-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Confused... reasons NOT to buy a K7 over competition?
- Thread starter yuphorix
- Start date
Just felt I needed to add something here...
But I have to dispute you "5 fps just doesn't cut it" statement. Here are the fps rates for the Various Canon and Nikon DSLRs:
THAT I disagree with.
I agree that while Pentax was at the 3 fps rate, it could be argued that it wasn't enough for sports, especially since both Canon and Nikon had a 5 fps APS-C cameras out for for several years.
But, based on the data above, I think it can be reasonably concluded that 5 fps is plenty for sports, because that was what everyone else was (and still is) using.
Yes, Canon and Nikon have both had, for two years now, cameras that do even better, shooting at 6 fps or faster. And maybe it is the case that, for the past two years, many sports shooters have upgraded to 40Ds, or 50D, or D300s. (Heck, for all I know, PROFESSIONAL* sports shooters have been shooting full frame, and none even use APS-C cameras. But that's another issue altogether, and not germane to this discussion... Or, if it is, why are we even making comparisons of Canon to Nikon to Pentax within an APS-C framework?)
My point is, the 5.2 fps of the K-7 is plenty fast for sports shooters, and I would challenge anyone to to show me that the 0.8 fps speed increase of the D300, or the 1.5 fps speed increase of the 40D "cuts it" while a "mere" 5.2 fps does NOT "cut it."
That's all I'm sayin', about this specific point. Argue all the other points to your heart's content...
--Greg
I can agree with you that "back in the film days" does not necessarily refute the speed issue now that we are in the digital age.
But I have to dispute you "5 fps just doesn't cut it" statement. Here are the fps rates for the Various Canon and Nikon DSLRs:
- Nikon D70: 2.5 fps
- Nikon D80: 3 fps
- Nikon D90: 4.5 fps
- Nikon D100: 3 fps
- Nikon D200: 5 fps
- Nikon D300: 6 fps (Aug 2007)
- Canon 20D: 5 fps
- Canon 30D: 5 fps
- Canon 40D: 6.5 fps (Aug 2007)
THAT I disagree with.
I agree that while Pentax was at the 3 fps rate, it could be argued that it wasn't enough for sports, especially since both Canon and Nikon had a 5 fps APS-C cameras out for for several years.
But, based on the data above, I think it can be reasonably concluded that 5 fps is plenty for sports, because that was what everyone else was (and still is) using.
Yes, Canon and Nikon have both had, for two years now, cameras that do even better, shooting at 6 fps or faster. And maybe it is the case that, for the past two years, many sports shooters have upgraded to 40Ds, or 50D, or D300s. (Heck, for all I know, PROFESSIONAL* sports shooters have been shooting full frame, and none even use APS-C cameras. But that's another issue altogether, and not germane to this discussion... Or, if it is, why are we even making comparisons of Canon to Nikon to Pentax within an APS-C framework?)
My point is, the 5.2 fps of the K-7 is plenty fast for sports shooters, and I would challenge anyone to to show me that the 0.8 fps speed increase of the D300, or the 1.5 fps speed increase of the 40D "cuts it" while a "mere" 5.2 fps does NOT "cut it."
That's all I'm sayin', about this specific point. Argue all the other points to your heart's content...
--Greg
I would think that the unique-ness would be a plus to most people. Photography is a form of artistic expression, and in order for it to succeed, it has to be unique. So, as a photographer, why not go with a body and lenses that are unique and allows you to stand out from the masses. If my job was to take photographs, I'd choose canon/nikon for there millions of options and large accessibility... but if it was a hobby, I definitely don't want to be taking the same kinds of pictures as the guy next to me.
Fair enough.
Well, OK, but I think you need to make a distinction between 1) body weight; 2) body size; and 3) grip. The K-7 is smaller and lighter, but from what I've read, the K-7 has a very good, deep grip; this is what I think Bert was referring to when he said his K-7 "fells better" than any other DSLR he has owned (including ones with larger bodies).
But yes, some may want a heavier weight body.
Hokay, but the point then still goes to Pentax here.
