Why K7 owners the happiest???

[Leo]

Schuler wrote:
.....

K7 is my first DSLR. I found this camera to be very well constructed, intuitive, customisable and a joy to use. With this camera, you just want to be a better photograph. You just want to take pictures over pictures...

My Olympus cameras E-410 and E-510 were my first DSLRs and I thing they fit this description or close.
.......

I hesitated between the D90 and the K7, and love myself to choosed this one...

.....

I have decided on D90. It is not my camera and one of the reason absence of AF Micro-Adjust.. + large size and weight, no in body IS. I should really like the camera to buy a heavy and big camera without these features.

High ISO shots can be a issue if you shoot stars and astronomy things, so you better buy a D700 or something, and the expensive lens that it needs.

My High ISO clicks are just low light photos - nothing fancy like astronomy but indoors, evening and night light city photography.

Sorry for my english, I'm french speaking.

My English is only 32 years old. It is not enough for an over 60 guy

Thank you.
Leo

 

[Gazooma]

I would forget Olympus when you can have Pentax, even though I used Olympus for 20 years in the film days. The smaller sensor will be quite limiting for you when it comes to large prints and cropping, due to image quality issues. Besides, that company seems lost, as far as DSLR direction is concerned IMO. Sidetracked and lost in micro 4/3rd and mirrorless cameras. You have to worry as there have been no updates for so long in their higher models, even though those models are so old and uncompetitive in terms of features and quality. Such a pity, as they do have the IMO the best glass of all the major brands.

 

[Leo]

My set up was (one camera on eBay) two camera bodies with no lens swapping. The E-410 E-410 with wide lens and E-510 (IS) with long lens. I like this way very much. Starting with Kx and then adding K7 is less expensive start
Leo

 

[Leo]

Kx in RAW by this site review beats every APS camera of its class and even above! Wow!
What an option top restart my Pentax lenses.
Leo

 

[Leo]

Hard not to agree. You are correct. I was thinking the same.
Leo

 

[pentaxnut]

Leo,

A friend of mine has a K-x. I have the K10D and the K7. He's very happy, and images I've seen from it even with the kit lenses rock.

If low light photography is of interest to you, the only thing I would say, is that the K-x does noise reduction in camera. The K7 can too, but it can be turned off completely in the K7, and (I could be wrong) I don't think it can be in the K-x.

I, personally, prefer no in camera noise reduction. I think I can do a better job of that in CS4 with various plug ins.

That is my reality. That said....you can get the K-x in Pentax Red....I drool every time I see a picture of one.... Call me sick.....

The only reason I don't yet own a K-x is that I already have a K10D, a K7 and 4 Pentax film bodies (LX, PZ1-P, ME Super and MZ-S), so I have to ask, how many cameras do I really need? Hint: The answer is the same as for bicycles.....just one more....

I actually was about to buy a K-x recently (yes, in Red) but my retailer had a DA 70 Ltd on for Cdn $499.....so I bought that instead....maybe next month...FYI, I shoot basketball sometimes for fun, so 3 cameras is not as insane as it might sound...hell, even 4 might be appropriate....two with zooms and two with primes....

 

[ddldave]

K-7 owners are most happy because K-7 owners own it. K-7 complainers are not happy because they don't own one. Simple enough, K-7 owners are self-direction and self-thinking people who know what's best for themselves. K-7 complainers rely on what others tell them.

My K-7 review: pentaxforums.com/forums/930026-post13.html

--
ASA_5 is RiceHigh

http://www.petitiononline.com/593039/petition.html

 

[Gazooma]

K7 owners seem to be the most defensive. Could that be due to this one little annoyance, the fly in the ointment, the high ISO performance? Every time I mentioned that, someone would react. Look, the K-7 has everything, great size, weight, build, features and especially price. I am not a complainer. It is a great camera but it can be even greater very easily, which is why I wait. My K-x is a lens holder for the K-7 when it is perfected.

 

[pentaxnut]

It is a good question.

I'm curious. Not defensive. I'd like to turn off all NR on both cameras and shoot the same scene at high ISO, then print them out, and compare. I'd like to apply the same level of post processing to both. But, I don't think I can do that, because, and I could be wrong, I think the K-x doesn't allow one to turn off noise reduction completely....if I'm wrong about that, please tell me. In order to compare apples to apples, you'd need to do that.

