Re: DPR review of K-7
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 08:25:06AM -0400, paul stenquist wrote: I had a K20D and a K10D. The K20D was my every day camera, and the K10D was a backup. When the K7 was introduced I bought one and sold the K10. Believe me, the K7D is a big step up from the K20. Exposure DON'T SAY THINGS LIKE THAT WHEN I'M UNEMPLOYED. is much better, the faster write speed is a blessing, and the LA LA LA LA LA autofocus is superior in every situation I've encountered. I find it I CAN'T HEAR YOU difficult to use the K20 these days, although it's fine for when I LA LA LA LA have to shoot with two cameras. Do you use the battery grip to shoot with your left hand? -- The first step is learning to take great photos, the second step is learning to throw away ones that are merely good. Larry Colen l...@red4est.comhttp://www.red4est.com/lrc -- 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: DPR review of K-7
2009/10/5 Larry Colen l...@red4est.com: Do you use the battery grip to shoot with your left hand? RESISTANCE is useless. :-) -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Tom C wrote: Not being argumentative, just thinking out loud and thinking that because of the short life cycle of digital products, maybe our parameters for measuring them should also be changing. Before the introduction of the *ist D, this was discussed at length and from memory, most of the things that were written then have come to pass. At the time, the biggest issues I had about digital SLRs, were the cost, durability and how quickly it would become obsolete and worthless. I've been pretty much found wrong on all of these points, although the most difficult thing (that I still struggle with at times) is the mindset of film v digital cameras. When you have had a camera 20+ years and the only thing you use is film, it is hard to see the camera itself as a consumable, and I agree with your comment above. Anyway, the cost issue, is pretty much the same investment as a film camera, with the same pros and cons on choice. Durability has been a great surprise, and the original *ist D still goes strong and the only times it has played up a little has been when on low battery power. And although some years back we discussed the fact that these cameras would quickly date and be replaced - which has happened - they are certainly worth something some years on, and not the dispose of nil value I had imagined. Once you throw the reduction of film costs and processing in, mine paid for itself years ago. I always intended to get the 'next but one' replacement - what turned out to be the K20D, but events always stopped that from happening and so a K-7 is on order. From my position as a current *ist D owner, that represents a great leap forward, and I now have the confidence that it will last me until the 'next but one' replacement for this, whatever that may be. Malcolm -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Malcolm, You held out a long time and will be blown away by the K-7. Anti-shake, more pixels, better rendering,,,you're gonna love it! Some adjustment of your photo processing software hardware may be necessary. I still have my original *ist DS. It has been superceded by better offerings from Pentax, but it is still perfectly servicable for most picture taking opportunities. Regards, Bob S. On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Malcolm Smith malcolmsmi...@btinternet.com wrote: Tom C wrote: Not being argumentative, just thinking out loud and thinking that because of the short life cycle of digital products, maybe our parameters for measuring them should also be changing. Before the introduction of the *ist D, this was discussed at length and from memory, most of the things that were written then have come to pass. At the time, the biggest issues I had about digital SLRs, were the cost, durability and how quickly it would become obsolete and worthless. I've been pretty much found wrong on all of these points, although the most difficult thing (that I still struggle with at times) is the mindset of film v digital cameras. When you have had a camera 20+ years and the only thing you use is film, it is hard to see the camera itself as a consumable, and I agree with your comment above. Anyway, the cost issue, is pretty much the same investment as a film camera, with the same pros and cons on choice. Durability has been a great surprise, and the original *ist D still goes strong and the only times it has played up a little has been when on low battery power. And although some years back we discussed the fact that these cameras would quickly date and be replaced - which has happened - they are certainly worth something some years on, and not the dispose of nil value I had imagined. Once you throw the reduction of film costs and processing in, mine paid for itself years ago. I always intended to get the 'next but one' replacement - what turned out to be the K20D, but events always stopped that from happening and so a K-7 is on order. From my position as a current *ist D owner, that represents a great leap forward, and I now have the confidence that it will last me until the 'next but one' replacement for this, whatever that may be. Malcolm -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Bob Sullivan wrote: You held out a long time and will be blown away by the K-7. Anti-shake, more pixels, better rendering,,,you're gonna love it! Some adjustment of your photo processing software hardware may be necessary. I still have my original *ist DS. It has been superceded by better offerings from Pentax, but it is still perfectly servicable for most picture taking opportunities. My intention as I said before was to buy every other one that came out; had it not been the morning I came down and found my dishwasher had packed up a couple of months ago, I would now own a K20D. Nothing I've read would have made me unhappy with the purchase. Of course now the K-7 comments have led me to buying it, and with all you say, and the jump from the *ist D, it will feel a very big leap forward. I was amazed at some of the YouTube footage of K-7 previews. Soon enough Bob I will see for myself! Malcolm -- 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: DPR review of K-7
I have an *istD sitting right behind me in my office at work. It's the official dept. camera. We will continue to use it until it breaks. We just don't' need more MP or AF speed. Eventually, I think that more cameras will be like that. $2000 or less, 32 MP, acceptable AF speed. Shoot RAW, let the PC do the processing. You could have a camera like that for 10 years before upgrading, maybe longer, just like a film camera. How long do you think the new Leica M9 will be in service before in ends up in Technotrash? -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Malcolm Smith Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 4:58 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: DPR review of K-7 Tom C wrote: Not being argumentative, just thinking out loud and thinking that because of the short life cycle of digital products, maybe our parameters for measuring them should also be changing. Before the introduction of the *ist D, this was discussed at length and from memory, most of the things that were written then have come to pass. At the time, the biggest issues I had about digital SLRs, were the cost, durability and how quickly it would become obsolete and worthless. I've been pretty much found wrong on all of these points, although the most difficult thing (that I still struggle with at times) is the mindset of film v digital cameras. When you have had a camera 20+ years and the only thing you use is film, it is hard to see the camera itself as a consumable, and I agree with your comment above. Anyway, the cost issue, is pretty much the same investment as a film camera, with the same pros and cons on choice. Durability has been a great surprise, and the original *ist D still goes strong and the only times it has played up a little has been when on low battery power. And although some years back we discussed the fact that these cameras would quickly date and be replaced - which has happened - they are certainly worth something some years on, and not the dispose of nil value I had imagined. Once you throw the reduction of film costs and processing in, mine paid for itself years ago. I always intended to get the 'next but one' replacement - what turned out to be the K20D, but events always stopped that from happening and so a K-7 is on order. From my position as a current *ist D owner, that represents a great leap forward, and I now have the confidence that it will last me until the 'next but one' replacement for this, whatever that may be. Malcolm -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Steve Desjardins wrote: I have an *istD sitting right behind me in my office at work. It's the official dept. camera. We will continue to use it until it breaks. We just don't' need more MP or AF speed. Eventually, I think that more cameras will be like that. $2000 or less, 32 MP, acceptable AF speed. Shoot RAW, let the PC do the processing. You could have a camera like that for 10 years before upgrading, maybe longer, just like a film camera. Mine is destined for the car. How long do you think the new Leica M9 will be in service before in ends up in Technotrash? A-ha! Trick question. How many do you think will ever leave the display cabinet/vault? Malcolm -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Granted, the older DSLR's likely still work and mine do also. And for those applications where more MP are not necessary they are certainly still useful. My son just had a short part-time opportunity doing real estate inspections, and it made sense to use the lowest resolution setting on the camera because the photos were only going to be on a website for a short while and upload speed was important. But when it comes to purchasing a digital camera for personal use I think most of us tend to purchase the best that we can afford at the present time. We used to get relatively frequent improvement by switching to a new higher grained film, or a better lens, and moving to a different format was a gigantic leap. In a business setting an older outdated camera can see plenty of use, just like other assets may. But in a personal setting, if I'm going to make the effort to go out and photograph and carry all the gear, it's my best camera and lenses I'm reaching for. Tom On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Desjardins, Steve desjard...@wlu.edu wrote: I have an *istD sitting right behind me in my office at work. It's the official dept. camera. We will continue to use it until it breaks. We just don't' need more MP or AF speed. Eventually, I think that more cameras will be like that. $2000 or less, 32 MP, acceptable AF speed. Shoot RAW, let the PC do the processing. You could have a camera like that for 10 years before upgrading, maybe longer, just like a film camera. How long do you think the new Leica M9 will be in service before in ends up in Technotrash? -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Malcolm Smith Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 4:58 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: DPR review of K-7 Tom C wrote: Not being argumentative, just thinking out loud and thinking that because of the short life cycle of digital products, maybe our parameters for measuring them should also be changing. Before the introduction of the *ist D, this was discussed at length and from memory, most of the things that were written then have come to pass. At the time, the biggest issues I had about digital SLRs, were the cost, durability and how quickly it would become obsolete and worthless. I've been pretty much found wrong on all of these points, although the most difficult thing (that I still struggle with at times) is the mindset of film v digital cameras. When you have had a camera 20+ years and the only thing you use is film, it is hard to see the camera itself as a consumable, and I agree with your comment above. Anyway, the cost issue, is pretty much the same investment as a film camera, with the same pros and cons on choice. Durability has been a great surprise, and the original *ist D still goes strong and the only times it has played up a little has been when on low battery power. And although some years back we discussed the fact that these cameras would quickly date and be replaced - which has happened - they are certainly worth something some years on, and not the dispose of nil value I had imagined. Once you throw the reduction of film costs and processing in, mine paid for itself years ago. I always intended to get the 'next but one' replacement - what turned out to be the K20D, but events always stopped that from happening and so a K-7 is on order. From my position as a current *ist D owner, that represents a great leap forward, and I now have the confidence that it will last me until the 'next but one' replacement for this, whatever that may be. Malcolm -- 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: DPR review of K-7