I have to disagree. See my post here for details:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=33450864
To say that 5.2 fps "just won't cut it" is to say that every APS-C DSLR made prior to Aug 2007 ALSO "did not cut it," including all those Nikon D200s and Canon 30Ds out there. Surely we had a decent DSLR sports camera before the Nikon D300 and the Canon 40D?
Actually, I had not seen that. Can you point to some posts for reference? I have been reading just the opposite.
Well, there ARE places you can rent Pentax lenses. maybe not as MANY places, but there are still places. I was just looking online at a place last week that even have the Pentax K-7 for rental.
See comment above; there are online places to rent Pentax equipment.
Well, by that token , you have to go with the Nikon D300, period. You can't even consider Canon. I think choosing a feature available in only ONE existing camera is specious when discussing why one might "want to consider other brands."
OK, I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but this is REALLY a weak argument. Peer pressure as a criteria for choosing a camera? Now, THAT is something that "just doesn't cut it."
For the most part, I think you made some valid points. And of course there can be myriad things to consider when chooins whether to buy (or avoid) a particualr make of model of camera. I just felt the more baseless points needed to be challenged. If you were to cull out the jokes, the purely speculative issues, etc., you did have half a dozen or so valid issues one might want to consider.
--Greg
Nikon D2h: 8 fps (July 2003)
Canon 1D: 8 fps (Nov 2001)
Why ignore Canon and Nikon's actual pro sport cameras?
And, to be completely accurate, the Nikon D300 does 8 fps with the optional vertical grip.
Bert v B
Well-known member
I like this discussion so far.
We should try to get the religious element out of the discussion and be as objective as possible. As far as I can see most people have problems with opinions that deny the sense of their own choices. Something we all have to learn to deal with I guess.
On the FPS discussion, the following. I have had the privilege to shoot next to a professional nature photographer last month, on the Busanga plains in Zambia.
The guy (British) was using a Nikon D3x and very heavy lens equipment.
I've never seen him make more than 1 frame, or, in case of multiple frames the camera was in slow mode. Even for action scenes.
As for professional footbaal photographers, sitting behind a goal on a premier league play with their $20,000 600mm f1.4 lenses, it makes sense to capture the seconds of a missed goal with faster than film speed. For "more or less" normal amatures. Approach this as a business decision. What feature investment on your camera and direct photo equipment will improve the overall effectiveness on your pictures (# keepers), image quality and your ability to get the right frames?
In my personal list FPS is not at the top.
It is hard to proof any list, but guessing... (there goes my objectivity):
1. Lens quality, lens quality, lens quality....
2. Lens focal length, aperture & magnification, fit for that moment.
3. Overall size & weigth (I do 99.9% handheld shooting)
4. Light measurement accuracy.
5. High ISO noise
6. The ability to get the right focus. I mean focus accuracy here.
7. Shake reduction
8. Ability to have a very good (pre-)view to understand my lighting
9. Auto focus speed.
10. Frames per second.
--
- Bert
jake14mw
Leading Member
There is ONE place to rent Pentax lenses. http://www.cameralensrentals.com . If anyone finds another, please let me know. It's ironic for me because one of the many others that rents Canon and Nikon is based in the small town that I live in and allows pick-ups. GRRRRR....
Well, that is true.
Originally I left out the D2 and 1D series because I thought: a) they were full-frame cameras; and b) they were priced so high as to not even be part of a serious comparison. From the OP:
I assumed the OP wanted something in the affordability range of the K-7, the D300s, and the 50D, i.e., the $1,200 to $1,500 range.
I didn't include the newer versions of those cameras because they are so much more expensive. and those older original ones have been discontinued for quite some time.
But, I suppose if one was happy with a 4.3-megapixel DSLR, then yes, the Nikon D2h or the Canon 1D would be cameras to consider.
That is true, and it only adds about $100 to the cost. But again, if we're saying that 8 fps is the standard, that tosses out a LOT of other cameras.