Don't get me wrong, the K-x, from what I've seen, totally rocks for the price. But I like my K7 because I can turn off NR in camera for RAW files, I have two control wheels, and I have a few more MP....that said, as I've said elsewhere, I doubt most of us need more than 12MP....and the difference between 12 and 14 ain't that great.....

Maybe next month I'll have a red K-x....

 

[Uluru]

K7 is a digital camera that has its soul in olde SLR days, when cameras were built to last.

The feeling behind is not that one of a latest but senseless commodity provided to us by the economy of scale and need for a latest sensor.

It's rather a tribute to the spirit of photography.

Only other two digital cameras that stirred similar emotions are Minolta's 7D and Leica's M9. True photographic tools, not just plastic gizmos built to last for a season.

 

[Gazooma]

Sorry, pentaxnut. I suspect a lot of people are not so interested in the truest apple with apple comparison test that require turning off NR, checking the raw output from the sensors and other meticulous and IMO academic pursuit. The reason for me to get a camera is not to determine if its sensor can produce a true to god image superiority, but to see quality prints. With the high ISO performance in the K-x, granted there may be NR and other hidden trickery, I see real advantage in everyday shooting in the images I got, without spending time massaging the files with RAW processing. Look, wouldn't that be great if it could also available in the fantastic-in-everything-else K-7? That's what I am saying. Not complaining or bashing K-7 as some other have suggested.

 

[Uluru]

The reason for me to get a camera is not to determine if its sensor can produce a true to god image superiority, but to see quality prints. With the high ISO performance ..

Vast majority of best and most memorable photographs in history were made using film between 100 and 800 ASA. ALL DSLR and now EVIL cameras, from Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, etc. today are surely capable of delivering outstanding image quality in that range. Is your photo ready to become one of those memorables?

In consumerism people will always find yet another excuse that says they cannot justify their purchase and it creates an ever new need for upgrade. That's because how they approach to photography -- as a lust for gear, a short term investment.

In every market currency becomes more important than any offer, no matter what that offer might be. In stock market money is more important than things you buy with money because money makes you liquid, and your purchase may not, even the very next day. In camera stock market camera gear is thus more important than photography -- seen both both as an art and as photography subjects.

So if you want to compete in camera stock market, you're betting on wrong shares. Buy yourself a Nikon 3-something and their fastest, heaviest lenses on this planet. Then in 12 months buy Nikon 4 something with latest sensor technology.

K7 constant bashers are always those HI ISO cheerleaders who see nothing else in photography but noise and thus are fearful if their 'investment' will plunge the very next day when a new sensor comes out.

 

[Gazooma]

That is good for those who value cameras that are solid and can last. K-7 is that. However, the world has moved on from those days when a camera is an investment for life. Like all products with more and more electronic technology doing the trick, such as TVs and laptops, they will become more and more disposable as newer, faster, more featured but much cheaper (in build as well as in price) products are released more and more frequently. Your K-7 will still be usable but some cheap beginner camera, though fragile and basic, might produce images heaps better in a couple of years time. Not everybody need a really robust camera and stroke it. For survival, Pentax has to build cameras that can sell to new buyers coming up from P&S shooters. It is good that Pentax continues with this smaller but pro grade model. I am afraid that soon there will be so many 18 MP cameras sporting newer sensors with better high ISO performance similar to the Canon 7D, like a Nikon D300 replacement etc that will make the K-7 look outdated. So, don't think I am just be critical. I think Pentax should act and do something about this only flaw in the K-7, given that they already got this in the K-x, and maintain the great advanatge of being the low-price small but top-class APS-C model.

 

[zxaar]

Probably because the engineers made a great camera.

They also seem to be the type of photographers who really know what they are looking for.

like if you buy anything else you are plain stupid and do not know what you are doing.

May be there are people who know what they are looking for chose not to buy k7 or even pentax.

Count me in on that one.

K7 is one of the finest DSLRS of the last decade, top 5 off hand.

C
--
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com

--
::> I could not learn to spell 'cos God always ate my homework.

 

[zxaar]

It is a good question.

I'm curious. Not defensive. I'd like to turn off all NR on both cameras and shoot the same scene at high ISO, then print them out, and compare. I'd like to apply the same level of post processing to both. But, I don't think I can do that, because, and I could be wrong, I think the K-x doesn't allow one to turn off noise reduction completely....if I'm wrong about that, please tell me. In order to compare apples to apples, you'd need to do that.

