have good conditions (lighting, processing, etc) to make a high ISO shot reasonable. For instance, when shooting weddings I could take a couple of shots with the 50/1.4 lens close to wide open and no flash, then process to remove ugly color cast and grain, etc. The resulting image would possibly even need to be turned to B&W. Basically, this meant that the shot was not the norm, but the exception. With the K-x, it is totally changed. Straight out of the camera, ISO 6400 is looking quite good - no extra work. So now I have shot entire receptions with no flash and no heavy post processing. Even more so, simple snaps of the family in situations where I would have used a flash in the past, I no longer need to. Gathered around the dinner table talking in the evening or playing a game or one of the kids receiving an award at school, etc. The ability to shoot consistently at high ISO (1600+) is a real game changer. ISO 6400, 85mm Soft Focus lens, no post processing, shot right after dinner: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/imgp1200-1.htm I would never have thought to take that kind of shot in the past. That is why I am saying to try the K-x and really see how different you start shooting and thinking. When I got mine, it was only to shoot a gymnastics sporting event - that covered the cost for me. It turned out to be just the tip of the iceberg. Here is a shot from a reception - fairly dim lighting - ISO 6400 - pretty much no post processing: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/hoffman_00295.htm With flash, the shot would not be the same. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. Not really thinking about how you shoot today, but really thinking outside of the box. For me, the K-x was really a game changer in thought process and fun. Prior to that, pretty much the old thought process all the way back into my film days. "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got." Time to change it up and see what this Brave New World is offering. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3104 - Release Date: 08/31/10 01:34:00 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3106 - Release Date: 09/01/10 01:34:00 -- "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." -Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
My K7 is slightly less noisy than was my K20 at speeds of 800 and above. It might be slightly more noisy in the shadows at 400, but not significantly. Paul On Sep 4, 2010, at 8:22 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > I'm pretty happy with the K20D at ISO 2500, without preforming heroic post > processing. The K-7 should handle ISO 1600 with no problems. > > On 8/31/2010 1:07 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: >> Thanks for the shots. When needed, I would push the K10D to 800. The >> K7 should be at least that good, yes? I am intrigued by Bruce's >> comment. We are now reaching the stage where digital will begin to >> have capabilities that will change the way people shoot. HDR might >> also that it they ever get it right. My own wild prediction is that >> eventually exposure will be a non-issue and will be a processed >> property. Maybe even focus. >> >> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:33 PM, paul stenquist >> wrote: >>> On the other hand, if you plan to shoot in bad weather or if you work your >>> cameras as hard as I do, you'll probably want the K7. While the K7 does >>> begin to show some noise in exposures at ISOs above 400, the noise doesn't >>> ramp up all that much at levels above 400. My photo for the Pentax show in >>> Chicago was shot at ISO 3200 with the K7: >>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9902961&size=lg >>> >>> I've had reasonable success with the K7 at 6400: >>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10541951&size=lg >>> >>> And I regularly use it at ISO 800: >>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11014855 >>> >>> Film grain never bothered me a lot, and a bit of digital noise isn't a >>> problem for me or my clients. But I will be adding a K5 to the arsenal when >>> it becomes available. My k7 is closing in on 30,000 frames, so it's time to >>> send it to back-up mode. >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: >>> Funny thing about the low light question...before I got a K-x, I didn't shoot low light much without a tripod but that was really because my K20 and earlier cameras couldn't shoot low light. Now that I have a K-x, my shooting techniques and style s have been changing due too the new capability. So the K7 represents the best of shooting the old way and the K-x represents the opportunity to do some new and exciting things. For me at this stage, I would go for the K-x. If you buy from B&H you have some time to return and exchange. That would be ideal. Get the K-x because it lets you try things you haven't done before. If you find you aren't delighted with it you can return it and get the K7. For me, at this point I never use my K20 anymore unless my daughter is using at the time I need it. Given the choice, I always pick the K-x over the K20. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. "Dario Bonazza" wrote: > Steven Desjardins wrote: > >> I thought of that, but I'd like to buy a new body. KEH has two K7 now >> for $789 and $819 which is not much of a savings, and I don't think >> I'd buy one off ebay, etc. >> >> I do like your comment "But K-x has a sensor second to none." I think >> Canon and Nikon might contest that. Of course, it could be a better >> sensor than the K7. I'm not one that too fussy about micro-artifacts >> however. > I've used both the K-7 and the K-x and my advice is simple: > 1) Do you shoot mainly in good/reasonable light, using ISO 100 to 400 and > add flash in low light? Go for the K-7, which is an overall better capable > camera for sure. > 2) Do you shoot with available light? The K-x is far better for that. IMO, > all of the K-7 pluses put together cannot compensate for the huge > difference > in image quality in favor of the K-x above ISO 400. > > Whichever you choose now, it is likely after Photokina you'll want to jump > all feet on such camera and replace it with one of the new ones for a good > reason :-) > > Dario > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >>> >> >> > > > -- > "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed > moral bankruptcy." > -Woody Allen > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail Li
Re: K7 or Kx
I'm pretty happy with the K20D at ISO 2500, without preforming heroic post processing. The K-7 should handle ISO 1600 with no problems. On 8/31/2010 1:07 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: Thanks for the shots. When needed, I would push the K10D to 800. The K7 should be at least that good, yes? I am intrigued by Bruce's comment. We are now reaching the stage where digital will begin to have capabilities that will change the way people shoot. HDR might also that it they ever get it right. My own wild prediction is that eventually exposure will be a non-issue and will be a processed property. Maybe even focus. On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:33 PM, paul stenquist wrote: On the other hand, if you plan to shoot in bad weather or if you work your cameras as hard as I do, you'll probably want the K7. While the K7 does begin to show some noise in exposures at ISOs above 400, the noise doesn't ramp up all that much at levels above 400. My photo for the Pentax show in Chicago was shot at ISO 3200 with the K7: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9902961&size=lg I've had reasonable success with the K7 at 6400: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10541951&size=lg And I regularly use it at ISO 800: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11014855 Film grain never bothered me a lot, and a bit of digital noise isn't a problem for me or my clients. But I will be adding a K5 to the arsenal when it becomes available. My k7 is closing in on 30,000 frames, so it's time to send it to back-up mode. Paul On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Funny thing about the low light question...before I got a K-x, I didn't shoot low light much without a tripod but that was really because my K20 and earlier cameras couldn't shoot low light. Now that I have a K-x, my shooting techniques and style s have been changing due too the new capability. So the K7 represents the best of shooting the old way and the K-x represents the opportunity to do some new and exciting things. For me at this stage, I would go for the K-x. If you buy from B&H you have some time to return and exchange. That would be ideal. Get the K-x because it lets you try things you haven't done before. If you find you aren't delighted with it you can return it and get the K7. For me, at this point I never use my K20 anymore unless my daughter is using at the time I need it. Given the choice, I always pick the K-x over the K20. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. "Dario Bonazza" wrote: Steven Desjardins wrote: I thought of that, but I'd like to buy a new body. KEH has two K7 now for $789 and $819 which is not much of a savings, and I don't think I'd buy one off ebay, etc. I do like your comment "But K-x has a sensor second to none." I think Canon and Nikon might contest that. Of course, it could be a better sensor than the K7. I'm not one that too fussy about micro-artifacts however. I've used both the K-7 and the K-x and my advice is simple: 1) Do you shoot mainly in good/reasonable light, using ISO 100 to 400 and add flash in low light? Go for the K-7, which is an overall better capable camera for sure. 2) Do you shoot with available light? The K-x is far better for that. IMO, all of the K-7 pluses put together cannot compensate for the huge difference in image quality in favor of the K-x above ISO 400. Whichever you choose now, it is likely after Photokina you'll want to jump all feet on such camera and replace it with one of the new ones for a good reason :-) Dario -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- "His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." -Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Oddly enough, I somehow missed that message of yours, Miserere. Rant over. And it wasn't directed at you, Boris. Sorry that your message was the one I replied to. Cheers, --M. As to your rant. Very soon after starting reading you I realized it wasn't specifically for me, so it's ok. I hear you and agree with you to some extent. I will try to explain. First and foremost the actual dynamic range of the sensor drops significantly as ISO increases and especially so towards the highest ISO values. I think that general/average/common-place/etc shooter does not take that into account at shoot-time. Then, in post they will be forced to play with the tones and inevitably rather immediately hit the limits - posterization, bad noise, etc. Second of all, you're absolutely right in a sense that if everyone would take care to set ISO according to lighting conditions, it would be just swell. But it does not happen. So, "general opinion" is that in higher ISO values cameras "suck"... I also shot at ISO 1600 with my K10D and *tried* ISO 6400 with my K-7. In fact, event at f/1.2 or f/1.4 and at 1/60 sec it is pretty darn dark. Much noise, etc. But then in cases where there were "enough" light, it came out reasonable... Likely the above will qualify me as "general/average/common-place/etc shooter". *grin* Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
What the VPN screwed up the most for me was shots of beautifully illuminated buildings or cityscapes against a dusk or nighttime sky. Sometimes diddling with the white balance has helped, but usually it didn't. Rick --- On Thu, 9/2/10, Miserere wrote: > On 2 September 2010 11:43, Rick Womer > > wrote: > > Mis, > > > > I agree with you entirely, with one caveat: The K10D > has a problem with VPN (vertical pattern noise), which often > screwed up nocturnal landscape shots. Sometimes I could > make it go away with LR, but sometimes not. > > > > Rick > > That's a whole 'nother can of worms, Rick. And yes, the > banding could > be there and be annoying at times, but only in the > underexposed > sections of the frame. I imagine bokeh lovers noticed it > the most ;-) > > > --M. > -- > > \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com > > http://EnticingTheLight.com > A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On Sep 2, 2010, at 15:51, Steven Desjardins wrote: > The D-Li90 takes forever to charge, i.e., the light won't go out. I > did take a few not fully charged shots of my dog: > > http://s857.photobucket.com/albums/ab138/drd1135/PDML/?action=view¤t=IMGP0023.jpg > Future charges won't take anywhere near as long, or at least that has been my experience! -Charles -- Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
The D-Li90 takes forever to charge, i.e., the light won't go out. I did take a few not fully charged shots of my dog: http://s857.photobucket.com/albums/ab138/drd1135/PDML/?action=view¤t=IMGP0023.jpg On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > As much as I enjoy this, I probably should 'fess up. A friend of a > friend had a K7 and kindly let me try it with my own SD card. I tired > exactly what Mis. mentioned, i.e., I took a few correctly exposed > shots at 1600, 3200, and 6400. I was more than satisfied in that I > probably won't try anything worse than that. (I can only imagine what > the Kx can do if this is what people consider unacceptable.) This > being said, I hadn't realized how much the K7 was similar in form > factor to the D/DS with some extra weight. I also tried some > difficult exposure situations and was pleasantly surprised as how god > it was. That is probably more important to me than the really high > iso performance. At least for now. BTW, I think Mis and Boris both > have legitimate points. One big difference is always what the shooter > considers acceptable, and, as they say, there is no dispute in matters > of taste. > > My K7 will arrive today. Thanks for all the advice folks. I am giddy > in anticipation. > -- > Steve Desjardins > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