This seems a bit like a "moving target": 5 fps was fine when Canon or Nikon offered it. I guess if the point is that by the time Pentax got to that level, Nikon and Canon had moved on to 6.5 fps po8 fps with an additional grip, then yep, they have Pentax beat, because they are faster.
But I wold submit that, if 5 fps was fast enough in July 2007, it's really fast enough now.
I shoot a lot of sports; not pro sports, mostly high school and middle school. I can say authoritatively that 3 fps is not fast enough for my tatstes, and that there are a lot of action sequences that are not properly served by 3 fps. Diving off a diving board, long jump, throwing a pitch, etc.
And who knows? Maybe when i get a 5 fps camera I will find myself pining for 6 fps, or even 8 fps.
But I have a feeling that, for the first six months at least, I'm gonna be THRILLED with 5 fps....
--Greg
Bert v B
Well-known member
What's this thing with renting lenses...
I know some professionals renting equipment for gigs, except for that I know no amatures having rented any cameras or lenses.
Is that a relevant business is some parts of the world?
Am I missing some vital contacts in my social network?
--
- Bert
The point wasn't to compare apples to apples, and I said it wasn't a fair comparison. The OP makes the argument that the K-7 does basically everything the other cameras do and is cheaper, but the body by itself doesn't take any pictures. You have to look at the total cost of the system and it's very easy to put together a system that covers the same ground that as a whole costs less in another mount. It's that do everything the same but cheaper ideology I was following making the comparisons.
In many cases you can't make the apple to apple comparison because the less expensive option does not exist for Pentax. You don't get to pretend the Nikon 35/1.8 doesn't exist just because Pentax doesn't have anything like it anymore, and even when they did it still cost a lot more. Pentax has lots of inexpensive MF options at 50mm, and not too bad at 28mm, but stray away from there and you can't even buy an A35/2 for less than that 35/1.8.
The great difficulty is that when you are starting out you simply don't know what your total system is going to end up being, it's a process. So you can't properly work out which is the best option until you are already waist deep in a system. And so in that regard Nikon and Canon are much safer to get into. At the time I got into Pentax it was because of the value you got, both in the body and the lenses. But if I were starting today I would probably go to Nikon based on the same argument.
In many cases you can't make the apple to apple comparison because the less expensive option does not exist for Pentax. You don't get to pretend the Nikon 35/1.8 doesn't exist just because Pentax doesn't have anything like it anymore, and even when they did it still cost a lot more. Pentax has lots of inexpensive MF options at 50mm, and not too bad at 28mm, but stray away from there and you can't even buy an A35/2 for less than that 35/1.8.
The great difficulty is that when you are starting out you simply don't know what your total system is going to end up being, it's a process. So you can't properly work out which is the best option until you are already waist deep in a system. And so in that regard Nikon and Canon are much safer to get into. At the time I got into Pentax it was because of the value you got, both in the body and the lenses. But if I were starting today I would probably go to Nikon based on the same argument.
rsrascal
Veteran Member
Back in my point and shoot days, I really loved the articulated screen on my Panasonic FZ30 for taking bird pictures, I could set the camera up, move off to the side out of site with my remote in hand and see everything going on on-screen. Something I've missed with my DSLRs..
--
Gene (The one in Oregon)
--
Gene (The one in Oregon)
joannegrrl
Leading Member
There are plenty of reasons to consider the K7D, but one reason not to consider it is long exposure noise reduction (dark frame subtraction) cannot be turned off for exposures greater than 30 seconds, RAW or jpeg. That will double the exposure time of any picture taken in this situation, effectively making the K7D (and the K20D/K10D) useless for astrophotograhy unless you have monstrous patience and a willingness to take half the number of pictures.
This may not be an issue to you unless you do want to take long exposures of the night sky or similar. I do, so it's the one thing that really frustrates me about the K20D and I, otherwise, really love using it.