I meant to writelower grained/higher resolution film. On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: Granted, the older DSLR's likely still work and mine do also. And for those applications where more MP are not necessary they are certainly still useful. My son just had a short part-time opportunity doing real estate inspections, and it made sense to use the lowest resolution setting on the camera because the photos were only going to be on a website for a short while and upload speed was important. But when it comes to purchasing a digital camera for personal use I think most of us tend to purchase the best that we can afford at the present time. We used to get relatively frequent improvement by switching to a new higher grained film, or a better lens, and moving to a different format was a gigantic leap. In a business setting an older outdated camera can see plenty of use, just like other assets may. But in a personal setting, if I'm going to make the effort to go out and photograph and carry all the gear, it's my best camera and lenses I'm reaching for. Tom On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Desjardins, Steve desjard...@wlu.edu wrote: I have an *istD sitting right behind me in my office at work. It's the official dept. camera. We will continue to use it until it breaks. We just don't' need more MP or AF speed. Eventually, I think that more cameras will be like that. $2000 or less, 32 MP, acceptable AF speed. Shoot RAW, let the PC do the processing. You could have a camera like that for 10 years before upgrading, maybe longer, just like a film camera. How long do you think the new Leica M9 will be in service before in ends up in Technotrash? -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Malcolm Smith Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 4:58 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: DPR review of K-7 Tom C wrote: Not being argumentative, just thinking out loud and thinking that because of the short life cycle of digital products, maybe our parameters for measuring them should also be changing. Before the introduction of the *ist D, this was discussed at length and from memory, most of the things that were written then have come to pass. At the time, the biggest issues I had about digital SLRs, were the cost, durability and how quickly it would become obsolete and worthless. I've been pretty much found wrong on all of these points, although the most difficult thing (that I still struggle with at times) is the mindset of film v digital cameras. When you have had a camera 20+ years and the only thing you use is film, it is hard to see the camera itself as a consumable, and I agree with your comment above. Anyway, the cost issue, is pretty much the same investment as a film camera, with the same pros and cons on choice. Durability has been a great surprise, and the original *ist D still goes strong and the only times it has played up a little has been when on low battery power. And although some years back we discussed the fact that these cameras would quickly date and be replaced - which has happened - they are certainly worth something some years on, and not the dispose of nil value I had imagined. Once you throw the reduction of film costs and processing in, mine paid for itself years ago. I always intended to get the 'next but one' replacement - what turned out to be the K20D, but events always stopped that from happening and so a K-7 is on order. From my position as a current *ist D owner, that represents a great leap forward, and I now have the confidence that it will last me until the 'next but one' replacement for this, whatever that may be. Malcolm -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Desjardins, Steve desjard...@wlu.edu wrote: I have an *istD sitting right behind me in my office at work. It's the official dept. camera. We will continue to use it until it breaks. We just don't' need more MP or AF speed. Eventually, I think that more cameras will be like that. $2000 or less, 32 MP, acceptable AF speed. Shoot RAW, let the PC do the processing. You could have a camera like that for 10 years before upgrading, maybe longer, just like a film camera. How long do you think the new Leica M9 will be in service before in ends up in Technotrash? I've discovered that today's semi-pro cameras have pretty much hit the 'I don't need any more' point for me. Having now owned the Nikon D300, Panasonic G1 and Olympus E-30 over the last year and a half I've pretty much concluded that if it gives me cleanish ISO 1600 in colour, usable 3200 in BW and has reasonable AF, buffer depth and viewfinder I'm satisfied. Oh, and I want Live View with a flip-twist LCD, makes tripod work oh so much easier on the neck back. The K-7 looks extremely good under my requirements. If the E-30 hadn't offered near-complete lens compatibility with the G1, I'd have a K-7 now. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote: Although I don't know what your specific exposure issue is, I have never shot in other than RAW, so am fine with a bit of under exposure. Much prefer to apply a slight +exposure nudge than deal with dreaded blown highlights. I can take 4 or 5 shots of the same subject and will have to change the EV 2-3 times. OTOH i can set the EV on my D200 or D2h and pretty much leave it there for similar lighting conditions. The K10D is all over the place. It tends to be frustrating Dave Jack --- On Sat, 10/3/09, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: From: William Robb war...@gmail.com Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009, 6:40 PM - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 Yeah, as much as I've given reasons for not getting a K-7, I still might. If the exposure control control was much improved that could make me happy for a while... and if I can sell a couple of items on e-bay, as Paul suggests, it could make it less of a hit. Let's see... if I order it Monday with expedited shipping so that it arrives on Wednesday when she's gone for the day... it'll be just like getting the K20D. It looks like the *istD to her and in her mind it is. :-) FWIW, the exposure accuracy of the K-7 does seem better than the K10/K20, and the *istD (which I found to be really bad). -- 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. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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: DPR review of K-7
yup, k10d is pretty much rubbish compared even to the old meter on my spotmatic. On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:17 PM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote: Although I don't know what your specific exposure issue is, I have never shot in other than RAW, so am fine with a bit of under exposure. Much prefer to apply a slight +exposure nudge than deal with dreaded blown highlights. I can take 4 or 5 shots of the same subject and will have to change the EV 2-3 times. OTOH i can set the EV on my D200 or D2h and pretty much leave it there for similar lighting conditions. The K10D is all over the place. It tends to be frustrating Dave Jack --- On Sat, 10/3/09, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: From: William Robb war...@gmail.com Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009, 6:40 PM - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 Yeah, as much as I've given reasons for not getting a K-7, I still might. If the exposure control control was much improved that could make me happy for a while... and if I can sell a couple of items on e-bay, as Paul suggests, it could make it less of a hit. Let's see... if I order it Monday with expedited shipping so that it arrives on Wednesday when she's gone for the day... it'll be just like getting the K20D. It looks like the *istD to her and in her mind it is. :-) FWIW, the exposure accuracy of the K-7 does seem better than the K10/K20, and the *istD (which I found to be really bad). -- 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. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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: DPR review of K-7
I keep my K10D on 5 shot -1-.5-0+.5+1 auto bracketing whenever I'm serious about a shot in non basic light... glad I ain't shoot'n film. I agree it is an issue. I had mine readjusted by Pentax but had it changed back because low light metering had become a nightmare. I've learned to work around it. And I know it is worth my while - today I was out for a walk in the rain again in a major photo area and the only other guy beside me was a pro with a D700 - all the Canikon people were at home keeping their gear dry while I was happily shooting away =) Cheers Ecke 2009/10/4 David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com: On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote: Although I don't know what your specific exposure issue is, I have never shot in other than RAW, so am fine with a bit of under exposure. Much prefer to apply a slight +exposure nudge than deal with dreaded blown highlights. I can take 4 or 5 shots of the same subject and will have to change the EV 2-3 times. OTOH i can set the EV on my D200 or D2h and pretty much leave it there for similar lighting conditions. The K10D is all over the place. It tends to be frustrating Dave Jack --- On Sat, 10/3/09, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: From: William Robb war...@gmail.com Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009, 6:40 PM - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 Yeah, as much as I've given reasons for not getting a K-7, I still might. If the exposure control control was much improved that could make me happy for a while... and if I can sell a couple of items on e-bay, as Paul suggests, it could make it less of a hit. Let's see... if I order it Monday with expedited shipping so that it arrives on Wednesday when she's gone for the day... it'll be just like getting the K20D. It looks like the *istD to her and in her mind it is. :-) FWIW, the exposure accuracy of the K-7 does seem better than the K10/K20, and the *istD (which I found to be really bad). -- 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. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Jim King wrote: You don't have to cope with larger files; just set the resolution to 10MP (or even less, if you want) and image file size will be the same as with the K10D. Um, yeah, right. I'm going to spend a thousand bucks on a new camera, then I'm going to detune the resolution. I don't think so. :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Tom C wrote: I've got an *istD and another derivative of it sitting on the shelf collecting dust, and I see the K20D soon becoming a paper-weight as well. Mark! -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Tim Bray tb...@textuality.com wrote: The Pentax K-7 manages to combine ... etc ... On the other hand, it would appear that if if you've got a K20, the K-7 gets you the exact same image quality, plus video, in a nicer package. Which is a tough sell for $1000+. unless of course one doesn't have the k20d and is upgrading from an earlier model... :) -- 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: DPR review of K-7