From: "Dario Bonazza" Rick Womer wrote: > Mis, > I agree with you entirely, with one caveat: The K10D has > a problem with VPN (vertical pattern noise), which often > screwed up nocturnal landscape shots. Sometimes I > could make it go away with LR, but sometimes not. That was dubbed "the Italian flag syndrome" over here, as it looks like an Italian flag superimposed filter. Googled "Vertical Pattern Noise Pentax K10D" and lo & behold ... yeah, that's what I saw that made ISO 1600 un-usable on mine. It was even there at ISO 800, but not so much. Never a problem at ISO 400 and below. So, is there any special post processing noise reduction trick that can overcome this? Maybe I could make the high ISO usable if I could remove the noise. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On 2 September 2010 11:43, Rick Womer wrote: > Mis, > > I agree with you entirely, with one caveat: The K10D has a problem with VPN > (vertical pattern noise), which often screwed up nocturnal landscape shots. > Sometimes I could make it go away with LR, but sometimes not. > > Rick That's a whole 'nother can of worms, Rick. And yes, the banding could be there and be annoying at times, but only in the underexposed sections of the frame. I imagine bokeh lovers noticed it the most ;-) --M. -- \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Rick Womer wrote: Mis, I agree with you entirely, with one caveat: The K10D has a problem with VPN (vertical pattern noise), which often screwed up nocturnal landscape shots. Sometimes I could make it go away with LR, but sometimes not. That was dubbed "the Italian flag syndrome" over here, as it looks like an Italian flag superimposed filter. Dario -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Mis, I agree with you entirely, with one caveat: The K10D has a problem with VPN (vertical pattern noise), which often screwed up nocturnal landscape shots. Sometimes I could make it go away with LR, but sometimes not. Rick http://photo.net/photos/RickW --- On Wed, 9/1/10, Miserere wrote: > From: Miserere > Subject: Re: K7 or Kx > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 10:28 PM > On 1 September 2010 11:02, Boris > Liberman > wrote: > > > > Steve, if camera has highest ISO of 3200, it usually > means that it is > > unusable, but ISO 800 is pretty ok. So, if highest ISO > is 12,800 (or even > > 102,400) it probably means that ISO 3200 (or 32,000) > is usable. It is like > > fuel consumption figures of cars of battery longevity > of cell phones. It is > > all lies, but it is still (co)rel(l)ated to the real > world in a manner of > > speaking... > > > > Boris > > I'm going to disagree here, and also qualify some comments > that are > being thrown around haphazardly in this thread (and all > over the > internet): > > 1) On some cameras, the maximum ISO is unusable, but that > is not a > universal truth. For example, on the K100D and K10D the > maximum ISO is > highly usable and of very good quality. There are probably > other > cameras out there for which this is true, but I can speak > of these two > cameras with user knowledge. > > 2) The K10D IS NOT RUBBISH at ISO 1600! People say all the > time that > the K10D is bad in low light, but never explain what this > means. If by > "low light" you mean "not enough light to achieve correct > exposure", > then yes, the K10D falls short when you underexpose and > then try to > recover an underexposed image. However, if by "low light" > you mean > "light so low that you need to use ISO 1600 for correct > exposure", > then no, the K10D is not bad. When proper exposure is > achieved, the > K10D works very well at ISO 1600: > > http://lh6.ggpht.com/_i6tc3TCyOTA/StaFNYxyztI/CqA/ZjR63tKSk9M/s800/IMGP6109-small.jpg > http://lh4.ggpht.com/Miserere/SP1U3Ik6lTI/BrA/XBLIMplJLv0/s800/IMGP0313-small.jpg > http://lh4.ggpht.com/Miserere/SP1U4StRHeI/Brg/Vthl6szbqvk/s800/IMGP0345-small.jpg > http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00V/00VgZv-217447584.jpg > > The same is true for the K100D Super at ISO 3200: > > http://picasaweb.google.com/Miserere/TheFranklinKiteTTTheBearS20August2009#5389958172780052770 > http://picasaweb.google.com/Miserere/TheFranklinKiteTTTheBearS20August2009#5389958224218569394 > http://picasaweb.google.com/Miserere/TheFranklinKiteTTTheBearS20August2009#5389958203791795010 > > I've seen many shitty ISO 1600 shots from K10D's, and > invariably they > were shot by someone who didn't know how to shoot the K10D > at high > ISO, meaning they underexposed their images and then > increased the > exposure in postprocessing. High ISO shooting is a whole > 'nother game, > and I suspect it's different for each camera, but there's > certainly a > learning curve that most photographers don't crawl up > before > announcing to the World that a particular camera is bad at > high ISO. > > You need a license to own a gun, but they let anyone shoot > at ISO 6400. > > Rant over. And it wasn't directed at you, Boris. Sorry that > your > message was the one I replied to. > > Cheers, > > > --M. > -- > > \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com > > http://EnticingTheLight.com > A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
John Sessoms wrote: I prefer to get exposure right in the camera. That's always the right thing. And when I did so at ISO 1600, my K10D just gave me unsatisfactory performance. Performance is the kingdom of relativity. Dario -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
From: Miserere 2) The K10D IS NOT RUBBISH at ISO 1600! People say all the time that the K10D is bad in low light, but never explain what this means. If by "low light" you mean "not enough light to achieve correct exposure", then yes, the K10D falls short when you underexpose and then try to recover an underexposed image. However, if by "low light" you mean "light so low that you need to use ISO 1600 for correct exposure", then no, the K10D is not bad. When proper exposure is achieved, the K10D works very well at ISO 1600: I've seen many shitty ISO 1600 shots from K10D's, and invariably they were shot by someone who didn't know how to shoot the K10D at high ISO, meaning they underexposed their images and then increased the exposure in postprocessing. High ISO shooting is a whole 'nother game, and I suspect it's different for each camera, but there's certainly a learning curve that most photographers don't crawl up before announcing to the World that a particular camera is bad at high ISO. I think it depends on the example of K10D you have. I did not find ISO 1600 usable in very low light on my own K10D. ANY camera at ANY ISO will give piss poor results if you try to recover an under-exposed image in post processing. My experience is you can MAYBE rescue 1/3 - 2/3 stop if you're really, really good at post processing and just don't have any choice ... but I don't rely on it. I prefer to get exposure right in the camera. And when I did so at ISO 1600, my K10D just gave me unsatisfactory performance. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
As much as I enjoy this, I probably should 'fess up. A friend of a friend had a K7 and kindly let me try it with my own SD card. I tired exactly what Mis. mentioned, i.e., I took a few correctly exposed shots at 1600, 3200, and 6400. I was more than satisfied in that I probably won't try anything worse than that. (I can only imagine what the Kx can do if this is what people consider unacceptable.) This being said, I hadn't realized how much the K7 was similar in form factor to the D/DS with some extra weight. I also tried some difficult exposure situations and was pleasantly surprised as how god it was. That is probably more important to me than the really high iso performance. At least for now. BTW, I think Mis and Boris both have legitimate points. One big difference is always what the shooter considers acceptable, and, as they say, there is no dispute in matters of taste. My K7 will arrive today. Thanks for all the advice folks. I am giddy in anticipation. -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
2010/9/2 Miserere : > > You need a license to own a gun, but they let anyone shoot at ISO 6400. Mark =) Cheers Ecke - Cameras don’t shoot people. Photographers shoot people. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On 9/2/2010 1:03 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: One has to wonder how he came to that conclusion. Seems you would actually have to try all the cameras before relying on that. I apologize if I sounded as stating the fact. I meant to say that if the top sensitivity is /usually/ marketing enforced rubbish, then sensitivity two steps below it /might/ actually be quite good. This is how it was with my two last cameras anyway. With K10D (max ISO 1600), I wouldn't want to set it above ISO 640 unless really forced to. With K-7 (max ISO 6400), I can comfortably shoot at ISO 1600. Anything above requires my special attention. But let me emphasize that I wasn't trying to come up with the new law of physics or whatever. I merely /suggested/ this notion. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On 1 September 2010 11:02, Boris Liberman wrote: > > Steve, if camera has highest ISO of 3200, it usually means that it is > unusable, but ISO 800 is pretty ok. So, if highest ISO is 12,800 (or even > 102,400) it probably means that ISO 3200 (or 32,000) is usable. It is like > fuel consumption figures of cars of battery longevity of cell phones. It is > all lies, but it is still (co)rel(l)ated to the real world in a manner of > speaking... > > Boris I'm going to disagree here, and also qualify some comments that are being thrown around haphazardly in this thread (and all over the internet): 1) On some cameras, the maximum ISO is unusable, but that is not a universal truth. For example, on the K100D and K10D the maximum ISO is highly usable and of very good quality. There are probably other cameras out there for which this is true, but I can speak of these two cameras with user knowledge. 2) The K10D IS NOT RUBBISH at ISO 1600! People say all the time that the K10D is bad in low light, but never explain what this means. If by "low light" you mean "not enough light to achieve correct exposure", then yes, the K10D falls short when you underexpose and then try to recover an underexposed image. However, if by "low light" you mean "light so low that you need to use ISO 1600 for correct exposure", then no, the K10D is not bad. When proper exposure is achieved, the K10D works very well at ISO 1600: http://lh6.ggpht.com/_i6tc3TCyOTA/StaFNYxyztI/CqA/ZjR63tKSk9M/s800/IMGP6109-small.jpg http://lh4.ggpht.com/Miserere/SP1U3Ik6lTI/BrA/XBLIMplJLv0/s800/IMGP0313-small.jpg http://lh4.ggpht.com/Miserere/SP1U4StRHeI/Brg/Vthl6szbqvk/s800/IMGP0345-small.jpg http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00V/00VgZv-217447584.jpg The same is true for the K100D Super at ISO 3200: http://picasaweb.google.com/Miserere/TheFranklinKiteTTTheBearS20August2009#5389958172780052770 http://picasaweb.google.com/Miserere/TheFranklinKiteTTTheBearS20August2009#5389958224218569394 http://picasaweb.google.com/Miserere/TheFranklinKiteTTTheBearS20August2009#5389958203791795010 I've seen many shitty ISO 1600 shots from K10D's, and invariably they were shot by someone who didn't know how to shoot the K10D at high ISO, meaning they underexposed their images and then increased the exposure in postprocessing. High ISO shooting is a whole 'nother game, and I suspect it's different for each camera, but there's certainly a learning curve that most photographers don't crawl up before announcing to the World that a particular camera is bad at high ISO. You need a license to own a gun, but they let anyone shoot at ISO 6400. Rant over. And it wasn't directed at you, Boris. Sorry that your message was the one I replied to. Cheers, --M. -- \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
One has to wonder how he came to that conclusion. Seems you would actually have to try all the cameras before relying on that. Perhaps it would be better to try the camera in question before making that broad of a generalization. Changes in sensors and support firmware can have a big impact on these kinds of things. Not to mention design goals of a particular camera. It is much like saying all lenses are sharpest at 2 stops from wide open. We know that isn't accurate because lens designs and goals affect that. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. "Steven Desjardins" wrote: >Sorry. The sentence should have read: > >Interesting that Boris suggests that a good rule of thumb is two EV >down from the max ISO. > >Oy. > >On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: >> Yes, I remember Tri-X at ISO 400. All I could afford as a 15 year old >> kid and I developed it all myself. Interesting that Boris suggest >> that a good rule of thumb is EV down from the max ISO. So that puts >> the K7 at 1600 and the Kx at 3200. I found an interesting article at >> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K7/K7A.HTM . It's a K7 review >> but has many samples of images at high iso on different cameras, one >> of which was the E-P1. It appears that the E-P1 has better high ISO >> detailing than the K7, although a lot of this is judgement. >> >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Paul Sorenson >> wrote: >>> It is kind of mind boggling. When I got my first SLR in the early 1960s >>> High Speed Ektachrome, at ASA 160, was a big step up in speed. :-) >>> >>> On 9/1/2010 9:53 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote: I freely admit that I don't think I am really understanding the implications of ISO 12,800. It's like a person being 20 ft. tall. My mind has trouble associating that number with that property. I noticed that one high end Nikon had a max sensitivity of 102,400. That's like trying to grasp an f0.1 aperture. It makes mathematical sense in terms of EVs but I never thought I would see such a thing. On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Paul Sorenson wrote: > > Here's another K-X example if you need low light capabilities. Pretty > much > a straight import into LR3 - at ISO 12,800. The noise isn't > objectionable > at normal viewing. (K-X, fa80-...