Don't get me wrong, the K-x, from what I've seen, totally rocks for the price. But I like my K7 because I can turn off NR in camera for RAW files, I have two control wheels, and I have a few more MP....that said, as I've said elsewhere, I doubt most of us need more than 12MP....and the difference between 12 and 14 ain't that great.....

Maybe next month I'll have a red K-x....

check dxomark with print button on, you will see that comparison.

--
::> I could not learn to spell 'cos God always ate my homework.

 

[tigrebleu]

While the K-7 is indeed inferior to the K-x in terms of high ISO noise performance, it's still better than my old K10D and the difference with the K-x is less obvious if you shoot RAW and apply careful noise reduction. In fact, the K-7 ISO 1600 shots are very good IMHO, and the ISO 3200 shots are still quite usable for prints up to 8 x 12 inches. ISO 6400 is only for emergencies, even with careful noise reduction.

But the weather seals are the most important issue for me and, right now, the K-7 is one of the few to offer such protection at such a low price. The magnesium body is also more efficient against external electromagnetic interference, the viewfinder is more accurate, the size and handling are just perfect with the battery grip and the overall IQ is excellent in most circumstances. All features that I care about...

Although I often shoot at high ISO, the rest of the K-7 features were more important to me. I guess a lot of K-7 owners agree...

And there's that little something about the K-7 that you can't find in a K-x or a K-m: its incredible combination of excellent ergonomics and nice features coupled with a tank solid yet small and light body.

--
http://www.jfbphoto.com (coming soon)
http://tigrebleuproductions.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tigrebleu/

 

[zxaar]

Egyptians made pyramids with basic tools , but it does not mean that we shall not develop our tools any further. Tools and art are different things altogether.

The reason for me to get a camera is not to determine if its sensor can produce a true to god image superiority, but to see quality prints. With the high ISO performance ..

Vast majority of best and most memorable photographs in history were made using film between 100 and 800 ASA. ALL DSLR and now EVIL cameras, from Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, etc. today are surely capable of delivering outstanding image quality in that range. Is your photo ready to become one of those memorables?

In consumerism people will always find yet another excuse that says they cannot justify their purchase and it creates an ever new need for upgrade. That's because how they approach to photography -- as a lust for gear, a short term investment.

In every market currency becomes more important than any offer, no matter what that offer might be. In stock market money is more important than things you buy with money because money makes you liquid, and your purchase may not, even the very next day. In camera stock market camera gear is thus more important than photography -- seen both both as an art and as photography subjects.

So if you want to compete in camera stock market, you're betting on wrong shares. Buy yourself a Nikon 3-something and their fastest, heaviest lenses on this planet. Then in 12 months buy Nikon 4 something with latest sensor technology.

K7 constant bashers are always those HI ISO cheerleaders who see nothing else in photography but noise and thus are fearful if their 'investment' will plunge the very next day when a new sensor comes out.

--
::> I could not learn to spell 'cos God always ate my homework.

 

[Gazooma]

I agree with everything you said.

 

[Gazooma]

Uluru, I can understand the lament about what the world is doing to things artistic etc but it is a real world and market forces dictate what is happening. We can't return to those good old days now. The Leica rangefinders etc are treasures but also quite dead as photographic instruments. May be not dead, just not buried. I would like to see Pentax make a profit and be able to get the hobbyist better products. I think I have said enough. No amount of praise I can heap on the K-7 can undo any single criticism I made of it. It only goes to show one thing, so simple, and that is many K-7 owners are really happy until you mention this little nothing-to-worry about thing called high ISO performance. G'day, mate.

 

[Uluru]

Equation is quite simple: if you're in love with superb ISO, buy Nikon or Canon gear because that's the route they exploit and are focused on that. They make you buy that.

There's simply no point in complaining about the K7 considering the situation at hand. If you wish it to happen -- a better K7 in your opinion -- you may never see one and it will probably always be one step behind Nikon's most expensive cameras.

Grab a Nikon 3 series camera and be happy. They're best in ISO performance overall, hands down. At least that's what those testers say.

But you also need to understand there's more to photography than certain tech specs and ISO performance alone, and some people buy K7 just because of those other reasons. Not all of us are wedding photographers or National Geographic photojournalists on their assignment to capture images inside Brazilian bat caves.

I could get myself a 7D, D300, D700 or 5D MkII but I didn't want one. I knew K7's limits and strengths and still liked it better.