John Francis wrote: o K10D owners who passed on the K20 because it wasn't a big upgrade. (that probably includes quite a large number of folks, like me, who started on digital with a *ist-D, and moved on to a K10D). That would be me all right. 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: DPR review of K-7
John Francis wrote: o K10D owners who passed on the K20 because it wasn't a big upgrade. (that probably includes quite a large number of folks, like me, who started on digital with a *ist-D, and moved on to a K10D). That would be me all right. Boris Me too. That makes at least 3 of us so it looks like they got it right (until someone says that a sample of 3 isn't good enough statistically of course). Chris -- 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: DPR review of K-7
2009/10/3 Tim Bray tb...@textuality.com: On the other hand, it would appear that if if you've got a K20, the K-7 gets you the exact same image quality, plus video, in a nicer package. Which is a tough sell for $1000+. I agree. As long as we only measure the two cameras on image quality and video. If you include the other specs the toughness goes away. Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 4:03 AM, AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/3 Tim Bray tb...@textuality.com: On the other hand, it would appear that if if you've got a K20, the K-7 gets you the exact same image quality, plus video, in a nicer package. Which is a tough sell for $1000+. I agree. As long as we only measure the two cameras on image quality and video. If you include the other specs the toughness goes away. Jostein I have no use for video, but faster AF would help me out a lot. I tend to lose a lot of shots with the K10 do to its slow hunt and peck AF. Thus the keeping of the Nikon stuff. Dave -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Subash pdml.l...@gmail.com wrote: pentax is officially 'semi-pro' now... :) Thats good, my work is semi good, so it should fit right in., Dave http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk7/ gets a 'highly recommended' quote The final word The Pentax K-7 manages to combine superb build quality, comprehensive customization options, excellent ergonomics and an extensive feature set with (for a camera in this class) very compact dimensions. This makes it a more than viable alternative for those (but not only for those) who like to work with semi-pro equipment that still leaves some space in the gear bag. JPEG output at high sensitivities is not quite on the same level as some of the competitors but if you revert to shooting RAW things are pretty much evened out. /quote -- 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. -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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: DPR review of K-7
pentax is officially 'semi-pro' now... :) Thats good, my work is semi good, so it should fit right in., Dave Oh, I see - so you think you're better than the rest of us, do you? Bob -- 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: DPR review of K-7
That makes four of us. Hanging back for (hopefully) an edition model with matching grip. Then again, the japanese market silver K20D was gruesome... Cheers Ecke 2009/10/3 Chris Mitchell chris.mitch...@which.net: John Francis wrote: o K10D owners who passed on the K20 because it wasn't a big upgrade. (that probably includes quite a large number of folks, like me, who started on digital with a *ist-D, and moved on to a K10D). That would be me all right. Boris Me too. That makes at least 3 of us so it looks like they got it right (until someone says that a sample of 3 isn't good enough statistically of course). Chris -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 08:47:49AM +0100, Chris Mitchell wrote: John Francis wrote: o K10D owners who passed on the K20 because it wasn't a big upgrade. (that probably includes quite a large number of folks, like me, who started on digital with a *ist-D, and moved on to a K10D). That would be me all right. Boris Me too. That makes at least 3 of us so it looks like they got it right (until someone says that a sample of 3 isn't good enough statistically of course). My plan was to wait for the K20 replacement before upgrading my K100. Last spring, when it became apparent that one wouldn't be out for quite a while, and meanwhile K20 prices plummetted, I caved in and got the K20. It addressed almost all of the shortcomings of the K100. As long as I'm not shooting autoexposure, p-ttl flash, or autofocusing action shots, the K20 works just fine for me. From what I've heard, the K-7 is better for both metering and autofocus than the K20. I'm not quite sure how much better, and until I get steady income again, I'm probably better off not knowing. Chris -- 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. -- The first step is learning to take great photos, the second step is learning to throw away ones that are merely good. Larry Colen l...@red4est.comhttp://www.red4est.com/lrc -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Nice grades for the K7. I find it interesting that in RAW mode high ISO, both the K7 and K20D perform as well as the NIkon D300, with the K20D leading the way by a small margin. Jpeg is another story as Canon and Nikon apply a lot of in-camera noise reduction, but the results are noticeably softer than the Pentax jpegs. Excellent resolution for the K7 as well. Paul On Oct 2, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Subash wrote: pentax is officially 'semi-pro' now... :) http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk7/ gets a 'highly recommended' quote The final word The Pentax K-7 manages to combine superb build quality, comprehensive customization options, excellent ergonomics and an extensive feature set with (for a camera in this class) very compact dimensions. This makes it a more than viable alternative for those (but not only for those) who like to work with semi-pro equipment that still leaves some space in the gear bag. JPEG output at high sensitivities is not quite on the same level as some of the competitors but if you revert to shooting RAW things are pretty much evened out. /quote -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 8:20 AM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Nice grades for the K7. I find it interesting that in RAW mode high ISO, both the K7 and K20D perform as well as the NIkon D300, with the K20D leading the way by a small margin. Jpeg is another story as Canon and Nikon apply a lot of in-camera noise reduction, but the results are noticeably softer than the Pentax jpegs. Excellent resolution for the K7 as well. Paul I find my D200 jpegs soft, but am happy with my K10D jpegs. I have recently started to shoot the D200 in Raw, and it makes a world of difference. Now, if i could produce flash shots with the K10D = to those i get from the D200 and or D2H, i would grab a K-7, but its hit and miss so far, so i'll stick with what i know best. for now. Dave -- Documenting Life in Rural Ontario. www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ York Region, Ontario, Canada -- 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: DPR review of K-7
I had a K20D and a K10D. The K20D was my every day camera, and the K10D was a backup. When the K7 was introduced I bought one and sold the K10. Believe me, the K7D is a big step up from the K20. Exposure is much better, the faster write speed is a blessing, and the autofocus is superior in every situation I've encountered. I find it difficult to use the K20 these days, although it's fine for when I have to shoot with two cameras. Paul On Oct 3, 2009, at 3:47 AM, Chris Mitchell wrote: John Francis wrote: o K10D owners who passed on the K20 because it wasn't a big upgrade. (that probably includes quite a large number of folks, like me, who started on digital with a *ist-D, and moved on to a K10D). That would be me all right. Boris Me too. That makes at least 3 of us so it looks like they got it right (until someone says that a sample of 3 isn't good enough statistically of course). Chris -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Paul, Like you, I sold a K10d before the K7 came out (after seeing the K7 @ GFM). I've kept the K20d but it doesn't get much usage. I like the K7 much better. Along with your comments, I'd mention speed and battery life. I had the frame rate turned up to high and returned it to low yesterday. High is so fast, I found myself taking double shots - unintentionally! It's that much of a change from the K10 and K20d. Battery life is a blessing, especially without a grip. And it runs out of juice gracefully, giving some notice on the battery indicator. This pretty much eliminates my need for a battery grip. Filling a 16meg card with Raw files is no problem (until you have to sort them), Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 7:25 AM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: I had a K20D and a K10D. The K20D was my every day camera, and the K10D was a backup. When the K7 was introduced I bought one and sold the K10. Believe me, the K7D is a big step up from the K20. Exposure is much better, the faster write speed is a blessing, and the autofocus is superior in every situation I've encountered. I find it difficult to use the K20 these days, although it's fine for when I have to shoot with two cameras. Paul On Oct 3, 2009, at 3:47 AM, Chris Mitchell wrote: John Francis wrote: o K10D owners who passed on the K20 because it wasn't a big upgrade. (that probably includes quite a large number of folks, like me, who started on digital with a *ist-D, and moved on to a K10D). That would be me all right. Boris Me too. That makes at least 3 of us so it looks like they got it right (until someone says that a sample of 3 isn't good enough statistically of course). Chris -- 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: DPR review of K-7
2009/10/3 Subash pdml.l...@gmail.com: pentax is officially 'semi-pro' now... :) http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk7/ gets a 'highly recommended' quote The final word The Pentax K-7 manages to combine superb build quality, comprehensive customization options, excellent ergonomics and an extensive feature set with (for a camera in this class) very compact dimensions. This makes it a more than viable alternative for those (but not only for those) who like to work with semi-pro equipment that still leaves some space in the gear bag. JPEG output at high sensitivities is not quite on the same level as some of the competitors but if you revert to shooting RAW things are pretty much evened out. /quote -- Temptations temptations. I'm pretty happy with my K20D. In most situations it gets the job done, and the output is very good when exposure and WB is right. But I sure could find use for the higher frame rate and better AF. I loose some shots because of this limitations. And some shots are bad, because of exposure and WB problems. Fever than those who are bad because I am a lousy photographer, but still some :-) I can even see myself using the video mode. Partly for making videos, partly for talking to the camera instead of taking notes the old fashioned way by pencil and paper. The smaller package and more solid build is another reason for upgrading. Did I mention that I'm tempted? The problem is that K20D basically still gets the job done. Hmmm. How about convincing myself that I need a backup camera :-) Most likely I will stay at the fence until the prizes goes down. So far I can't justify it at the current level. -- MaritimTim http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/ -- 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: DPR review of K-7
2009/10/3 paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net: I had a K20D and a K10D. The K20D was my every day camera, and the K10D was a backup. When the K7 was introduced I bought one and sold the K10. Believe me, the K7D is a big step up from the K20. Exposure is much better, the faster write speed is a blessing, and the autofocus is superior in every situation I've encountered. I find it difficult to use the K20 these days, although it's fine for when I have to shoot with two cameras. Now it's time for my me too. However I have sold my K20D and picked up a second K-7 the day before yesterday. The AF speed is my killer feature. When the K20D I was a bit surprised by how all the forums blabbed about it being a minor upgrade from K10D, despite the facts. They are two very, very different beasts. The K10D was probably as good as any APS-C CCD sensor could get, and Pentax used a 22 bit A/D converter to make sure they got the best signal achievable out of it. From there to K20D's CMOS is nothing short of a new paradigma. The K-7 also introduce a new tech platform since they've changed the operating voltage, but the technological difference between K20D and K-7 is much less of a revolution than the previous leap. Yet it receives so much more attention. :-) Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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: DPR review of K-7
2009/10/3 AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com: That should read When the K20D came out... When the K20D I was a bit surprised by how all the forums blabbed about it being a minor upgrade from K10D, despite the facts. They are two very, very different beasts. The K10D was probably as good as any APS-C CCD sensor could get, and Pentax used a 22 bit A/D converter to make sure they got the best signal achievable out of it. From there to K20D's CMOS is nothing short of a new paradigma. The K-7 also introduce a new tech platform since they've changed the operating voltage, but the technological difference between K20D and K-7 is much less of a revolution than the previous leap. Yet it receives so much more attention. :-) Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Chris Mitchell wrote: John Francis wrote: o K10D owners who passed on the K20 because it wasn't a big upgrade. (that probably includes quite a large number of folks, like me, who started on digital with a *ist-D, and moved on to a K10D). That would be me all right. Boris Me too. That makes at least 3 of us so it looks like they got it right (until someone says that a sample of 3 isn't good enough statistically of course). Add me to that list, too. But the K-7 is competing with a new roof and exterior painting and a new furnace for the house. :-( -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- 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: DPR review of K-7
David J Brooks wrote: I have no use for video, but faster AF would help me out a lot. I tend to lose a lot of shots with the K10 do to its slow hunt and peck AF. Thus the keeping of the Nikon stuff. I want it for the faster AF and the faster frame rate, primarily. The bigger sensor (compared to the K10D) would be nice, but it's not critical and makes all the files bigger, and thus slower to manipulate. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- 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: DPR review of K-7
- Original Message - From: Tim Bray Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 On the other hand, it would appear that if if you've got a K20, the K-7 gets you the exact same image quality, plus video, in a nicer package. Which is a tough sell for $1000+. Not really. William Robb -- 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: DPR review of K-7
AlunFoto wrote: When the K20D I was a bit surprised by how all the forums blabbed about it being a minor upgrade from K10D, despite the facts. They are two very, very different beasts. The K10D was probably as good as any APS-C CCD sensor could get, and Pentax used a 22 bit A/D converter to make sure they got the best signal achievable out of it. From there to K20D's CMOS is nothing short of a new paradigma. The K-7 also introduce a new tech platform since they've changed the operating voltage, but the technological difference between K20D and K-7 is much less of a revolution than the previous leap. Yet it receives so much more attention. :-) I agree completely. I still have and use my K10D but the step up to the K20D was very big indeed. I haven't bought a K7 yet. I may skip it and wait for the next camera in a year or so. -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Mark Roberts wrote: AlunFoto wrote: When the K20D I was a bit surprised by how all the forums blabbed about it being a minor upgrade from K10D, despite the facts. They are two very, very different beasts. The K10D was probably as good as any APS-C CCD sensor could get, and Pentax used a 22 bit A/D converter to make sure they got the best signal achievable out of it. From there to K20D's CMOS is nothing short of a new paradigma. The K-7 also introduce a new tech platform since they've changed the operating voltage, but the technological difference between K20D and K-7 is much less of a revolution than the previous leap. Yet it receives so much more attention. :-) I agree completely. I still have and use my K10D but the step up to the K20D was very big indeed. I haven't bought a K7 yet. I may skip it and wait for the next camera in a year or so. Same here, except I no longer use my K10D since the K20D entered home. 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: DPR review of K-7
Dario Bonazza wrote: Mark Roberts wrote: AlunFoto wrote: When the K20D I was a bit surprised by how all the forums blabbed about it being a minor upgrade from K10D, despite the facts. They are two very, very different beasts. The K10D was probably as good as any APS-C CCD sensor could get, and Pentax used a 22 bit A/D converter to make sure they got the best signal achievable out of it. From there to K20D's CMOS is nothing short of a new paradigma. The K-7 also introduce a new tech platform since they've changed the operating voltage, but the technological difference between K20D and K-7 is much less of a revolution than the previous leap. Yet it receives so much more attention. :-) I agree completely. I still have and use my K10D but the step up to the K20D was very big indeed. I haven't bought a K7 yet. I may skip it and wait for the next camera in a year or so. Same here, except I no longer use my K10D since the K20D entered home. I use the K10D whenever I'm carrying two cameras, when I need to be using 2 lenses in situations in which it's impractical to switch lenses on a single body. I did this last weekend when shooting the bicycle races - http://www.robertstech.com/blog/photos/gallery16/. (And most of the keepers seemed to come from the K10D, although I expect that's mostly coincidental.) -- 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: DPR review of K-7
2009/10/3 John Francis jo...@panix.com: On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 10:47:28PM -0700, Tim Bray wrote: But the primary market for the K-7 isn't folks upgrading from the K20. It's aimed at three types of buyer: o K10D owners who passed on the K20 because it wasn't a big upgrade. (that probably includes quite a large number of folks, like me, who started on digital with a *ist-D, and moved on to a K10D). o Owners of a lower-spec Pentax digital (DS, K100, ...) who want to move up to something better (on whatever scale they nominate). o First-time Pentax DSLR buyers. I would be in that 1st category. The features that attracted me to the K20D (over my K10D) were higher ISO and individual AF lens adjustments; they were/are important to me, but I couldn't justify the expense. Right now, the K-7 is *VERY* tempting, because on top of these two features it is also smaller, something that I know I'll like, and has an AF assist lamp. Improved VF, fps and AFing are just icing. But then...the K-x has a 12MP Sony sensor that does ISO12,800. I've been doing some concert photography for small local bands, and would like to do more of it, but my K10D's ISO1600 is very limiting. Am I trying to talk myself into buying both a K-7 AND a K-x...? :-D Oh if only the funds were available... Cheers, --M. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- http://www.EnticingTheLight.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- -- 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: DPR review of K-7
I basically agree. I thought because of the sensor, CMOS vs. CCD, that the K20D/K10D difference was considered quite large. Here's my chagrined viewpoint on the K-7, with my own rationale applied, and I reserve the right to change my mind: 1. First I have really been close to purchasing a Canon EOS 5D MK II and still am, so there is an issue of 'do I want to spend a significant amount of money on the K-7'? 2. I've been very unhappy with the K20D, mainly in the area of exposure accuracy. A very high number of images require adjustment and it's unpredictable at times. I thought Pentax 'got it right ' before, at least that's what all the cheering for their two prior top-end cameras would lead one to believe. So I'm left wondering... have they really got it right this time? 3. The review on dpreview states the K-7 has More RAW noise than predecessor (but in line with competition). That sounds like a potential 1/4 step backwards in image quality from the K20D. It also reveals In numerical terms the K-7 teams up with its predecessor in being the noisiest camera in this group of four cameras. 4. The review on dpreview states the K-7 has Less dynamic range than direct competitors and At it default settings the K-7 produces slightly less dynamic range than its predecessor. Again that sounds like a potential step backwards in image quality. 5. The review states Therefore, purely from an image quality point of view, there is no pressing need for K20D users to upgrade. All of that being said, I realize that these reviews are often splitting hairs on the numbers, and the testing really only covers performance in one set of conditions, and graphs don't always tell the true story. There is much to like about the K-7. Some of the features that especially appeal to me are the magnesium body being smaller/lighter, 100% viewfinder, the in camera composition adjustment feature, the level indicator and level adjust features, and the CTE white-balance setting (to keep sunsets looking like sunsets), and maybe a 77-segment meter will help with exposure accuracy. So I'm undecided at this point, and I have not held the camera in my hand, nor had first-hand experience using it. When I look at what the money is buying, I'm unsure that I'll see a difference in image quality. Of course, the #1 determinant of that is the human behind the viewfinder, but considering that to be equal, will there be a difference? The Canon has a 6.5 MP advantage which I believe will make a noticeable difference. As one other poster noted, and I'll paraphrase, 'maybe waiting for the K-7 successor is a viable option for K10/20D owners'. I sort of feel we're on the disposable camera bandwagon here. The K10/20/7 all have the same nominal sensor resolution, and similar noise issues, similar AF systems still regarded as slow, and by all accounts regardless of desirable features, little if any inherent difference in image quality (can't speak for K10D). My K20D is not even two years old. Having paid $1100 for it, I now would feel lucky if I could get $500 reselling it. If I buy a K-7 and a year from now Pentax decides to release a 20+ MP body, I'd guess I would be in the same boat... having just spent upwards of $1000 on what is a disposable camera due to the fact that it will be considered obsolete by today's standards. Of course the same can be said regardless of manufacturer. I've got an *istD and another derivative of it sitting on the shelf collecting dust, and I see the K20D soon becoming a paper-weight as well. Tom On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:29 AM, AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/3 paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net: I had a K20D and a K10D. The K20D was my every day camera, and the K10D was a backup. When the K7 was introduced I bought one and sold the K10. Believe me, the K7D is a big step up from the K20. Exposure is much better, the faster write speed is a blessing, and the autofocus is superior in every situation I've encountered. I find it difficult to use the K20 these days, although it's fine for when I have to shoot with two cameras. Now it's time for my me too. However I have sold my K20D and picked up a second K-7 the day before yesterday. The AF speed is my killer feature. When the K20D I was a bit surprised by how all the forums blabbed about it being a minor upgrade from K10D, despite the facts. They are two very, very different beasts. The K10D was probably as good as any APS-C CCD sensor could get, and Pentax used a 22 bit A/D converter to make sure they got the best signal achievable out of it. From there to K20D's CMOS is nothing short of a new paradigma. The K-7 also introduce a new tech platform since they've changed the operating voltage, but the technological difference between K20D and K-7 is much less of a revolution than the previous leap. Yet it receives so much more attention. :-) Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com --
Re: DPR review of K-7
I bet that 16meg card fills up really really fast with RAW files. :-) Tom On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: Paul, Like you, I sold a K10d before the K7 came out (after seeing the K7 @ GFM). I've kept the K20d but it doesn't get much usage. I like the K7 much better. Along with your comments, I'd mention speed and battery life. I had the frame rate turned up to high and returned it to low yesterday. High is so fast, I found myself taking double shots - unintentionally! It's that much of a change from the K10 and K20d. Battery life is a blessing, especially without a grip. And it runs out of juice gracefully, giving some notice on the battery indicator. This pretty much eliminates my need for a battery grip. Filling a 16meg card with Raw files is no problem (until you have to sort them), Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 7:25 AM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: I had a K20D and a K10D. The K20D was my every day camera, and the K10D was a backup. When the K7 was introduced I bought one and sold the K10. Believe me, the K7D is a big step up from the K20. Exposure is much better, the faster write speed is a blessing, and the autofocus is superior in every situation I've encountered. I find it difficult to use the K20 these days, although it's fine for when I have to shoot with two cameras. Paul On Oct 3, 2009, at 3:47 AM, Chris Mitchell wrote: John Francis wrote: o K10D owners who passed on the K20 because it wasn't a big upgrade. (that probably includes quite a large number of folks, like me, who started on digital with a *ist-D, and moved on to a K10D). That would be me all right. Boris Me too. That makes at least 3 of us so it looks like they got it right (until someone says that a sample of 3 isn't good enough statistically of course). Chris -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: I basically agree. I thought because of the sensor, CMOS vs. CCD, that the K20D/K10D difference was considered quite large. Here's my chagrined viewpoint on the K-7, with my own rationale applied, and I reserve the right to change my mind: 1. First I have really been close to purchasing a Canon EOS 5D MK II and still am, so there is an issue of 'do I want to spend a significant amount of money on the K-7'? Personally, the 5DmII is neither fish nor fowl to me. If you need the high ISO performance, the D700 is better. If you need resolution the Sony's are better. Both the A900 and the D700 are faster (higher fps, better AF), the Sony's and the D700 are also better built and have better viewfinders. Oh, and they're cheaper (especially the A850). The only way I'd go for a 5DmII is if I needed a Canon-only lens. 2. I've been very unhappy with the K20D, mainly in the area of exposure accuracy. A very high number of images require adjustment and it's unpredictable at times. I thought Pentax 'got it right ' before, at least that's what all the cheering for their two prior top-end cameras would lead one to believe. So I'm left wondering... have they really got it right this time? Canon's not much better aside from the 1 series for exposure accuracy. After using pretty much every system on the market I've discovered that the biggest factor in how reliably a matrix meter performs is the number of cells. Under 10 provides decent performance as they're simple and easy to understand what they're doing. Between 10 and around 50 tends to get distracted too easily and is mostly useless. Over 50 works much better than anything else except spot metering. 3. The review on dpreview states the K-7 has More RAW noise than predecessor (but in line with competition). That sounds like a potential 1/4 step backwards in image quality from the K20D. It also reveals In numerical terms the K-7 teams up with its predecessor in being the noisiest camera in this group of four cameras. 4 channel sensors run hotter and therefore noisier than 2 channel sensors. The D300 and D90 have the same split as the K-7 and K20D, the slower camera is less noisy at high ISO's. They're not huge differences overall. 4. The review on dpreview states the K-7 has Less dynamic range than direct competitors and At it default settings the K-7 produces slightly less dynamic range than its predecessor. Again that sounds like a potential step backwards in image quality. That's JPEG only. DPReview's tests are far too biased towards JPEG use. The RAW headroom shows up to 10.5 stops, a bit less than the competition but more than enough for real-world use. 5. The review states Therefore, purely from an image quality point of view, there is no pressing need for K20D users to upgrade. But in pretty much all other regards the K-7 is superior. Pentax does appear to be alternating processing and body upgrades (K10D was body, K20D sensor/processing, K-7 was body). -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Mark! --- On Sat, 10/3/09, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: Filling a 16meg card with Raw files is no problem (until you have to sort them), -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 12:16:59PM -0500, Tom C wrote: Here's my chagrined viewpoint on the K-7, with my own rationale applied, and I reserve the right to change my mind: [ . . .] 2. I've been very unhappy with the K20D, mainly in the area of exposure accuracy. A very high number of images require adjustment and it's unpredictable at times. I must admit I've wondered about this, too. I don't have a K20D, but I have noticed more complaints about K20D exposure issues than I remember seeing for the K10D. On one PDML meetup an the San Jose Rose Gardens Larry complained a lot about his K20D having exposure problems, while my K10D seemed to be getting it pretty much right. I'm not sure whether it's a problem with the CMOS sensor technology (most of the complaints seem to have been about images with a lot of red in the frame), with Larry having a bad K20D, or just that he's pickier than I am. As one other poster noted, and I'll paraphrase, 'maybe waiting for the K-7 successor is a viable option for K10/20D owners'. I think that will be a long, long wait; I don't see anything much better than the K-7 showing up in the next couple of years or more. But that depends on how you define better, of course - I regard the high frame rate as a must-have item. The K10/20/7 all have the same nominal sensor resolution . . . K10D: 10MP K20D K7D: 14.6MP . . . AF systems still regarded as slow . . . All reports seem to confirm my (brief) impression that the AF is much improved over the previous models. It isn't a Nikon D700, but it's definitely a step up. If I buy a K-7 and a year from now Pentax decides to release a 20+ MP body, I'd guess I would be in the same boat. If pixels are really what you want, K-7 probably isn't for you. Personally I find even the 10MP of the K10D to be more than enough; there isn't anything I do that would need 20MP. Fortunately the emphasis now seems to have shifted away from the megapixel race; people are beginnig to realise that there is a cost in image quality to be paid for cramming too many pixels into the same amount of silicon. If you want a lot of pixels, go for a bigger sensor - possibly even the 645D. I've got an *istD and another derivative of it sitting on the shelf collecting dust, and I see the K20D soon becoming a paper-weight as well. My *ist-D still comes out occasionally; either as backup for the K10D, or (with the 18-55 kit lens) when I want something smaller and lighter than the K10D as a walk-around camera. But a K-7D would remove both of those reasons; the only time I would see myself using the *ist-D then would be if I wanted two cameras with flash; I've only got one AF-540, but the old AF-500 from my pre-digital days works nicely on the *ist-D. -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Tom, you'll be in the same boat with any system. Canon 6mp cameras are now selling for even less than Pentax. Read the Canon forums and you'll find that Canon has it's share of problems, with exposure, noise, focus, you name it. The question is what do you want, and is it even possible to get it. Tom C wrote: I basically agree. I thought because of the sensor, CMOS vs. CCD, that the K20D/K10D difference was considered quite large. Here's my chagrined viewpoint on the K-7, with my own rationale applied, and I reserve the right to change my mind: 1. First I have really been close to purchasing a Canon EOS 5D MK II and still am, so there is an issue of 'do I want to spend a significant amount of money on the K-7'? 2. I've been very unhappy with the K20D, mainly in the area of exposure accuracy. A very high number of images require adjustment and it's unpredictable at times. I thought Pentax 'got it right ' before, at least that's what all the cheering for their two prior top-end cameras would lead one to believe. So I'm left wondering... have they really got it right this time? 3. The review on dpreview states the K-7 has More RAW noise than predecessor (but in line with competition). That sounds like a potential 1/4 step backwards in image quality from the K20D. It also reveals In numerical terms the K-7 teams up with its predecessor in being the noisiest camera in this group of four cameras. 4. The review on dpreview states the K-7 has Less dynamic range than direct competitors and At it default settings the K-7 produces slightly less dynamic range than its predecessor. Again that sounds like a potential step backwards in image quality. 5. The review states Therefore, purely from an image quality point of view, there is no pressing need for K20D users to upgrade. All of that being said, I realize that these reviews are often splitting hairs on the numbers, and the testing really only covers performance in one set of conditions, and graphs don't always tell the true story. There is much to like about the K-7. Some of the features that especially appeal to me are the magnesium body being smaller/lighter, 100% viewfinder, the in camera composition adjustment feature, the level indicator and level adjust features, and the CTE white-balance setting (to keep sunsets looking like sunsets), and maybe a 77-segment meter will help with exposure accuracy. So I'm undecided at this point, and I have not held the camera in my hand, nor had first-hand experience using it. When I look at what the money is buying, I'm unsure that I'll see a difference in image quality. Of course, the #1 determinant of that is the human behind the viewfinder, but considering that to be equal, will there be a difference? The Canon has a 6.5 MP advantage which I believe will make a noticeable difference. As one other poster noted, and I'll paraphrase, 'maybe waiting for the K-7 successor is a viable option for K10/20D owners'. I sort of feel we're on the disposable camera bandwagon here. The K10/20/7 all have the same nominal sensor resolution, and similar noise issues, similar AF systems still regarded as slow, and by all accounts regardless of desirable features, little if any inherent difference in image quality (can't speak for K10D). My K20D is not even two years old. Having paid $1100 for it, I now would feel lucky if I could get $500 reselling it. If I buy a K-7 and a year from now Pentax decides to release a 20+ MP body, I'd guess I would be in the same boat... having just spent upwards of $1000 on what is a disposable camera due to the fact that it will be considered obsolete by today's standards. Of course the same can be said regardless of manufacturer. I've got an *istD and another derivative of it sitting on the shelf collecting dust, and I see the K20D soon becoming a paper-weight as well. Tom On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:29 AM, AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/3 paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net: I had a K20D and a K10D. The K20D was my every day camera, and the K10D was a backup. When the K7 was introduced I bought one and sold the K10. Believe me, the K7D is a big step up from the K20. Exposure is much better, the faster write speed is a blessing, and the autofocus is superior in every situation I've encountered. I find it difficult to use the K20 these days, although it's fine for when I have to shoot with two cameras. Now it's time for my me too. However I have sold my K20D and picked up a second K-7 the day before yesterday. The AF speed is my killer feature. When the K20D I was a bit surprised by how all the forums blabbed about it being a minor upgrade from K10D, despite the facts. They are two very, very different beasts. The K10D was probably as good as any APS-C CCD sensor could get, and Pentax used a 22 bit A/D converter to make sure they got the best signal achievable out of it. From there to K20D's CMOS is nothing short of a new paradigma. The K-7
Re: DPR review of K-7
About 1 shot I'd say. Tom C wrote: I bet that 16meg card fills up really really fast with RAW files. :-) Tom On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: Paul, Like you, I sold a K10d before the K7 came out (after seeing the K7 @ GFM). I've kept the K20d but it doesn't get much usage. I like the K7 much better. Along with your comments, I'd mention speed and battery life. I had the frame rate turned up to high and returned it to low yesterday. High is so fast, I found myself taking double shots - unintentionally! It's that much of a change from the K10 and K20d. Battery life is a blessing, especially without a grip. And it runs out of juice gracefully, giving some notice on the battery indicator. This pretty much eliminates my need for a battery grip. Filling a 16meg card with Raw files is no problem (until you have to sort them), Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 7:25 AM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: I had a K20D and a K10D. The K20D was my every day camera, and the K10D was a backup. When the K7 was introduced I bought one and sold the K10. Believe me, the K7D is a big step up from the K20. Exposure is much better, the faster write speed is a blessing, and the autofocus is superior in every situation I've encountered. I find it difficult to use the K20 these days, although it's fine for when I have to shoot with two cameras. Paul On Oct 3, 2009, at 3:47 AM, Chris Mitchell wrote: John Francis wrote: o K10D owners who passed on the K20 because it wasn't a big upgrade. (that probably includes quite a large number of folks, like me, who started on digital with a *ist-D, and moved on to a K10D). That would be me all right. Boris Me too. That makes at least 3 of us so it looks like they got it right (until someone says that a sample of 3 isn't good enough statistically of course). Chris -- The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog. --G. K. Chesterton -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Adam Maas a...@mawz.ca wrote: On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: I basically agree. I thought because of the sensor, CMOS vs. CCD, that the K20D/K10D difference was considered quite large. Here's my chagrined viewpoint on the K-7, with my own rationale applied, and I reserve the right to change my mind: 1. First I have really been close to purchasing a Canon EOS 5D MK II and still am, so there is an issue of 'do I want to spend a significant amount of money on the K-7'? Personally, the 5DmII is neither fish nor fowl to me. If you need the high ISO performance, the D700 is better. If you need resolution the Sony's are better. Both the A900 and the D700 are faster (higher fps, better AF), the Sony's and the D700 are also better built and have better viewfinders. Oh, and they're cheaper (especially the A850). The only way I'd go for a 5DmII is if I needed a Canon-only lens. On the other hand dpreview tends to think they've walked down the middle line on this. The D700 set the benchmark for high ISO performance (along with overall shooting performance at this price level), and the A900 set a new benchmark for ultimate resolution. The 5D Mark II offers similar resolution to the Alpha 900, increases the sensitivity range to ISO 25,600, and offers high ISO/noise performance that gets close to the Nikon D700/D3. In short it - almost - offers the best of both worlds without costing the earth. 2. I've been very unhappy with the K20D, mainly in the area of exposure accuracy. A very high number of images require adjustment and it's unpredictable at times. I thought Pentax 'got it right ' before, at least that's what all the cheering for their two prior top-end cameras would lead one to believe. So I'm left wondering... have they really got it right this time? Canon's not much better aside from the 1 series for exposure accuracy. After using pretty much every system on the market I've discovered that the biggest factor in how reliably a matrix meter performs is the number of cells. Under 10 provides decent performance as they're simple and easy to understand what they're doing. Between 10 and around 50 tends to get distracted too easily and is mostly useless. Over 50 works much better than anything else except spot metering. Interesting observation. I've considered just turning on center-weighted and seeing if I could do a better job. 3. The review on dpreview states the K-7 has More RAW noise than predecessor (but in line with competition). That sounds like a potential 1/4 step backwards in image quality from the K20D. It also reveals In numerical terms the K-7 teams up with its predecessor in being the noisiest camera in this group of four cameras. 4 channel sensors run hotter and therefore noisier than 2 channel sensors. The D300 and D90 have the same split as the K-7 and K20D, the slower camera is less noisy at high ISO's. They're not huge differences overall. 4. The review on dpreview states the K-7 has Less dynamic range than direct competitors and At it default settings the K-7 produces slightly less dynamic range than its predecessor. Again that sounds like a potential step backwards in image quality. That's JPEG only. DPReview's tests are far too biased towards JPEG use. The RAW headroom shows up to 10.5 stops, a bit less than the competition but more than enough for real-world use. Good point. I agree, I don't really care what their JPEG tests show because it's only relevant if you plan on shooting JPEG's. 5. The review states Therefore, purely from an image quality point of view, there is no pressing need for K20D users to upgrade. But in pretty much all other regards the K-7 is superior. Pentax does appear to be alternating processing and body upgrades (K10D was body, K20D sensor/processing, K-7 was body). -- M. Adam Maas If I hadn't purchased a K20D, I'd almost surely be getting the K-7. I skipped the K10D largely because of finances at the time. -- 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: DPR review of K-7
The K10/20/7 all have the same nominal sensor resolution . . . John Francis jo...@panix.com wrote: K10D: 10MP K20D K7D: 14.6MP My mistake. I think that's the other thing that prompted me to get a K20D, it was twice the resolution as the *ist D. With the 5D MK II you get more pixels crammed into a bigger space of course. -- 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: DPR review of K-7
I want the world and know I can't have it. Tom On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:59 PM, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Tom, you'll be in the same boat with any system. Canon 6mp cameras are now selling for even less than Pentax. Read the Canon forums and you'll find that Canon has it's share of problems, with exposure, noise, focus, you name it. The question is what do you want, and is it even possible to get it. Tom C wrote: I basically agree. I thought because of the sensor, CMOS vs. CCD, that the K20D/K10D difference was considered quite large. Here's my chagrined viewpoint on the K-7, with my own rationale applied, and I reserve the right to change my mind: 1. First I have really been close to purchasing a Canon EOS 5D MK II and still am, so there is an issue of 'do I want to spend a significant amount of money on the K-7'? 2. I've been very unhappy with the K20D, mainly in the area of exposure accuracy. A very high number of images require adjustment and it's unpredictable at times. I thought Pentax 'got it right ' before, at least that's what all the cheering for their two prior top-end cameras would lead one to believe. So I'm left wondering... have they really got it right this time? 3. The review on dpreview states the K-7 has More RAW noise than predecessor (but in line with competition). That sounds like a potential 1/4 step backwards in image quality from the K20D. It also reveals In numerical terms the K-7 teams up with its predecessor in being the noisiest camera in this group of four cameras. 4. The review on dpreview states the K-7 has Less dynamic range than direct competitors and At it default settings the K-7 produces slightly less dynamic range than its predecessor. Again that sounds like a potential step backwards in image quality. 5. The review states Therefore, purely from an image quality point of view, there is no pressing need for K20D users to upgrade. All of that being said, I realize that these reviews are often splitting hairs on the numbers, and the testing really only covers performance in one set of conditions, and graphs don't always tell the true story. There is much to like about the K-7. Some of the features that especially appeal to me are the magnesium body being smaller/lighter, 100% viewfinder, the in camera composition adjustment feature, the level indicator and level adjust features, and the CTE white-balance setting (to keep sunsets looking like sunsets), and maybe a 77-segment meter will help with exposure accuracy. So I'm undecided at this point, and I have not held the camera in my hand, nor had first-hand experience using it. When I look at what the money is buying, I'm unsure that I'll see a difference in image quality. Of course, the #1 determinant of that is the human behind the viewfinder, but considering that to be equal, will there be a difference? The Canon has a 6.5 MP advantage which I believe will make a noticeable difference. As one other poster noted, and I'll paraphrase, 'maybe waiting for the K-7 successor is a viable option for K10/20D owners'. I sort of feel we're on the disposable camera bandwagon here. The K10/20/7 all have the same nominal sensor resolution, and similar noise issues, similar AF systems still regarded as slow, and by all accounts regardless of desirable features, little if any inherent difference in image quality (can't speak for K10D). My K20D is not even two years old. Having paid $1100 for it, I now would feel lucky if I could get $500 reselling it. If I buy a K-7 and a year from now Pentax decides to release a 20+ MP body, I'd guess I would be in the same boat... having just spent upwards of $1000 on what is a disposable camera due to the fact that it will be considered obsolete by today's standards. Of course the same can be said regardless of manufacturer. I've got an *istD and another derivative of it sitting on the shelf collecting dust, and I see the K20D soon becoming a paper-weight as well. Tom On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 9:29 AM, AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/10/3 paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net: I had a K20D and a K10D. The K20D was my every day camera, and the K10D was a backup. When the K7 was introduced I bought one and sold the K10. Believe me, the K7D is a big step up from the K20. Exposure is much better, the faster write speed is a blessing, and the autofocus is superior in every situation I've encountered. I find it difficult to use the K20 these days, although it's fine for when I have to shoot with two cameras. Now it's time for my me too. However I have sold my K20D and picked up a second K-7 the day before yesterday. The AF speed is my killer feature. When the K20D I was a bit surprised by how all the forums blabbed about it being a minor upgrade from K10D, despite the facts. They are two very, very different beasts. The K10D was probably as good as any APS-C
Re: DPR review of K-7
Yeah the sorting part makes it even funnier. On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Rick Womer rwomer1...@yahoo.com wrote: Mark! --- On Sat, 10/3/09, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: Filling a 16meg card with Raw files is no problem (until you have to sort them), -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Adam Maas a...@mawz.ca wrote: On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: I basically agree. I thought because of the sensor, CMOS vs. CCD, that the K20D/K10D difference was considered quite large. Here's my chagrined viewpoint on the K-7, with my own rationale applied, and I reserve the right to change my mind: 1. First I have really been close to purchasing a Canon EOS 5D MK II and still am, so there is an issue of 'do I want to spend a significant amount of money on the K-7'? Personally, the 5DmII is neither fish nor fowl to me. If you need the high ISO performance, the D700 is better. If you need resolution the Sony's are better. Both the A900 and the D700 are faster (higher fps, better AF), the Sony's and the D700 are also better built and have better viewfinders. Oh, and they're cheaper (especially the A850). The only way I'd go for a 5DmII is if I needed a Canon-only lens. On the other hand dpreview tends to think they've walked down the middle line on this. The D700 set the benchmark for high ISO performance (along with overall shooting performance at this price level), and the A900 set a new benchmark for ultimate resolution. The 5D Mark II offers similar resolution to the Alpha 900, increases the sensitivity range to ISO 25,600, and offers high ISO/noise performance that gets close to the Nikon D700/D3. In short it - almost - offers the best of both worlds without costing the earth. I'd tend to agree with them if it wasn't for the pricing. Oh, and the performance hit and lower build quality. If the 5DmII was 5fps and had AF comparable to the A900 or was cheaper than either I'd say it was a better value. Right now it's more expensive here in Canada (same price in the US according to BH) and is pretty much unobtanium to boot which changes the value proposition. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Doug Franklin wrote on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:54:55 -0700 I want it for the faster AF and the faster frame rate, primarily. The bigger sensor (compared to the K10D) would be nice, but it's not critical and makes all the files bigger, and thus slower to manipulate. You don't have to cope with larger files; just set the resolution to 10MP (or even less, if you want) and image file size will be the same as with the K10D. I just bought my K-7 for $1005 with a couple of discounts, and I'm absolutely delighted with the improved handling/operation. Yes, the IQ isn't any better, but that's only part of the value proposition. Regards, Jim -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Oct 3, 2009, at 4:10 PM, Jim King wrote: Doug Franklin wrote on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 07:54:55 -0700 I want it for the faster AF and the faster frame rate, primarily. The bigger sensor (compared to the K10D) would be nice, but it's not critical and makes all the files bigger, and thus slower to manipulate. You don't have to cope with larger files; just set the resolution to 10MP (or even less, if you want) and image file size will be the same as with the K10D. I believe that's only true if you're shooting jpegs. I just bought my K-7 for $1005 with a couple of discounts, and I'm absolutely delighted with the improved handling/operation. Yes, the IQ isn't any better, but that's only part of the value proposition. Regards, Jim -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Adam Maas a...@mawz.ca wrote: I'd tend to agree with them if it wasn't for the pricing. Oh, and the performance hit and lower build quality. If the 5DmII was 5fps and had AF comparable to the A900 or was cheaper than either I'd say it was a better value. Right now it's more expensive here in Canada (same price in the US according to BH) and is pretty much unobtanium to boot which changes the value proposition. -- M. Adam Maas Is 'build quality' that much of a factor if one only realistically uses the camera for 2 - 3 years before upgrading to the newest and latest. Build quality is desirable, I'm sure no one would argue that, but I wonder. Different body types, magnesium vs. a steel plastic body, weather sealing. There's no doubt there may be advantages, but at what cost to the end consumer, and if the camera only sees 2 - 3 years of use, was that extra expense of sufficient benefit, or does it merely serve to gratify that materialistic side of our egos? Hey I like a quality product just as much as the rest of us. Back in film days where one might plan on using the same camera for 5, 10, 15 years, I think build quality was a larger factor. Today if any camera I owned suffered a catastrophe sufficent to require repair I'd probably junk it in favor of a newer model. I know the Mark II supposedly does not have weather sealing that matches some competitors, but how often will I be actually need that weather sealing? If I was standing taking pictures in the pooring rain, I'd be providing some kind of protection to the camera and lens anyway. Since you've used the Mark II, was there anything specific about build quality that was not up to par or even better than the average DSLR? The lower frame rate is fine since I'm not shooting action, and even a slower AF than some, is not a big deal for the same reason. I'm largely looking at it for general landscape photography, large enlargements, and specifically for night/astrophotography and the automation add-ons Canon has for that. Not being argumentative, just thinking out loud and thinking that because of the short life cycle of digital products, maybe our parameters for measuring them should also be changing. It's almost getting to be like: Do I use the quadruple quilted toilet paper to wipe my butt or do I go for the cheaper stuff, because it's all going to get flushed anyway? Not that any of this is cheap. Tom -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Might matter to a hammer handed semi pro (K-7 has now been so designated) who, weather and other conditioned be damned, MUST get the shot. This situation fits, maybe..two struggling beginning pros.(?) Jack --- On Sat, 10/3/09, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: From: Tom C caka...@gmail.com Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009, 1:34 PM On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Adam Maas a...@mawz.ca wrote: I'd tend to agree with them if it wasn't for the pricing. Oh, and the performance hit and lower build quality. If the 5DmII was 5fps and had AF comparable to the A900 or was cheaper than either I'd say it was a better value. Right now it's more expensive here in Canada (same price in the US according to BH) and is pretty much unobtanium to boot which changes the value proposition. -- M. Adam Maas Is 'build quality' that much of a factor if one only realistically uses the camera for 2 - 3 years before upgrading to the newest and latest. Build quality is desirable, I'm sure no one would argue that, but I wonder. Different body types, magnesium vs. a steel plastic body, weather sealing. There's no doubt there may be advantages, but at what cost to the end consumer, and if the camera only sees 2 - 3 years of use, was that extra expense of sufficient benefit, or does it merely serve to gratify that materialistic side of our egos? Hey I like a quality product just as much as the rest of us. Back in film days where one might plan on using the same camera for 5, 10, 15 years, I think build quality was a larger factor. Today if any camera I owned suffered a catastrophe sufficent to require repair I'd probably junk it in favor of a newer model. I know the Mark II supposedly does not have weather sealing that matches some competitors, but how often will I be actually need that weather sealing? If I was standing taking pictures in the pooring rain, I'd be providing some kind of protection to the camera and lens anyway. Since you've used the Mark II, was there anything specific about build quality that was not up to par or even better than the average DSLR? The lower frame rate is fine since I'm not shooting action, and even a slower AF than some, is not a big deal for the same reason. I'm largely looking at it for general landscape photography, large enlargements, and specifically for night/astrophotography and the automation add-ons Canon has for that. Not being argumentative, just thinking out loud and thinking that because of the short life cycle of digital products, maybe our parameters for measuring them should also be changing. It's almost getting to be like: Do I use the quadruple quilted toilet paper to wipe my butt or do I go for the cheaper stuff, because it's all going to get flushed anyway? Not that any of this is cheap. Tom -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Oct 3, 2009, at 10:16 , Tom C wrote: I've got an *istD and another derivative of it sitting on the shelf collecting dust, and I see the K20D soon becoming a paper-weight as well. Only if you don't use it. Time and discussions are putting me of a mind to stick with my K20s. Well, selling one of them, and keeping my K10 for astrophotography. The K-7 might just complicate my life, as I know I'd be shooting movies, editing movies, storing movies, pushing movies off on my family and friends, at the expense of shooting the pictures I'm happy with now. Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com “If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn’t need to lug a camera.” –Lewis Hine -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Can't stay static Joe! Gotta grow... Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote: On Oct 3, 2009, at 10:16 , Tom C wrote: I've got an *istD and another derivative of it sitting on the shelf collecting dust, and I see the K20D soon becoming a paper-weight as well. Only if you don't use it. Time and discussions are putting me of a mind to stick with my K20s. Well, selling one of them, and keeping my K10 for astrophotography. The K-7 might just complicate my life, as I know I'd be shooting movies, editing movies, storing movies, pushing movies off on my family and friends, at the expense of shooting the pictures I'm happy with now. Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com “If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn’t need to lug a camera.” –Lewis Hine -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Oct 3, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote: On Oct 3, 2009, at 10:16 , Tom C wrote: I've got an *istD and another derivative of it sitting on the shelf collecting dust, and I see the K20D soon becoming a paper-weight as well. Ebay. I sold two *istDs and a K10D for about $400 each. So my K7D was free:-). Paul -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Oct 3, 2009, at 7:53 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Can't stay static Joe! Gotta grow... Regards, Bob S. On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote: On Oct 3, 2009, at 10:16 , Tom C wrote: I've got an *istD and another derivative of it sitting on the shelf collecting dust, and I see the K20D soon becoming a paper-weight as well. Only if you don't use it. Time and discussions are putting me of a mind to stick with my K20s. Well, selling one of them, and keeping my K10 for astrophotography. The K-7 might just complicate my life, as I know I'd be shooting movies, editing movies, storing movies, pushing movies off on my family and friends, at the expense of shooting the pictures I'm happy with now. I shot about 10 seconds in movie mode right after I bought my K7. Haven't been motivated to do it again. Paul Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com “If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn’t need to lug a camera.” –Lewis Hine -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Yeah, as much as I've given reasons for not getting a K-7, I still might. If the exposure control control was much improved that could make me happy for a while... and if I can sell a couple of items on e-bay, as Paul suggests, it could make it less of a hit. Let's see... if I order it Monday with expedited shipping so that it arrives on Wednesday when she's gone for the day... it'll be just like getting the K20D. It looks like the *istD to her and in her mind it is. :-) On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote: Might matter to a hammer handed semi pro (K-7 has now been so designated) who, weather and other conditioned be damned, MUST get the shot. This situation fits, maybe..two struggling beginning pros.(?) Jack --- On Sat, 10/3/09, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: From: Tom C caka...@gmail.com Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009, 1:34 PM On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Adam Maas a...@mawz.ca wrote: I'd tend to agree with them if it wasn't for the pricing. Oh, and the performance hit and lower build quality. If the 5DmII was 5fps and had AF comparable to the A900 or was cheaper than either I'd say it was a better value. Right now it's more expensive here in Canada (same price in the US according to BH) and is pretty much unobtanium to boot which changes the value proposition. -- M. Adam Maas Is 'build quality' that much of a factor if one only realistically uses the camera for 2 - 3 years before upgrading to the newest and latest. Build quality is desirable, I'm sure no one would argue that, but I wonder. Different body types, magnesium vs. a steel plastic body, weather sealing. There's no doubt there may be advantages, but at what cost to the end consumer, and if the camera only sees 2 - 3 years of use, was that extra expense of sufficient benefit, or does it merely serve to gratify that materialistic side of our egos? Hey I like a quality product just as much as the rest of us. Back in film days where one might plan on using the same camera for 5, 10, 15 years, I think build quality was a larger factor. Today if any camera I owned suffered a catastrophe sufficent to require repair I'd probably junk it in favor of a newer model. I know the Mark II supposedly does not have weather sealing that matches some competitors, but how often will I be actually need that weather sealing? If I was standing taking pictures in the pooring rain, I'd be providing some kind of protection to the camera and lens anyway. Since you've used the Mark II, was there anything specific about build quality that was not up to par or even better than the average DSLR? The lower frame rate is fine since I'm not shooting action, and even a slower AF than some, is not a big deal for the same reason. I'm largely looking at it for general landscape photography, large enlargements, and specifically for night/astrophotography and the automation add-ons Canon has for that. Not being argumentative, just thinking out loud and thinking that because of the short life cycle of digital products, maybe our parameters for measuring them should also be changing. It's almost getting to be like: Do I use the quadruple quilted toilet paper to wipe my butt or do I go for the cheaper stuff, because it's all going to get flushed anyway? Not that any of this is cheap. Tom -- 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: DPR review of K-7
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 Yeah, as much as I've given reasons for not getting a K-7, I still might. If the exposure control control was much improved that could make me happy for a while... and if I can sell a couple of items on e-bay, as Paul suggests, it could make it less of a hit. Let's see... if I order it Monday with expedited shipping so that it arrives on Wednesday when she's gone for the day... it'll be just like getting the K20D. It looks like the *istD to her and in her mind it is. :-) FWIW, the exposure accuracy of the K-7 does seem better than the K10/K20, and the *istD (which I found to be really bad). -- 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: DPR review of K-7
Although I don't know what your specific exposure issue is, I have never shot in other than RAW, so am fine with a bit of under exposure. Much prefer to apply a slight +exposure nudge than deal with dreaded blown highlights. Jack --- On Sat, 10/3/09, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: From: William Robb war...@gmail.com Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009, 6:40 PM - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 Yeah, as much as I've given reasons for not getting a K-7, I still might. If the exposure control control was much improved that could make me happy for a while... and if I can sell a couple of items on e-bay, as Paul suggests, it could make it less of a hit. Let's see... if I order it Monday with expedited shipping so that it arrives on Wednesday when she's gone for the day... it'll be just like getting the K20D. It looks like the *istD to her and in her mind it is. :-) FWIW, the exposure accuracy of the K-7 does seem better than the K10/K20, and the *istD (which I found to be really bad). -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Oct 3, 2009, at 11:23 PM, Jack Davis wrote: Although I don't know what your specific exposure issue is, I have never shot in other than RAW, so am fine with a bit of under exposure. Much prefer to apply a slight +exposure nudge than deal with dreaded blown highlights. Jack I shoot only RAW as well, but I don't like even a small amount of underexposure. It generates noise, and it can be critical at ISO 800. Paul --- On Sat, 10/3/09, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: From: William Robb war...@gmail.com Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009, 6:40 PM - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 Yeah, as much as I've given reasons for not getting a K-7, I still might. If the exposure control control was much improved that could make me happy for a while... and if I can sell a couple of items on e-bay, as Paul suggests, it could make it less of a hit. Let's see... if I order it Monday with expedited shipping so that it arrives on Wednesday when she's gone for the day... it'll be just like getting the K20D. It looks like the *istD to her and in her mind it is. :-) FWIW, the exposure accuracy of the K-7 does seem better than the K10/K20, and the *istD (which I found to be really bad). -- 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: DPR review of K-7
In my case it seems to be overexposure... I'm constantly dialing in -EV... but overall I can't predict... underexposure occurs as well. I almost always shoot in hyper mode RAW. Tom On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote: Although I don't know what your specific exposure issue is, I have never shot in other than RAW, so am fine with a bit of under exposure. Much prefer to apply a slight +exposure nudge than deal with dreaded blown highlights. Jack --- On Sat, 10/3/09, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: From: William Robb war...@gmail.com Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009, 6:40 PM - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 Yeah, as much as I've given reasons for not getting a K-7, I still might. If the exposure control control was much improved that could make me happy for a while... and if I can sell a couple of items on e-bay, as Paul suggests, it could make it less of a hit. Let's see... if I order it Monday with expedited shipping so that it arrives on Wednesday when she's gone for the day... it'll be just like getting the K20D. It looks like the *istD to her and in her mind it is. :-) FWIW, the exposure accuracy of the K-7 does seem better than the K10/K20, and the *istD (which I found to be really bad). -- 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: DPR review of K-7
The K7D is usually very predictable. +1/3 stop and it's right on. Paul On Oct 3, 2009, at 11:30 PM, Tom C wrote: In my case it seems to be overexposure... I'm constantly dialing in -EV... but overall I can't predict... underexposure occurs as well. I almost always shoot in hyper mode RAW. Tom On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com wrote: Although I don't know what your specific exposure issue is, I have never shot in other than RAW, so am fine with a bit of under exposure. Much prefer to apply a slight +exposure nudge than deal with dreaded blown highlights. Jack --- On Sat, 10/3/09, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: From: William Robb war...@gmail.com Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009, 6:40 PM - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7 Yeah, as much as I've given reasons for not getting a K-7, I still might. If the exposure control control was much improved that could make me happy for a while... and if I can sell a couple of items on e-bay, as Paul suggests, it could make it less of a hit. Let's see... if I order it Monday with expedited shipping so that it arrives on Wednesday when she's gone for the day... it'll be just like getting the K20D. It looks like the *istD to her and in her mind it is. :-) FWIW, the exposure accuracy of the K-7 does seem better than the K10/K20, and the *istD (which I found to be really bad). -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Subash pdml.l...@gmail.com wrote: quote The final word The Pentax K-7 manages to combine ... etc ... On the other hand, it would appear that if if you've got a K20, the K-7 gets you the exact same image quality, plus video, in a nicer package. Which is a tough sell for $1000+. -T -- 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: DPR review of K-7
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 10:47:28PM -0700, Tim Bray wrote: On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Subash pdml.l...@gmail.com wrote: quote The final word The Pentax K-7 manages to combine ... etc ... On the other hand, it would appear that if if you've got a K20, the K-7 gets you the exact same image quality, plus video, in a nicer package. Which is a tough sell for $1000+. Don't forget the better AF, the faster frame rate, etc., etc. But the primary market for the K-7 isn't folks upgrading from the K20. It's aimed at three types of buyer: o K10D owners who passed on the K20 because it wasn't a big upgrade. (that probably includes quite a large number of folks, like me, who started on digital with a *ist-D, and moved on to a K10D). o Owners of a lower-spec Pentax digital (DS, K100, ...) who want to move up to something better (on whatever scale they nominate). o First-time Pentax DSLR buyers. -- 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.