@320mm,1/1...@f5.6) > > http://www.studio1941.com/photos/content/IMGP0631_large.html > > -p > > On 8/31/2010 1:34 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >> One big difference for me was that with the K20 and earlier I really had >> to have good conditions (lighting, processing, etc) to make a high >> ISO shot reasonable. For instance, when shooting weddings I could >> take a couple of shots with the 50/1.4 lens close to wide open and no >> flash, then process to remove ugly color cast and grain, etc. The >> resulting image would possibly even need to be turned to B&W. >> Basically, this meant that the shot was not the norm, but the >> exception. >> >> With the K-x, it is totally changed. Straight out of the camera, ISO >> 6400 is looking quite good - no extra work. So now I have shot >> entire receptions with no flash and no heavy post processing. Even >> more so, simple snaps of the family in situations where I would have >> used a flash in the past, I no longer need to. Gathered around the >> dinner table talking in the evening or playing a game or one of the >> kids receiving an award at school, etc. The ability to shoot >> consistently at high ISO (1600+) is a real game changer. >> >> ISO 6400, 85mm Soft Focus lens, no post processing, shot right after >> dinner: >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/imgp1200-1.htm >> >> I would never have thought to take that kind of shot in the past. >> >> >> That is why I am saying to try the K-x and really see how different >> you start shooting and thinking. When I got mine, it was only to >> shoot a gymnastics sporting event - that covered the cost for me. It >> turned out to be just the tip of the iceberg. >> >> Here is a shot from a reception - fairly dim lighting - ISO 6400 - >> pretty much no post processing: >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/hoffman_00295.htm >> >> With flash, the shot would not be the same. This is the kind of >> thing I am talking about. Not really thinking about how you shoot >> today, but really thinking outside of the box. For me, the K-x was >> really a game changer in thought process and fun. Prior to that, >> pretty much the old thought process all the way back into my film >> days. >> >> "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what >> you've always got." >> >> Time to change it up and see what this Brave New World is offering. >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this
Re: K7 or Kx
Sorry. The sentence should have read: Interesting that Boris suggests that a good rule of thumb is two EV down from the max ISO. Oy. On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > Yes, I remember Tri-X at ISO 400. All I could afford as a 15 year old > kid and I developed it all myself. Interesting that Boris suggest > that a good rule of thumb is EV down from the max ISO. So that puts > the K7 at 1600 and the Kx at 3200. I found an interesting article at > http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K7/K7A.HTM . It's a K7 review > but has many samples of images at high iso on different cameras, one > of which was the E-P1. It appears that the E-P1 has better high ISO > detailing than the K7, although a lot of this is judgement. > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Paul Sorenson > wrote: >> It is kind of mind boggling. When I got my first SLR in the early 1960s >> High Speed Ektachrome, at ASA 160, was a big step up in speed. :-) >> >> On 9/1/2010 9:53 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote: >>> >>> I freely admit that I don't think I am really understanding the >>> implications of ISO 12,800. It's like a person being 20 ft. tall. >>> My mind has trouble associating that number with that property. I >>> noticed that one high end Nikon had a max sensitivity of 102,400. >>> That's like trying to grasp an f0.1 aperture. It makes mathematical >>> sense in terms of EVs but I never thought I would see such a thing. >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Paul Sorenson >>> wrote: Here's another K-X example if you need low light capabilities. Pretty much a straight import into LR3 - at ISO 12,800. The noise isn't objectionable at normal viewing. (K-X, fa80-...@320mm,1/1...@f5.6) http://www.studio1941.com/photos/content/IMGP0631_large.html -p On 8/31/2010 1:34 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > > One big difference for me was that with the K20 and earlier I really had > to have good conditions (lighting, processing, etc) to make a high > ISO shot reasonable. For instance, when shooting weddings I could > take a couple of shots with the 50/1.4 lens close to wide open and no > flash, then process to remove ugly color cast and grain, etc. The > resulting image would possibly even need to be turned to B&W. > Basically, this meant that the shot was not the norm, but the > exception. > > With the K-x, it is totally changed. Straight out of the camera, ISO > 6400 is looking quite good - no extra work. So now I have shot > entire receptions with no flash and no heavy post processing. Even > more so, simple snaps of the family in situations where I would have > used a flash in the past, I no longer need to. Gathered around the > dinner table talking in the evening or playing a game or one of the > kids receiving an award at school, etc. The ability to shoot > consistently at high ISO (1600+) is a real game changer. > > ISO 6400, 85mm Soft Focus lens, no post processing, shot right after > dinner: > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/imgp1200-1.htm > > I would never have thought to take that kind of shot in the past. > > > That is why I am saying to try the K-x and really see how different > you start shooting and thinking. When I got mine, it was only to > shoot a gymnastics sporting event - that covered the cost for me. It > turned out to be just the tip of the iceberg. > > Here is a shot from a reception - fairly dim lighting - ISO 6400 - > pretty much no post processing: > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/hoffman_00295.htm > > With flash, the shot would not be the same. This is the kind of > thing I am talking about. Not really thinking about how you shoot > today, but really thinking outside of the box. For me, the K-x was > really a game changer in thought process and fun. Prior to that, > pretty much the old thought process all the way back into my film > days. > > "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what > you've always got." > > Time to change it up and see what this Brave New World is offering. > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3104 - Release Date: 08/31/10 > 01:34:00 > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3106 - Release Date: 09/01/10 >>> 01:34:00 >>> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE f
Re: K7 or Kx
Yes, I remember Tri-X at ISO 400. All I could afford as a 15 year old kid and I developed it all myself. Interesting that Boris suggest that a good rule of thumb is EV down from the max ISO. So that puts the K7 at 1600 and the Kx at 3200. I found an interesting article at http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K7/K7A.HTM . It's a K7 review but has many samples of images at high iso on different cameras, one of which was the E-P1. It appears that the E-P1 has better high ISO detailing than the K7, although a lot of this is judgement. On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Paul Sorenson wrote: > It is kind of mind boggling. When I got my first SLR in the early 1960s > High Speed Ektachrome, at ASA 160, was a big step up in speed. :-) > > On 9/1/2010 9:53 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote: >> >> I freely admit that I don't think I am really understanding the >> implications of ISO 12,800. It's like a person being 20 ft. tall. >> My mind has trouble associating that number with that property. I >> noticed that one high end Nikon had a max sensitivity of 102,400. >> That's like trying to grasp an f0.1 aperture. It makes mathematical >> sense in terms of EVs but I never thought I would see such a thing. >> >> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Paul Sorenson >> wrote: >>> >>> Here's another K-X example if you need low light capabilities. Pretty >>> much >>> a straight import into LR3 - at ISO 12,800. The noise isn't >>> objectionable >>> at normal viewing. (K-X, fa80-...@320mm,1/1...@f5.6) >>> >>> http://www.studio1941.com/photos/content/IMGP0631_large.html >>> >>> -p >>> >>> On 8/31/2010 1:34 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: One big difference for me was that with the K20 and earlier I really had to have good conditions (lighting, processing, etc) to make a high ISO shot reasonable. For instance, when shooting weddings I could take a couple of shots with the 50/1.4 lens close to wide open and no flash, then process to remove ugly color cast and grain, etc. The resulting image would possibly even need to be turned to B&W. Basically, this meant that the shot was not the norm, but the exception. With the K-x, it is totally changed. Straight out of the camera, ISO 6400 is looking quite good - no extra work. So now I have shot entire receptions with no flash and no heavy post processing. Even more so, simple snaps of the family in situations where I would have used a flash in the past, I no longer need to. Gathered around the dinner table talking in the evening or playing a game or one of the kids receiving an award at school, etc. The ability to shoot consistently at high ISO (1600+) is a real game changer. ISO 6400, 85mm Soft Focus lens, no post processing, shot right after dinner: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/imgp1200-1.htm I would never have thought to take that kind of shot in the past. That is why I am saying to try the K-x and really see how different you start shooting and thinking. When I got mine, it was only to shoot a gymnastics sporting event - that covered the cost for me. It turned out to be just the tip of the iceberg. Here is a shot from a reception - fairly dim lighting - ISO 6400 - pretty much no post processing: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/hoffman_00295.htm With flash, the shot would not be the same. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. Not really thinking about how you shoot today, but really thinking outside of the box. For me, the K-x was really a game changer in thought process and fun. Prior to that, pretty much the old thought process all the way back into my film days. "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got." Time to change it up and see what this Brave New World is offering. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3104 - Release Date: 08/31/10 01:34:00 >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >>> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3106 - Release Date: 09/01/10 >> 01:34:00 >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
It is kind of mind boggling. When I got my first SLR in the early 1960s High Speed Ektachrome, at ASA 160, was a big step up in speed. :-) On 9/1/2010 9:53 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote: I freely admit that I don't think I am really understanding the implications of ISO 12,800. It's like a person being 20 ft. tall. My mind has trouble associating that number with that property. I noticed that one high end Nikon had a max sensitivity of 102,400. That's like trying to grasp an f0.1 aperture. It makes mathematical sense in terms of EVs but I never thought I would see such a thing. On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Paul Sorenson wrote: Here's another K-X example if you need low light capabilities. Pretty much a straight import into LR3 - at ISO 12,800. The noise isn't objectionable at normal viewing. (K-X, fa80-...@320mm,1/1...@f5.6) http://www.studio1941.com/photos/content/IMGP0631_large.html -p On 8/31/2010 1:34 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: One big difference for me was that with the K20 and earlier I really had to have good conditions (lighting, processing, etc) to make a high ISO shot reasonable. For instance, when shooting weddings I could take a couple of shots with the 50/1.4 lens close to wide open and no flash, then process to remove ugly color cast and grain, etc. The resulting image would possibly even need to be turned to B&W. Basically, this meant that the shot was not the norm, but the exception. With the K-x, it is totally changed. Straight out of the camera, ISO 6400 is looking quite good - no extra work. So now I have shot entire receptions with no flash and no heavy post processing. Even more so, simple snaps of the family in situations where I would have used a flash in the past, I no longer need to. Gathered around the dinner table talking in the evening or playing a game or one of the kids receiving an award at school, etc. The ability to shoot consistently at high ISO (1600+) is a real game changer. ISO 6400, 85mm Soft Focus lens, no post processing, shot right after dinner: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/imgp1200-1.htm I would never have thought to take that kind of shot in the past. That is why I am saying to try the K-x and really see how different you start shooting and thinking. When I got mine, it was only to shoot a gymnastics sporting event - that covered the cost for me. It turned out to be just the tip of the iceberg. Here is a shot from a reception - fairly dim lighting - ISO 6400 - pretty much no post processing: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/hoffman_00295.htm With flash, the shot would not be the same. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. Not really thinking about how you shoot today, but really thinking outside of the box. For me, the K-x was really a game changer in thought process and fun. Prior to that, pretty much the old thought process all the way back into my film days. "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got." Time to change it up and see what this Brave New World is offering. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3104 - Release Date: 08/31/10 01:34:00 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3106 - Release Date: 09/01/10 01:34:00 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On 9/1/2010 5:53 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: I freely admit that I don't think I am really understanding the implications of ISO 12,800. It's like a person being 20 ft. tall. My mind has trouble associating that number with that property. I noticed that one high end Nikon had a max sensitivity of 102,400. That's like trying to grasp an f0.1 aperture. It makes mathematical sense in terms of EVs but I never thought I would see such a thing. Steve, if camera has highest ISO of 3200, it usually means that it is unusable, but ISO 800 is pretty ok. So, if highest ISO is 12,800 (or even 102,400) it probably means that ISO 3200 (or 32,000) is usable. It is like fuel consumption figures of cars of battery longevity of cell phones. It is all lies, but it is still (co)rel(l)ated to the real world in a manner of speaking... Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
I freely admit that I don't think I am really understanding the implications of ISO 12,800. It's like a person being 20 ft. tall. My mind has trouble associating that number with that property. I noticed that one high end Nikon had a max sensitivity of 102,400. That's like trying to grasp an f0.1 aperture. It makes mathematical sense in terms of EVs but I never thought I would see such a thing. On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Paul Sorenson wrote: > Here's another K-X example if you need low light capabilities. Pretty much > a straight import into LR3 - at ISO 12,800. The noise isn't objectionable > at normal viewing. (K-X, fa80-...@320mm,1/1...@f5.6) > > http://www.studio1941.com/photos/content/IMGP0631_large.html > > -p > > On 8/31/2010 1:34 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >> One big difference for me was that with the K20 and earlier I really had >> to have good conditions (lighting, processing, etc) to make a high >> ISO shot reasonable. For instance, when shooting weddings I could >> take a couple of shots with the 50/1.4 lens close to wide open and no >> flash, then process to remove ugly color cast and grain, etc. The >> resulting image would possibly even need to be turned to B&W. >> Basically, this meant that the shot was not the norm, but the >> exception. >> >> With the K-x, it is totally changed. Straight out of the camera, ISO >> 6400 is looking quite good - no extra work. So now I have shot >> entire receptions with no flash and no heavy post processing. Even >> more so, simple snaps of the family in situations where I would have >> used a flash in the past, I no longer need to. Gathered around the >> dinner table talking in the evening or playing a game or one of the >> kids receiving an award at school, etc. The ability to shoot >> consistently at high ISO (1600+) is a real game changer. >> >> ISO 6400, 85mm Soft Focus lens, no post processing, shot right after >> dinner: >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/imgp1200-1.htm >> >> I would never have thought to take that kind of shot in the past. >> >> >> That is why I am saying to try the K-x and really see how different >> you start shooting and thinking. When I got mine, it was only to >> shoot a gymnastics sporting event - that covered the cost for me. It >> turned out to be just the tip of the iceberg. >> >> Here is a shot from a reception - fairly dim lighting - ISO 6400 - >> pretty much no post processing: >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/hoffman_00295.htm >> >> With flash, the shot would not be the same. This is the kind of >> thing I am talking about. Not really thinking about how you shoot >> today, but really thinking outside of the box. For me, the K-x was >> really a game changer in thought process and fun. Prior to that, >> pretty much the old thought process all the way back into my film >> days. >> >> "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what >> you've always got." >> >> Time to change it up and see what this Brave New World is offering. >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3104 - Release Date: 08/31/10 >> 01:34:00 >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Well said. Mark! On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 2:00 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > On 8/31/2010 5:58 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: >> >> I do like your comment "But K-x has a sensor second to none." I think >> Canon and Nikon might contest that. Of course, it could be a better >> sensor than the K7. I'm not one that too fussy about micro-artifacts >> however. > > It really depends on the context. Within the borders of the Pentax land K-x > sports the best sensor. Within the borders of APS-C republic, K-x is surely > a noble patrician. > > Boris > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
2010/8/31 Steven Desjardins : > > I love the look on the hawk's face. "Really? A Pentax? The f'ing > eagles get Nikons. Aren't those things for comorants?" Mark =) I'd like to see a short version on a T-Shirt: "A Pentax? Aren't those things for comorants?" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On 8/31/2010 5:58 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: I do like your comment "But K-x has a sensor second to none." I think Canon and Nikon might contest that. Of course, it could be a better sensor than the K7. I'm not one that too fussy about micro-artifacts however. It really depends on the context. Within the borders of the Pentax land K-x sports the best sensor. Within the borders of APS-C republic, K-x is surely a noble patrician. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Here's another K-X example if you need low light capabilities. Pretty much a straight import into LR3 - at ISO 12,800. The noise isn't objectionable at normal viewing. (K-X, fa80-...@320mm,1/1...@f5.6) http://www.studio1941.com/photos/content/IMGP0631_large.html -p On 8/31/2010 1:34 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: One big difference for me was that with the K20 and earlier I really had to have good conditions (lighting, processing, etc) to make a high ISO shot reasonable. For instance, when shooting weddings I could take a couple of shots with the 50/1.4 lens close to wide open and no flash, then process to remove ugly color cast and grain, etc. The resulting image would possibly even need to be turned to B&W. Basically, this meant that the shot was not the norm, but the exception. With the K-x, it is totally changed. Straight out of the camera, ISO 6400 is looking quite good - no extra work. So now I have shot entire receptions with no flash and no heavy post processing. Even more so, simple snaps of the family in situations where I would have used a flash in the past, I no longer need to. Gathered around the dinner table talking in the evening or playing a game or one of the kids receiving an award at school, etc. The ability to shoot consistently at high ISO (1600+) is a real game changer. ISO 6400, 85mm Soft Focus lens, no post processing, shot right after dinner: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/imgp1200-1.htm I would never have thought to take that kind of shot in the past. That is why I am saying to try the K-x and really see how different you start shooting and thinking. When I got mine, it was only to shoot a gymnastics sporting event - that covered the cost for me. It turned out to be just the tip of the iceberg. Here is a shot from a reception - fairly dim lighting - ISO 6400 - pretty much no post processing: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/hoffman_00295.htm With flash, the shot would not be the same. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. Not really thinking about how you shoot today, but really thinking outside of the box. For me, the K-x was really a game changer in thought process and fun. Prior to that, pretty much the old thought process all the way back into my film days. "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got." Time to change it up and see what this Brave New World is offering. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3104 - Release Date: 08/31/10 01:34:00 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Hello John, I have both the K10 and K20 and the low light on the K10 is much worse, as you have experienced. The K20 and K7 have basically the same sensor so the low light performance between them is very similar. There are a few who think the K7 is better and a few who think the K20 is better. Be that as it may, the K-x is at least as much better than the K20 as the K20 is compared to the K10. Did I say that right. The step up from K10 to K20 is big, but the step up from K20 to K-x is even greater when it comes to low light performance. Yes, the shot needs the little catchlight removed, as you noted, but overall, the need to image process for high ISO is significantly lower than with the K20. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 2:27:04 PM, you wrote: JS> From: Bruce Dayton >> One big difference for me was that with the K20 and earlier I really had >> to have good conditions (lighting, processing, etc) to make a high >> ISO shot reasonable. For instance, when shooting weddings I could >> take a couple of shots with the 50/1.4 lens close to wide open and no >> flash, then process to remove ugly color cast and grain, etc. The >> resulting image would possibly even need to be turned to B&W. >> Basically, this meant that the shot was not the norm, but the >> exception. >> JS> I don't shoot a lot of high ISO. JS> My experience with the K10 and K20 is/was that the K20 is better at ISO JS> 1600 than the K10 was at ISO 800. At ISO 800 the K10 gave really sub-par JS> results; at ISO 1600 the K20 gives adequate results - not great, but JS> adequate. JS> Maybe I got a better sample of the K20 than I did of the K10, but that's JS> the way I experienced it. >> With the K-x, it is totally changed. Straight out of the camera, ISO >> 6400 is looking quite good - no extra work. So now I have shot >> entire receptions with no flash and no heavy post processing. Even >> more so, simple snaps of the family in situations where I would have >> used a flash in the past, I no longer need to. Gathered around the >> dinner table talking in the evening or playing a game or one of the >> kids receiving an award at school, etc. The ability to shoot >> consistently at high ISO (1600+) is a real game changer. >> >> ISO 6400, 85mm Soft Focus lens, no post processing, shot right after >> dinner: >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/imgp1200-1.htm >> JS> Needs just a bit of post processing. JS> Good photo, and I can see what you mean about the low noise capability JS> at high ISO, but that one highlight at the inside corner of the eye just JS> reaches out and smacks you right in the face. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
I love the look on the hawk's face. "Really? A Pentax? The f'ing eagles get Nikons. Aren't those things for comorants?" On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:33 PM, paul stenquist wrote: > On the other hand, if you plan to shoot in bad weather or if you work your > cameras as hard as I do, you'll probably want the K7. While the K7 does begin > to show some noise in exposures at ISOs above 400, the noise doesn't ramp up > all that much at levels above 400. My photo for the Pentax show in Chicago > was shot at ISO 3200 with the K7: > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9902961&size=lg > > I've had reasonable success with the K7 at 6400: > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10541951&size=lg > > And I regularly use it at ISO 800: > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11014855 > > Film grain never bothered me a lot, and a bit of digital noise isn't a > problem for me or my clients. But I will be adding a K5 to the arsenal when > it becomes available. My k7 is closing in on 30,000 frames, so it's time to > send it to back-up mode. > > Paul > > > On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > >> Funny thing about the low light question...before I got a K-x, I didn't >> shoot low light much without a tripod but that was really because my K20 and >> earlier cameras couldn't shoot low light. Now that I have a K-x, my >> shooting techniques and style s have been changing due too the new >> capability. So the K7 represents the best of shooting the old way and the >> K-x represents the opportunity to do some new and exciting things. For >> me at this stage, I would go for the K-x. If you buy from B&H you have some >> time to return and exchange. That would be ideal. Get the K-x because it >> lets you try things you haven't done before. If you find you aren't >> delighted with it you can return it and get the K7. >> >> For me, at this point I never use my K20 anymore unless my daughter is using >> at the time I need it. Given the choice, I always pick the K-x over the K20. >> -- >> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. >> >> "Dario Bonazza" wrote: >> >>> Steven Desjardins wrote: >>> I thought of that, but I'd like to buy a new body. KEH has two K7 now for $789 and $819 which is not much of a savings, and I don't think I'd buy one off ebay, etc. I do like your comment "But K-x has a sensor second to none." I think Canon and Nikon might contest that. Of course, it could be a better sensor than the K7. I'm not one that too fussy about micro-artifacts however. >>> >>> I've used both the K-7 and the K-x and my advice is simple: >>> 1) Do you shoot mainly in good/reasonable light, using ISO 100 to 400 and >>> add flash in low light? Go for the K-7, which is an overall better capable >>> camera for sure. >>> 2) Do you shoot with available light? The K-x is far better for that. IMO, >>> all of the K-7 pluses put together cannot compensate for the huge difference >>> in image quality in favor of the K-x above ISO 400. >>> >>> Whichever you choose now, it is likely after Photokina you'll want to jump >>> all feet on such camera and replace it with one of the new ones for a good >>> reason :-) >>> >>> Dario >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >>> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
From: Bruce Dayton One big difference for me was that with the K20 and earlier I really had to have good conditions (lighting, processing, etc) to make a high ISO shot reasonable. For instance, when shooting weddings I could take a couple of shots with the 50/1.4 lens close to wide open and no flash, then process to remove ugly color cast and grain, etc. The resulting image would possibly even need to be turned to B&W. Basically, this meant that the shot was not the norm, but the exception. I don't shoot a lot of high ISO. My experience with the K10 and K20 is/was that the K20 is better at ISO 1600 than the K10 was at ISO 800. At ISO 800 the K10 gave really sub-par results; at ISO 1600 the K20 gives adequate results - not great, but adequate. Maybe I got a better sample of the K20 than I did of the K10, but that's the way I experienced it. With the K-x, it is totally changed. Straight out of the camera, ISO 6400 is looking quite good - no extra work. So now I have shot entire receptions with no flash and no heavy post processing. Even more so, simple snaps of the family in situations where I would have used a flash in the past, I no longer need to. Gathered around the dinner table talking in the evening or playing a game or one of the kids receiving an award at school, etc. The ability to shoot consistently at high ISO (1600+) is a real game changer. ISO 6400, 85mm Soft Focus lens, no post processing, shot right after dinner: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/imgp1200-1.htm Needs just a bit of post processing. Good photo, and I can see what you mean about the low noise capability at high ISO, but that one highlight at the inside corner of the eye just reaches out and smacks you right in the face. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Bruce, I like your point of view so much and I totally agree with you. Steve, don't skip his excellent advice! Dario - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 8:34 PM Subject: Re: K7 or Kx One big difference for me was that with the K20 and earlier I really had to have good conditions (lighting, processing, etc) to make a high ISO shot reasonable. For instance, when shooting weddings I could take a couple of shots with the 50/1.4 lens close to wide open and no flash, then process to remove ugly color cast and grain, etc. The resulting image would possibly even need to be turned to B&W. Basically, this meant that the shot was not the norm, but the exception. With the K-x, it is totally changed. Straight out of the camera, ISO 6400 is looking quite good - no extra work. So now I have shot entire receptions with no flash and no heavy post processing. Even more so, simple snaps of the family in situations where I would have used a flash in the past, I no longer need to. Gathered around the dinner table talking in the evening or playing a game or one of the kids receiving an award at school, etc. The ability to shoot consistently at high ISO (1600+) is a real game changer. ISO 6400, 85mm Soft Focus lens, no post processing, shot right after dinner: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/imgp1200-1.htm I would never have thought to take that kind of shot in the past. That is why I am saying to try the K-x and really see how different you start shooting and thinking. When I got mine, it was only to shoot a gymnastics sporting event - that covered the cost for me. It turned out to be just the tip of the iceberg. Here is a shot from a reception - fairly dim lighting - ISO 6400 - pretty much no post processing: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/hoffman_00295.htm With flash, the shot would not be the same. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. Not really thinking about how you shoot today, but really thinking outside of the box. For me, the K-x was really a game changer in thought process and fun. Prior to that, pretty much the old thought process all the way back into my film days. "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got." Time to change it up and see what this Brave New World is offering. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 10:07:28 AM, you wrote: SD> Thanks for the shots. When needed, I would push the K10D to 800. The SD> K7 should be at least that good, yes? I am intrigued by Bruce's SD> comment. We are now reaching the stage where digital will begin to SD> have capabilities that will change the way people shoot. HDR might SD> also that it they ever get it right. My own wild prediction is that SD> eventually exposure will be a non-issue and will be a processed SD> property. Maybe even focus. SD> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:33 PM, paul stenquist SD> wrote: On the other hand, if you plan to shoot in bad weather or if you work your cameras as hard as I do, you'll probably want the K7. While the K7 does begin to show some noise in exposures at ISOs above 400, the noise doesn't ramp up all that much at levels above 400. My photo for the Pentax show in Chicago was shot at ISO 3200 with the K7: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9902961&size=lg I've had reasonable success with the K7 at 6400: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10541951&size=lg And I regularly use it at ISO 800: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11014855 Film grain never bothered me a lot, and a bit of digital noise isn't a problem for me or my clients. But I will be adding a K5 to the arsenal when it becomes available. My k7 is closing in on 30,000 frames, so it's time to send it to back-up mode. Paul On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Funny thing about the low light question...before I got a K-x, I didn't shoot low light much without a tripod but that was really because my K20 and earlier cameras couldn't shoot low light. Now that I have a K-x, my shooting techniques and style s have been changing due too the new capability. So the K7 represents the best of shooting the old way and the K-x represents the opportunity to do some new and exciting things. For me at this stage, I would go for the K-x. If you buy from B&H you have some time to return and exchange. That would be ideal. Get the K-x because it lets you try things you haven't done before. If you find you aren't delighted with it you can return it and get the K7. For me, at this point I never use my K20 anymore unless my daughter is using at the time I need it. Given the choice, I always pick the K-x over the K20. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. "Dario Bonazza" wrote: Steven Desjardins wrote: I thought
Re: K7 or Kx
I certainly hope so. Of course then I would have to figure out how to afford it... -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. "Bob Sullivan" wrote: >Bruce, >You're evil... >Maybe the K-5 will be K-X like?? >Regards, Bob S. > >On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: >> For me, the K-x was >> really a game changer in thought process and fun. Prior to that, >> pretty much the old thought process all the way back into my film >> days. >> >> "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what >> you've always got." >> >> Time to change it up and see what this Brave New World is offering. >> > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow >the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Bruce, You're evil... Maybe the K-5 will be K-X like?? Regards, Bob S. On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > For me, the K-x was > really a game changer in thought process and fun. Prior to that, > pretty much the old thought process all the way back into my film > days. > > "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what > you've always got." > > Time to change it up and see what this Brave New World is offering. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
One big difference for me was that with the K20 and earlier I really had to have good conditions (lighting, processing, etc) to make a high ISO shot reasonable. For instance, when shooting weddings I could take a couple of shots with the 50/1.4 lens close to wide open and no flash, then process to remove ugly color cast and grain, etc. The resulting image would possibly even need to be turned to B&W. Basically, this meant that the shot was not the norm, but the exception. With the K-x, it is totally changed. Straight out of the camera, ISO 6400 is looking quite good - no extra work. So now I have shot entire receptions with no flash and no heavy post processing. Even more so, simple snaps of the family in situations where I would have used a flash in the past, I no longer need to. Gathered around the dinner table talking in the evening or playing a game or one of the kids receiving an award at school, etc. The ability to shoot consistently at high ISO (1600+) is a real game changer. ISO 6400, 85mm Soft Focus lens, no post processing, shot right after dinner: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/imgp1200-1.htm I would never have thought to take that kind of shot in the past. That is why I am saying to try the K-x and really see how different you start shooting and thinking. When I got mine, it was only to shoot a gymnastics sporting event - that covered the cost for me. It turned out to be just the tip of the iceberg. Here is a shot from a reception - fairly dim lighting - ISO 6400 - pretty much no post processing: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/hoffman_00295.htm With flash, the shot would not be the same. This is the kind of thing I am talking about. Not really thinking about how you shoot today, but really thinking outside of the box. For me, the K-x was really a game changer in thought process and fun. Prior to that, pretty much the old thought process all the way back into my film days. "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got." Time to change it up and see what this Brave New World is offering. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 10:07:28 AM, you wrote: SD> Thanks for the shots. When needed, I would push the K10D to 800. The SD> K7 should be at least that good, yes? I am intrigued by Bruce's SD> comment. We are now reaching the stage where digital will begin to SD> have capabilities that will change the way people shoot. HDR might SD> also that it they ever get it right. My own wild prediction is that SD> eventually exposure will be a non-issue and will be a processed SD> property. Maybe even focus. SD> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:33 PM, paul stenquist SD> wrote: >> On the other hand, if you plan to shoot in bad weather or if you work your >> cameras as hard as I do, you'll probably want the K7. While the K7 does >> begin to show some noise in exposures at ISOs above 400, the noise doesn't >> ramp up all that much at levels above 400. My photo for the Pentax show in >> Chicago was shot at ISO 3200 with the K7: >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9902961&size=lg >> >> I've had reasonable success with the K7 at 6400: >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10541951&size=lg >> >> And I regularly use it at ISO 800: >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11014855 >> >> Film grain never bothered me a lot, and a bit of digital noise isn't a >> problem for me or my clients. But I will be adding a K5 to the arsenal when >> it becomes available. My k7 is closing in on 30,000 frames, so it's time to >> send it to back-up mode. >> >> Paul >> >> >> On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >>> Funny thing about the low light question...before I got a K-x, I didn't >>> shoot low light much without a tripod but that was really because my K20 >>> and earlier cameras couldn't shoot low light. Now that I have a K-x, my >>> shooting techniques and style s have been changing due too the new >>> capability. So the K7 represents the best of shooting the old way and the >>> K-x represents the opportunity to do some new and exciting things. >>> For me at this stage, I would go for the K-x. If you buy from B&H you have >>> some time to return and exchange. That would be ideal. Get the K-x >>> because it lets you try things you haven't done before. If you find you >>> aren't delighted with it you can return it and get the K7. >>> >>> For me, at this point I never use my K20 anymore unless my daughter is >>> using at the time I need it. Given the choice, I always pick the K-x over >>> the K20. >>> -- >>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. >>> >>> "Dario Bonazza" wrote: >>> Steven Desjardins wrote: > I thought of that, but I'd like to buy a new body. KEH has two K7 now > for $789 and $819 which is not much of a savings, and I don't think > I'd buy one off ebay, etc. > > I do like your comment "But K-x has a sensor second to none." I think > Canon a
Re: K7 or Kx
Make that "HDR might also do that it they ever get it right." On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > Thanks for the shots. When needed, I would push the K10D to 800. The > K7 should be at least that good, yes? I am intrigued by Bruce's > comment. We are now reaching the stage where digital will begin to > have capabilities that will change the way people shoot. HDR might > also that it they ever get it right. My own wild prediction is that > eventually exposure will be a non-issue and will be a processed > property. Maybe even focus. > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:33 PM, paul stenquist > wrote: >> On the other hand, if you plan to shoot in bad weather or if you work your >> cameras as hard as I do, you'll probably want the K7. While the K7 does >> begin to show some noise in exposures at ISOs above 400, the noise doesn't >> ramp up all that much at levels above 400. My photo for the Pentax show in >> Chicago was shot at ISO 3200 with the K7: >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9902961&size=lg >> >> I've had reasonable success with the K7 at 6400: >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10541951&size=lg >> >> And I regularly use it at ISO 800: >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11014855 >> >> Film grain never bothered me a lot, and a bit of digital noise isn't a >> problem for me or my clients. But I will be adding a K5 to the arsenal when >> it becomes available. My k7 is closing in on 30,000 frames, so it's time to >> send it to back-up mode. >> >> Paul >> >> >> On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >>> Funny thing about the low light question...before I got a K-x, I didn't >>> shoot low light much without a tripod but that was really because my K20 >>> and earlier cameras couldn't shoot low light. Now that I have a K-x, my >>> shooting techniques and style s have been changing due too the new >>> capability. So the K7 represents the best of shooting the old way and the >>> K-x represents the opportunity to do some new and exciting things. >>> For me at this stage, I would go for the K-x. If you buy from B&H you have >>> some time to return and exchange. That would be ideal. Get the K-x >>> because it lets you try things you haven't done before. If you find you >>> aren't delighted with it you can return it and get the K7. >>> >>> For me, at this point I never use my K20 anymore unless my daughter is >>> using at the time I need it. Given the choice, I always pick the K-x over >>> the K20. >>> -- >>> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. >>> >>> "Dario Bonazza" wrote: >>> Steven Desjardins wrote: > I thought of that, but I'd like to buy a new body. KEH has two K7 now > for $789 and $819 which is not much of a savings, and I don't think > I'd buy one off ebay, etc. > > I do like your comment "But K-x has a sensor second to none." I think > Canon and Nikon might contest that. Of course, it could be a better > sensor than the K7. I'm not one that too fussy about micro-artifacts > however. I've used both the K-7 and the K-x and my advice is simple: 1) Do you shoot mainly in good/reasonable light, using ISO 100 to 400 and add flash in low light? Go for the K-7, which is an overall better capable camera for sure. 2) Do you shoot with available light? The K-x is far better for that. IMO, all of the K-7 pluses put together cannot compensate for the huge difference in image quality in favor of the K-x above ISO 400. Whichever you choose now, it is likely after Photokina you'll want to jump all feet on such camera and replace it with one of the new ones for a good reason :-) Dario -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > > > -- > Steve Desjardins > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Thanks for the shots. When needed, I would push the K10D to 800. The K7 should be at least that good, yes? I am intrigued by Bruce's comment. We are now reaching the stage where digital will begin to have capabilities that will change the way people shoot. HDR might also that it they ever get it right. My own wild prediction is that eventually exposure will be a non-issue and will be a processed property. Maybe even focus. On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:33 PM, paul stenquist wrote: > On the other hand, if you plan to shoot in bad weather or if you work your > cameras as hard as I do, you'll probably want the K7. While the K7 does begin > to show some noise in exposures at ISOs above 400, the noise doesn't ramp up > all that much at levels above 400. My photo for the Pentax show in Chicago > was shot at ISO 3200 with the K7: > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9902961&size=lg > > I've had reasonable success with the K7 at 6400: > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10541951&size=lg > > And I regularly use it at ISO 800: > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11014855 > > Film grain never bothered me a lot, and a bit of digital noise isn't a > problem for me or my clients. But I will be adding a K5 to the arsenal when > it becomes available. My k7 is closing in on 30,000 frames, so it's time to > send it to back-up mode. > > Paul > > > On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > >> Funny thing about the low light question...before I got a K-x, I didn't >> shoot low light much without a tripod but that was really because my K20 and >> earlier cameras couldn't shoot low light. Now that I have a K-x, my >> shooting techniques and style s have been changing due too the new >> capability. So the K7 represents the best of shooting the old way and the >> K-x represents the opportunity to do some new and exciting things. For >> me at this stage, I would go for the K-x. If you buy from B&H you have some >> time to return and exchange. That would be ideal. Get the K-x because it >> lets you try things you haven't done before. If you find you aren't >> delighted with it you can return it and get the K7. >> >> For me, at this point I never use my K20 anymore unless my daughter is using >> at the time I need it. Given the choice, I always pick the K-x over the K20. >> -- >> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. >> >> "Dario Bonazza" wrote: >> >>> Steven Desjardins wrote: >>> I thought of that, but I'd like to buy a new body. KEH has two K7 now for $789 and $819 which is not much of a savings, and I don't think I'd buy one off ebay, etc. I do like your comment "But K-x has a sensor second to none." I think Canon and Nikon might contest that. Of course, it could be a better sensor than the K7. I'm not one that too fussy about micro-artifacts however. >>> >>> I've used both the K-7 and the K-x and my advice is simple: >>> 1) Do you shoot mainly in good/reasonable light, using ISO 100 to 400 and >>> add flash in low light? Go for the K-7, which is an overall better capable >>> camera for sure. >>> 2) Do you shoot with available light? The K-x is far better for that. IMO, >>> all of the K-7 pluses put together cannot compensate for the huge difference >>> in image quality in favor of the K-x above ISO 400. >>> >>> Whichever you choose now, it is likely after Photokina you'll want to jump >>> all feet on such camera and replace it with one of the new ones for a good >>> reason :-) >>> >>> Dario >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >>> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Larry Colen wrote: Dario, Do you have some inside information? Sorry, no. Dario -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
The K7 has quite a little cult following, basically with performance about two years ahead of its time for the price. I wonder if it'll be one of those items that maintains its cult status, or if it'll be eclipsed by the next new thing. If Pentax can learn from what they've gotten right on the kx (and the k7) and correct their shortcomings in future models, they could kick some serious butt in the market place. What it would take would be a k7, with incrementally better focus and metering, kx sensitivity, Kx color choices, and in the stores. And yes, I'm serious about the color choices, they attract people's attention, they would try it out just out of curiousity. "CheekyGeek" wrote: >On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Bruce Dayton >wrote: >> Now that I have a K-x, my shooting techniques and style s have been >> changing due too the new capability. . . . Get the K-x because it lets you >> try things you haven't done before. > >+1 > >It isn't JUST the sensor. It is what you DO with the sensor >(software). The Pentax K-x development team deserves some serious >kudos for what they have done with the mighty little K-x. Trumped >Sony's cam (with it's own sensor) and created a camera that is a >wy better bargain than the Nikons with the same sensor. > >Darren Addy >Kearney, Nebraska >-- >Nothing is sure, except Death and Pentaxes. > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow >the directions. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9. Please excuse my brevity. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On the other hand, if you plan to shoot in bad weather or if you work your cameras as hard as I do, you'll probably want the K7. While the K7 does begin to show some noise in exposures at ISOs above 400, the noise doesn't ramp up all that much at levels above 400. My photo for the Pentax show in Chicago was shot at ISO 3200 with the K7: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9902961&size=lg I've had reasonable success with the K7 at 6400: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=10541951&size=lg And I regularly use it at ISO 800: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11014855 Film grain never bothered me a lot, and a bit of digital noise isn't a problem for me or my clients. But I will be adding a K5 to the arsenal when it becomes available. My k7 is closing in on 30,000 frames, so it's time to send it to back-up mode. Paul On Aug 31, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > Funny thing about the low light question...before I got a K-x, I didn't shoot > low light much without a tripod but that was really because my K20 and > earlier cameras couldn't shoot low light. Now that I have a K-x, my shooting > techniques and style s have been changing due too the new capability. So the > K7 represents the best of shooting the old way and the K-x represents > the opportunity to do some new and exciting things. For me at this stage, I > would go for the K-x. If you buy from B&H you have some time to return and > exchange. That would be ideal. Get the K-x because it lets you try things > you haven't done before. If you find you aren't delighted with it you can > return it and get the K7. > > For me, at this point I never use my K20 anymore unless my daughter is using > at the time I need it. Given the choice, I always pick the K-x over the K20. > > -- > Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. > > "Dario Bonazza" wrote: > >> Steven Desjardins wrote: >> >>> I thought of that, but I'd like to buy a new body. KEH has two K7 now >>> for $789 and $819 which is not much of a savings, and I don't think >>> I'd buy one off ebay, etc. >>> >>> I do like your comment "But K-x has a sensor second to none." I think >>> Canon and Nikon might contest that. Of course, it could be a better >>> sensor than the K7. I'm not one that too fussy about micro-artifacts >>> however. >> >> I've used both the K-7 and the K-x and my advice is simple: >> 1) Do you shoot mainly in good/reasonable light, using ISO 100 to 400 and >> add flash in low light? Go for the K-7, which is an overall better capable >> camera for sure. >> 2) Do you shoot with available light? The K-x is far better for that. IMO, >> all of the K-7 pluses put together cannot compensate for the huge difference >> in image quality in favor of the K-x above ISO 400. >> >> Whichever you choose now, it is likely after Photokina you'll want to jump >> all feet on such camera and replace it with one of the new ones for a good >> reason :-) >> >> Dario >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Dario, Do you have some inside information? "Dario Bonazza" wrote: >Steven Desjardins wrote: > >>I thought of that, but I'd like to buy a new body. KEH has two K7 now >> for $789 and $819 which is not much of a savings, and I don't think >> I'd buy one off ebay, etc. >> >> I do like your comment "But K-x has a sensor second to none." I think >> Canon and Nikon might contest that. Of course, it could be a better >> sensor than the K7. I'm not one that too fussy about micro-artifacts >> however. > >I've used both the K-7 and the K-x and my advice is simple: >1) Do you shoot mainly in good/reasonable light, using ISO 100 to 400 and >add flash in low light? Go for the K-7, which is an overall better capable >camera for sure. >2) Do you shoot with available light? The K-x is far better for that. IMO, >all of the K-7 pluses put together cannot compensate for the huge difference >in image quality in favor of the K-x above ISO 400. > >Whichever you choose now, it is likely after Photokina you'll want to jump >all feet on such camera and replace it with one of the new ones for a good >reason :-) > >Dario > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow >the directions. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9. Please excuse my brevity. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > Now that I have a K-x, my shooting techniques and style s have been changing > due too the new capability. . . . Get the K-x because it lets you try things > you haven't done before. +1 It isn't JUST the sensor. It is what you DO with the sensor (software). The Pentax K-x development team deserves some serious kudos for what they have done with the mighty little K-x. Trumped Sony's cam (with it's own sensor) and created a camera that is a wy better bargain than the Nikons with the same sensor. Darren Addy Kearney, Nebraska -- Nothing is sure, except Death and Pentaxes. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Funny thing about the low light question...before I got a K-x, I didn't shoot low light much without a tripod but that was really because my K20 and earlier cameras couldn't shoot low light. Now that I have a K-x, my shooting techniques and style s have been changing due too the new capability. So the K7 represents the best of shooting the old way and the K-x represents the opportunity to do some new and exciting things. For me at this stage, I would go for the K-x. If you buy from B&H you have some time to return and exchange. That would be ideal. Get the K-x because it lets you try things you haven't done before. If you find you aren't delighted with it you can return it and get the K7. For me, at this point I never use my K20 anymore unless my daughter is using at the time I need it. Given the choice, I always pick the K-x over the K20. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. "Dario Bonazza" wrote: >Steven Desjardins wrote: > >>I thought of that, but I'd like to buy a new body. KEH has two K7 now >> for $789 and $819 which is not much of a savings, and I don't think >> I'd buy one off ebay, etc. >> >> I do like your comment "But K-x has a sensor second to none." I think >> Canon and Nikon might contest that. Of course, it could be a better >> sensor than the K7. I'm not one that too fussy about micro-artifacts >> however. > >I've used both the K-7 and the K-x and my advice is simple: >1) Do you shoot mainly in good/reasonable light, using ISO 100 to 400 and >add flash in low light? Go for the K-7, which is an overall better capable >camera for sure. >2) Do you shoot with available light? The K-x is far better for that. IMO, >all of the K-7 pluses put together cannot compensate for the huge difference >in image quality in favor of the K-x above ISO 400. > >Whichever you choose now, it is likely after Photokina you'll want to jump >all feet on such camera and replace it with one of the new ones for a good >reason :-) > >Dario > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow >the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
The problem is that I'm not spending $1600 on a camera. The new Kr will be about the same price as the current K7, but I suspect it will be a better version of the Kx. That's really good but it probably won't have K7 features. I see the K7 as my "shoot the race" body with the FA135 and the E-P1 with the lumix 1.7 as the "Epcot at night" camera. On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: > Steven Desjardins wrote: > >> I thought of that, but I'd like to buy a new body. KEH has two K7 now >> for $789 and $819 which is not much of a savings, and I don't think >> I'd buy one off ebay, etc. >> >> I do like your comment "But K-x has a sensor second to none." I think >> Canon and Nikon might contest that. Of course, it could be a better >> sensor than the K7. I'm not one that too fussy about micro-artifacts >> however. > > I've used both the K-7 and the K-x and my advice is simple: > 1) Do you shoot mainly in good/reasonable light, using ISO 100 to 400 and > add flash in low light? Go for the K-7, which is an overall better capable > camera for sure. > 2) Do you shoot with available light? The K-x is far better for that. IMO, > all of the K-7 pluses put together cannot compensate for the huge difference > in image quality in favor of the K-x above ISO 400. > > Whichever you choose now, it is likely after Photokina you'll want to jump > all feet on such camera and replace it with one of the new ones for a good > reason :-) > > Dario > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Steven Desjardins wrote: I thought of that, but I'd like to buy a new body. KEH has two K7 now for $789 and $819 which is not much of a savings, and I don't think I'd buy one off ebay, etc. I do like your comment "But K-x has a sensor second to none." I think Canon and Nikon might contest that. Of course, it could be a better sensor than the K7. I'm not one that too fussy about micro-artifacts however. I've used both the K-7 and the K-x and my advice is simple: 1) Do you shoot mainly in good/reasonable light, using ISO 100 to 400 and add flash in low light? Go for the K-7, which is an overall better capable camera for sure. 2) Do you shoot with available light? The K-x is far better for that. IMO, all of the K-7 pluses put together cannot compensate for the huge difference in image quality in favor of the K-x above ISO 400. Whichever you choose now, it is likely after Photokina you'll want to jump all feet on such camera and replace it with one of the new ones for a good reason :-) Dario -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
I thought of that, but I'd like to buy a new body. KEH has two K7 now for $789 and $819 which is not much of a savings, and I don't think I'd buy one off ebay, etc. I do like your comment "But K-x has a sensor second to none." I think Canon and Nikon might contest that. Of course, it could be a better sensor than the K7. I'm not one that too fussy about micro-artifacts however. On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > There is yet another possibility, Steve. When new Pentax cameras are > announced, there'll be a lot of people selling their K7's and K-x's (and > other, older bodies) in order to upgrade. At this moment, you may find an > excellent specimen of K7 or K-x for more than a reasonable price. > > Personally, having seen briefly K-x in Chicago I should say that I have only > one major ergonomic reservation about this camera. The viewfinder. It is > very very small... On K7 (and separately on K10D) I've a magnifying eye cap. > It is not enough, but it is better than nothing. Other than that, given that > on K-x you can set its only wheel to do a program shift (thereby attaining a > good half of hyper-P double wheeled operation of K7) - it is pretty much a > toss up... > > K7 has better viewfinder, metering, AF, you name it. But K-x has a sensor > second to none. This is what K7 lacks. > > Also, having most of your Pentax gear sold, why don't you do the logical > thing and let it go completely? > > Boris (who's himself is sitting on the fence here) > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On 8/31/2010 12:18 PM, eckinator wrote: 2010/8/31 Boris Liberman: I'm keepin' mine... So you've come off the fence then? Well, no. I am on the fence still... There are different ways to sit on the fence, you know ;-). E.g. one can bring a comfortable chair, attach it firmly and sit on it with the fence beneath them... :-) Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
2010/8/31 Boris Liberman : > I'm keepin' mine... So you've come off the fence then? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
I'm keepin' mine... On 8/31/2010 12:06 AM, Miserere wrote: On 30 August 2010 02:18, Boris Liberman wrote: There is yet another possibility, Steve. When new Pentax cameras are announced, there'll be a lot of people selling their K7's and K-x's... Yeah, and my K10D. Any takers??? :-D One thing you didn't mention about the K-7: It only comes in booring black. P! --M. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
I was at WallyWorld today and saw Pop Photo for the first time in ages. Big Ol' K7 on the cover. They extolled the virtues of the K7 and the DA 55-300 as a serious but affordable nature kit. They like the Kx two lens kit as well, but the K7 with a Sigma 10-20 made the cover as a "cityscape/landscape camera. PP always did give Pentax a little dap. On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: > M, > I've got some spray paint cans, we can make any color you want. :-) > Regards, Bob S. > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Miserere wrote: >> On 30 August 2010 02:18, Boris Liberman wrote: >>> There is yet another possibility, Steve. When new Pentax cameras are >>> announced, there'll be a lot of people selling their K7's and K-x's... >> >> Yeah, and my K10D. Any takers??? :-D >> >> One thing you didn't mention about the K-7: It only comes in >> booring black. P! >> >> >> --M. >> -- >> >> \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com >> >> http://EnticingTheLight.com >> A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
M, I've got some spray paint cans, we can make any color you want. :-) Regards, Bob S. On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Miserere wrote: > On 30 August 2010 02:18, Boris Liberman wrote: >> There is yet another possibility, Steve. When new Pentax cameras are >> announced, there'll be a lot of people selling their K7's and K-x's... > > Yeah, and my K10D. Any takers??? :-D > > One thing you didn't mention about the K-7: It only comes in > booring black. P! > > > --M. > -- > > \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com > > http://EnticingTheLight.com > A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On 30 August 2010 02:18, Boris Liberman wrote: > There is yet another possibility, Steve. When new Pentax cameras are > announced, there'll be a lot of people selling their K7's and K-x's... Yeah, and my K10D. Any takers??? :-D One thing you didn't mention about the K-7: It only comes in booring black. P! --M. -- \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On Aug 30, 2010, at 11:12 , P N Stenquist wrote: On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:16 AM, CheekyGeek wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Charles Robinson wrote: And weather sealing. I'll go on record as saying that I don't think that weather sealing is coming back on anything other than flagship model. Weather sealing was one reason I personally liked the K200D and I'm sorry it is gone on the K-x, but in terms of affecting the sales of people looking to buy a $500 camera - I don't think it moves the needle. I'm not looking to buy a $500 camera, but I couldn't survive without weather sealing. I shot for five hours in the rain last weekend, including numerous periods of heavy downpour. With the K7 and DA* lenses, I didn't have to give it a second thought. Need that, love that. Paul And I shoot in a dog park that in the summer leaves me in a cloud of the finest dust a good percentage of the time. So far, none of it has penetrated my K7's defenses, though I'm sure if I went out in the rain anytime soon I would see brown mud running out of the nooks and crannies of the buttons and dials. As an aside (I always have at least one) I recently imaged about an hours worth of video at the park, using a Sony stereo clip on mike clipped to the top of the lens shade. It looks and sounds great on my iMac 24" in full screen. I do not know when I will find the time to learn iMovie well enough to edit it into something viewable by others. I had an appreciation for the work needed by videographers to make something interesting to sit through. Perhaps Cotty will give me some lessons the next time he visits the states of insanity that we call home. :-) Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com “It is still true, as was first said many years ago, that people are the only sophisticated computing devices that can be made at low cost by unskilled workers!” — Martin G. Wolf, PhD -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:16 AM, CheekyGeek wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Charles Robinson wrote: And weather sealing. I'll go on record as saying that I don't think that weather sealing is coming back on anything other than flagship model. Weather sealing was one reason I personally liked the K200D and I'm sorry it is gone on the K-x, but in terms of affecting the sales of people looking to buy a $500 camera - I don't think it moves the needle. I'm not looking to buy a $500 camera, but I couldn't survive without weather sealing. I shot for five hours in the rain last weekend, including numerous periods of heavy downpour. With the K7 and DA* lenses, I didn't have to give it a second thought. Need that, love that. Paul Darren Addy Kearney, NE -- Nothing is sure, except Death and Pentaxes. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
2010/8/30 CheekyGeek : > >> And weather sealing. > > I'll go on record as saying that I don't think that weather sealing is > coming back on anything other than flagship model. As long as they keep it on one model I'll be happy. It is why I chose Pentax in the first place. Cheers Ecke - Cameras don’t shoot people. Photographers shoot people. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Charles Robinson wrote: > And weather sealing. I'll go on record as saying that I don't think that weather sealing is coming back on anything other than flagship model. Weather sealing was one reason I personally liked the K200D and I'm sorry it is gone on the K-x, but in terms of affecting the sales of people looking to buy a $500 camera - I don't think it moves the needle. Darren Addy Kearney, NE -- Nothing is sure, except Death and Pentaxes. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On Aug 29, 2010, at 21:15, P N Stenquist wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2010, at 9:46 PM, CheekyGeek wrote: >> >> Frankly, I don't think you could ever regret getting a K-x. IF the K-r >> is indeed an upgrade then cross that bridge when you come to it. The >> K7 I would consider only if having the two dials is the most important >> feature to you. >> > And vertical controls, extended battery life, large buffer, more frames per > second, higher resolution, etc. > And weather sealing. -Charles -- Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Based on your thoughts I would agree the K-x would be competing. The K7 seems to be the better choice for you. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. drd1...@gmail.com wrote: >The E-P1 will probably be my low light camera since it's the one I'll grab to >go walking around with. For me its mostly a question of actually taking the >camera with me for events where photography is not the main purpose. The more >I think about it, the Kx and the E-P1 may be competing for the same job. >Shooting off the LCD is even better in low light. This is what has me >thinking about the K7 as the "serious work" camera, like a motorcycle race. >-Original Message- >From: Bruce Dayton >Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net >Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:46:33 >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: K7 or Kx > >Good question, with only opinions for answers. First off you have to ask >yourself what the primary use of this camera will be. Any professional use or >strictly amateur. The K-x is extremely well speced and is a bargain. It is >very small and light and handles well. It is also tops when it comes to low >light work. > >The K7 is a pro build, solid workhorse that is really designed to be used and >abused. Everything about it is excellent. The one "weakness" is the sensor >isn't as good at low light a the K-x. > >So I see it as the K-x is your choice if low light work is a major issue or if >the camera will be used moderately. The K7 is your choice if you are looking >for a real "go to" camera that is going to be used a lot. >-- >Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. > >"Steven Desjardins" wrote: > >>Geez, the Leica thread turned into an "everybody sucks" thread. >>Here's a photographic opinion question for the combined wisdom of the >>list. >> >>OK, so the last time I saved up money I ended up buying an E-P1 and a >>Lumix 20mm 1.7. Combined with the macro 50 it's my walk around Disney >>World, etc., kit. I just did a major culling of the Pentax gear and >>only have the FA20-35, FA50 1.4 and the FA135 2.8 left. I need a new >>main body (I do have the *ist D and Ds left but not what I want to go >>with). The Kx and K7 should be coming down a bit in price because of >>the Kr and K5. I have about $900 but the Kr looks a lot like an >>upgraded Kx with the same sensor. I can go with the Kx and get a >>couple of kit lenses for about $100 extra (the 18-55 and the 55-300) >>or just blow it all on the K7. there are lots of advantages to the Kx >>but the K7 might make a better compliment to the E-P1. Also, this >>body has to last a bit. Since I'd like to start spending future funds >>on lenses, especially since I'm now keeping two kits. Thoughts? >> >>BTW, any opinions about how long I should wait for the "best to within >>$100" Kx/K7 price? >>-- >>Steve Desjardins >> >>-- >>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>PDML@pdml.net >>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow >>the directions. >> > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow >the directions. >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow >the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
There is yet another possibility, Steve. When new Pentax cameras are announced, there'll be a lot of people selling their K7's and K-x's (and other, older bodies) in order to upgrade. At this moment, you may find an excellent specimen of K7 or K-x for more than a reasonable price. Personally, having seen briefly K-x in Chicago I should say that I have only one major ergonomic reservation about this camera. The viewfinder. It is very very small... On K7 (and separately on K10D) I've a magnifying eye cap. It is not enough, but it is better than nothing. Other than that, given that on K-x you can set its only wheel to do a program shift (thereby attaining a good half of hyper-P double wheeled operation of K7) - it is pretty much a toss up... K7 has better viewfinder, metering, AF, you name it. But K-x has a sensor second to none. This is what K7 lacks. Also, having most of your Pentax gear sold, why don't you do the logical thing and let it go completely? Boris (who's himself is sitting on the fence here) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
The E-P1 will probably be my low light camera since it's the one I'll grab to go walking around with. For me its mostly a question of actually taking the camera with me for events where photography is not the main purpose. The more I think about it, the Kx and the E-P1 may be competing for the same job. Shooting off the LCD is even better in low light. This is what has me thinking about the K7 as the "serious work" camera, like a motorcycle race. -Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:46:33 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K7 or Kx Good question, with only opinions for answers. First off you have to ask yourself what the primary use of this camera will be. Any professional use or strictly amateur. The K-x is extremely well speced and is a bargain. It is very small and light and handles well. It is also tops when it comes to low light work. The K7 is a pro build, solid workhorse that is really designed to be used and abused. Everything about it is excellent. The one "weakness" is the sensor isn't as good at low light a the K-x. So I see it as the K-x is your choice if low light work is a major issue or if the camera will be used moderately. The K7 is your choice if you are looking for a real "go to" camera that is going to be used a lot. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. "Steven Desjardins" wrote: >Geez, the Leica thread turned into an "everybody sucks" thread. >Here's a photographic opinion question for the combined wisdom of the >list. > >OK, so the last time I saved up money I ended up buying an E-P1 and a >Lumix 20mm 1.7. Combined with the macro 50 it's my walk around Disney >World, etc., kit. I just did a major culling of the Pentax gear and >only have the FA20-35, FA50 1.4 and the FA135 2.8 left. I need a new >main body (I do have the *ist D and Ds left but not what I want to go >with). The Kx and K7 should be coming down a bit in price because of >the Kr and K5. I have about $900 but the Kr looks a lot like an >upgraded Kx with the same sensor. I can go with the Kx and get a >couple of kit lenses for about $100 extra (the 18-55 and the 55-300) >or just blow it all on the K7. there are lots of advantages to the Kx >but the K7 might make a better compliment to the E-P1. Also, this >body has to last a bit. Since I'd like to start spending future funds >on lenses, especially since I'm now keeping two kits. Thoughts? > >BTW, any opinions about how long I should wait for the "best to within >$100" Kx/K7 price? >-- >Steve Desjardins > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow >the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On Aug 29, 2010, at 2:47 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > Geez, the Leica thread turned into an "everybody sucks" thread. > Here's a photographic opinion question for the combined wisdom of the > list. > > OK, so the last time I saved up money I ended up buying an E-P1 and a > Lumix 20mm 1.7. Combined with the macro 50 it's my walk around Disney > World, etc., kit. I just did a major culling of the Pentax gear and > only have the FA20-35, FA50 1.4 and the FA135 2.8 left. I need a new > main body (I do have the *ist D and Ds left but not what I want to go > with). The Kx and K7 should be coming down a bit in price because of > the Kr and K5. I have about $900 but the Kr looks a lot like an > upgraded Kx with the same sensor. I can go with the Kx and get a > couple of kit lenses for about $100 extra (the 18-55 and the 55-300) > or just blow it all on the K7. there are lots of advantages to the Kx > but the K7 might make a better compliment to the E-P1. Also, this > body has to last a bit. Since I'd like to start spending future funds > on lenses, especially since I'm now keeping two kits. Thoughts? 1) Wait at least until October to make a decision. 2) If you're doing a lot of work in good light, or bad weather, the K-7 is probably a better camera. 3) If faster autofocus and dead nuts on metering are critical, then the K-7 is probably a better camera. Other than that, it seems that the typical scenario is for people to buy a K-x for it's high-iso, with the intent of using it as their second body, and find out that they use it more than their nominally better body. When I use my K-20, I'm reminded of how nice having two control wheels, and focus indicators are. But, the K20 isn't the camera that I carry in my fanny pack, so it's not the camera I tend to use when I just happen to see a shot. I'm curious about how many people on this list have both. I was planning up upgrading from the K100 to the K-7, but got tired of waiting and got the K20 instead. The K-7 didn't seem to have enough performance advantage for the cost over the K20 to make it worth the money. The K-x, however was cheap enough that I could treat it as a replacement for the K100. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Good question, with only opinions for answers. First off you have to ask yourself what the primary use of this camera will be. Any professional use or strictly amateur. The K-x is extremely well speced and is a bargain. It is very small and light and handles well. It is also tops when it comes to low light work. The K7 is a pro build, solid workhorse that is really designed to be used and abused. Everything about it is excellent. The one "weakness" is the sensor isn't as good at low light a the K-x. So I see it as the K-x is your choice if low light work is a major issue or if the camera will be used moderately. The K7 is your choice if you are looking for a real "go to" camera that is going to be used a lot. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. "Steven Desjardins" wrote: >Geez, the Leica thread turned into an "everybody sucks" thread. >Here's a photographic opinion question for the combined wisdom of the >list. > >OK, so the last time I saved up money I ended up buying an E-P1 and a >Lumix 20mm 1.7. Combined with the macro 50 it's my walk around Disney >World, etc., kit. I just did a major culling of the Pentax gear and >only have the FA20-35, FA50 1.4 and the FA135 2.8 left. I need a new >main body (I do have the *ist D and Ds left but not what I want to go >with). The Kx and K7 should be coming down a bit in price because of >the Kr and K5. I have about $900 but the Kr looks a lot like an >upgraded Kx with the same sensor. I can go with the Kx and get a >couple of kit lenses for about $100 extra (the 18-55 and the 55-300) >or just blow it all on the K7. there are lots of advantages to the Kx >but the K7 might make a better compliment to the E-P1. Also, this >body has to last a bit. Since I'd like to start spending future funds >on lenses, especially since I'm now keeping two kits. Thoughts? > >BTW, any opinions about how long I should wait for the "best to within >$100" Kx/K7 price? >-- >Steve Desjardins > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow >the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Actually it was ”everyone sucks" at the national level. They're all just jealous that the Brits were so good at it. That's who we learned from, after all. Damn, I just ruined another thread. They'd better release those Kr/5 specs soon. -Original Message- From: CheekyGeek Sender: pdml-boun...@pdml.net Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 20:46:42 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K7 or Kx Gee, I'll have to go back and read that Leica thread now. However, it is my considered opinion before reading it that a good number of list members need to up their intake of fibre. : ) My thoughts on YOUR question... I went from a K200D to a K-x. Honestly, if I had to choose between a K7 and a K-x, I'd take a K-x. It is a fantastic camera and a bargain at the price it is selling for now, IQ-wise. If the K-r does indeed have the same sensor and the same IQ capabilities, with the addition of an external jack (etc.) A number of people will probably be upgrading and used K-x will be plentiful. But it will be a while before that happens. I'm doubtful that there will be rebates on the K-x, as it is selling well where it is now, but the K-7 could see some discounts. Frankly, I don't think you could ever regret getting a K-x. IF the K-r is indeed an upgrade then cross that bridge when you come to it. The K7 I would consider only if having the two dials is the most important feature to you. Darren Addy Kearney, Nebraska -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
On Aug 29, 2010, at 9:46 PM, CheekyGeek wrote: Gee, I'll have to go back and read that Leica thread now. However, it is my considered opinion before reading it that a good number of list members need to up their intake of fibre. : ) My thoughts on YOUR question... I went from a K200D to a K-x. Honestly, if I had to choose between a K7 and a K-x, I'd take a K-x. It is a fantastic camera and a bargain at the price it is selling for now, IQ-wise. If the K-r does indeed have the same sensor and the same IQ capabilities, with the addition of an external jack (etc.) A number of people will probably be upgrading and used K-x will be plentiful. But it will be a while before that happens. I'm doubtful that there will be rebates on the K-x, as it is selling well where it is now, but the K-7 could see some discounts. Frankly, I don't think you could ever regret getting a K-x. IF the K-r is indeed an upgrade then cross that bridge when you come to it. The K7 I would consider only if having the two dials is the most important feature to you. And vertical controls, extended battery life, large buffer, more frames per second, higher resolution, etc. Darren Addy Kearney, Nebraska -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K7 or Kx
Gee, I'll have to go back and read that Leica thread now. However, it is my considered opinion before reading it that a good number of list members need to up their intake of fibre. : ) My thoughts on YOUR question... I went from a K200D to a K-x. Honestly, if I had to choose between a K7 and a K-x, I'd take a K-x. It is a fantastic camera and a bargain at the price it is selling for now, IQ-wise. If the K-r does indeed have the same sensor and the same IQ capabilities, with the addition of an external jack (etc.) A number of people will probably be upgrading and used K-x will be plentiful. But it will be a while before that happens. I'm doubtful that there will be rebates on the K-x, as it is selling well where it is now, but the K-7 could see some discounts. Frankly, I don't think you could ever regret getting a K-x. IF the K-r is indeed an upgrade then cross that bridge when you come to it. The K7 I would consider only if having the two dials is the most important feature to you. Darren Addy Kearney, Nebraska -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
K7 or Kx
Geez, the Leica thread turned into an "everybody sucks" thread. Here's a photographic opinion question for the combined wisdom of the list. OK, so the last time I saved up money I ended up buying an E-P1 and a Lumix 20mm 1.7. Combined with the macro 50 it's my walk around Disney World, etc., kit. I just did a major culling of the Pentax gear and only have the FA20-35, FA50 1.4 and the FA135 2.8 left. I need a new main body (I do have the *ist D and Ds left but not what I want to go with). The Kx and K7 should be coming down a bit in price because of the Kr and K5. I have about $900 but the Kr looks a lot like an upgraded Kx with the same sensor. I can go with the Kx and get a couple of kit lenses for about $100 extra (the 18-55 and the 55-300) or just blow it all on the K7. there are lots of advantages to the Kx but the K7 might make a better compliment to the E-P1. Also, this body has to last a bit. Since I'd like to start spending future funds on lenses, especially since I'm now keeping two kits. Thoughts? BTW, any opinions about how long I should wait for the "best to within $100" Kx/K7 price? -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