This may not be an issue to you unless you do want to take long exposures of the night sky or similar. I do, so it's the one thing that really frustrates me about the K20D and I, otherwise, really love using it.
pcarfan
Veteran Member
You are absolutely correct about the initial part of you analysis, especially in regards to looking what the system offers as a whole. I did the same with full knowledge of the spectrum of lenses available with Canikon, Sony and Pentax, and chose Pentax just for the lenses it offers, nothing else. Actually I was willing to give up on superior bodies and better flash systems to be able to use the Pentax lenses.
--
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=2323984&subSubSection=0&language=EN
K10D, K-7
Pentax Primes: DA21/3.2, FA*24/2, F28/2.8, FA43/1.9, FA77/1.8, F135/2.8
Sigma Zooms: Sigma 10-20, Sigma 100-300 F4
'Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming... 'Wow! What a ride!'
rsrascal
Veteran Member
--
Cheers, Gene (The one in Oregon)
Cheers, Gene (The one in Oregon)
I have not done a lot of AF.C shooting, but I shot a sequence to test it out with my little niece walking towards me, and she was pushing this tricycle in front of her with a big back that had bars on the sides that were as tall as her. At the beginning of the sequence her face is framed by the bars and as she comes toward me the angle changes and one of the bars crosses the center AF point and finally I'm shooting at her profile. Every shot is in focus on her face. The FPS did slow way down, but damn!
Thomas Karlmann
Veteran Member
Wow, great test! Thanks for the results! Looks as though the K-7 will do tracking AF-C as well as I would need it to. Now, if could get the flash to recycle as fast as the K-7 can continually shoot.... Ok, I won't ask for miracles.
--
Thom--
jake14mw
Leading Member
That's kind of the funny thing about advertising the camera as 5 fps. If it slows down to less fps using AFC, is it really 5 fps? Who needs 5 fps of something that's not moving?
It's funny, I've been harping on the Pentax negatives in this thread, but I still think all of the positives make the K-7 an oustanding choice for most users.
Thomas Karlmann
Veteran Member
Certainly Pentax lens pricing does not seem to fall in line with the pricing of its camera bodies. Also granted that Pentax has sizable holes in its lens lineup. No arguments. I am new to Pentax, no Pentax hardware yet, so legacy lens pricing is a perspective I do not have.
I think your reply has made you original post clearer to me now. I think I misunderstood your first post. Coming from a Nikon and Minolta/Sony background, my interest is in the total size and weight of the complete system, and the ability to go with that complete system in a belt-carry setup for weddings seems very attractive to me.
The advantages I see are the core zooms 24-70 and 70-200 (35mm equiv), which must be at f2.8, are translated precisely to the cropped sensor of the K-7 with the 16-50 and the 50-135 lenses. Then adding the premium pancake primes, and I have, what I think right now to be, a great Wedding carry-everything-with-me system. This would have value to me, unless I have missed something.
As far as the economics go, I would spread that extra cost over many jobs, knowing that my response time to moments during the event have improved as opposed to going back & forth to the camera case; and that my carry-around-load was reduced. I'm still refining my thoughts on Pentax. I do plan on bolstering low-light capabilities with other equipment, so event ambient light and size of prints from the event are factors as to the feasibility of Pentax for me.
--
Thom--
I think your reply has made you original post clearer to me now. I think I misunderstood your first post. Coming from a Nikon and Minolta/Sony background, my interest is in the total size and weight of the complete system, and the ability to go with that complete system in a belt-carry setup for weddings seems very attractive to me.
The advantages I see are the core zooms 24-70 and 70-200 (35mm equiv), which must be at f2.8, are translated precisely to the cropped sensor of the K-7 with the 16-50 and the 50-135 lenses. Then adding the premium pancake primes, and I have, what I think right now to be, a great Wedding carry-everything-with-me system. This would have value to me, unless I have missed something.
As far as the economics go, I would spread that extra cost over many jobs, knowing that my response time to moments during the event have improved as opposed to going back & forth to the camera case; and that my carry-around-load was reduced. I'm still refining my thoughts on Pentax. I do plan on bolstering low-light capabilities with other equipment, so event ambient light and size of prints from the event are factors as to the feasibility of Pentax for me.
--
Thom--
Thomas Karlmann
Veteran Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum