Someone has to do it ... Canon 7D review comments

Not a troll post! I just wondered if any others, upon reading the Canon 7D review, thought that the K-7 was, if not slighted, noticed that some things were ignored as good or perhaps better than the 7D on K-7?

I thought that the table of statistics (page 20) -- comparing the cameras -- was not the way I would expect to see it. First: the fact that K-7 has DNG RAW format was not highlighted as a plus. I was surprised to see the K-7's VF get a red, although I have not looked thru all three models. Then, of course, the size & weight advantage got no 'green' either --- really, am I the only one who thinks this is a terrific advantage?

I also noticed, when commenting on noise, they seem to go on&on about how all the other cameras are leaving the K-7 in the dust -- then in one small sentance they mention RAW and say something like 'the K-7 gets close to the rest when shooting RAW'.

Firstly, I am not about to diss the 7D. I just looked at the 7D body and said to myself that the 7D didn't have enough buttons on it to suit me -- my preference. I'm quite sure the 7D is a fine camera. I would just like to see the K-7 get credit when credit is due. (And of course, I would like to see the K-X sensor, somehow running with 4 data channels, put into the K-7.
--
Thom--

Thomas Karlmann said:

Not a troll post! I just wondered if any others, upon reading the Canon 7D review, thought that the K-7 was, if not slighted, noticed that some things were ignored as good or perhaps better than the 7D on K-7?

I thought that the table of statistics (page 20) -- comparing the cameras -- was not the way I would expect to see it. First: the fact that K-7 has DNG RAW format was not highlighted as a plus. I was surprised to see the K-7's VF get a red, although I have not looked thru all three models. Then, of course, the size & weight advantage got no 'green' either --- really, am I the only one who thinks this is a terrific advantage?

Click to expand...

The viewfinder on the K-7 is the smallest of the bunch, it has the least magnification. All are 100%. The K-7 is 0.92, the d300s is 0.94, and the 7d is 1.00. The difference between the K-7 and D300s are negligible in my opinion.

Size and weight I can see, not everyone is looking for a smaller camera.

For DNG, you are right, they should have given the K-7 the nod for that, but a lack or reduced resolution RAW is sort of a bummer to me, which the 7d has.

Thomas Karlmann said:

I also noticed, when commenting on noise, they seem to go on&on about how all the other cameras are leaving the K-7 in the dust -- then in one small sentance they mention RAW and say something like 'the K-7 gets close to the rest when shooting RAW'.

Click to expand...

Agree, and they did comment that this was using the default options.

Overall I think they were fairly kind to the K-7. In the RAW comparison they did comment how the 7d was almost no better than the K-7 for their test scene, saying just that the higher resolution offered slightly more detail, but the K-7 was really darn close considering the pixel count is 25% less.

The 7d looks like a great camera, Canon owners will be proud. Better than the "Just" rating the 50d received.

Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://viking79.blogspot.com/ (9/9/09)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
See my PPG Shots: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/erictastad (8/31/09)

you can also add that at the factory the pentax dslrs have their noise reduction turned OFF. while the canon is ON from the factory. and that is how they are tested with the factory settings. then they say that the k7 is noisier, if the noise reduction is off in the k7 and on in the canon i sure hope so.

i also note that tjhe resolution of the k7 is equal to por better than the other dslrs in the test except for the 7d. since the pentax is giving the 7d 3.4mps, that is not bad considering the numeric difference in resolution.

Thomas Karlmann said:

Not a troll post! I just wondered if any others, upon reading the Canon 7D review, thought that the K-7 was, if not slighted, noticed that some things were ignored as good or perhaps better than the 7D on K-7?

I thought that the table of statistics (page 20) -- comparing the cameras -- was not the way I would expect to see it. First: the fact that K-7 has DNG RAW format was not highlighted as a plus. I was surprised to see the K-7's VF get a red, although I have not looked thru all three models. Then, of course, the size & weight advantage got no 'green' either --- really, am I the only one who thinks this is a terrific advantage?

Click to expand...

DNG I'd say is a minor advantage, ViewFinder size is notably smaller than the 7D and should be red (probably along with the Nikon), size/weight depends on the person (though most would probably prefer the smaller size), so I have no quibbles with that.

Thomas Karlmann said:

I also noticed, when commenting on noise, they seem to go on&on about how all the other cameras are leaving the K-7 in the dust -- then in one small sentance they mention RAW and say something like 'the K-7 gets close to the rest when shooting RAW'.

Click to expand...

DPR likes JPEG, they've always been like that

Thomas Karlmann said:

Firstly, I am not about to diss the 7D. I just looked at the 7D body and said to myself that the 7D didn't have enough buttons on it to suit me -- my preference. I'm quite sure the 7D is a fine camera. I would just like to see the K-7 get credit when credit is due. (And of course, I would like to see the K-X sensor, somehow running with 4 data channels, put into the K-7.

Click to expand...

I haven't read the review, but the buttons thing should definitely be highlighted if it isn't.

Thomas Karlmann said:

--
Thom--

Click to expand...

Also if it isn't highlighted, the better white-balance of the K-7 should be highlighted. Do the Nikon/Canon have FF in tungsten like the older Pentax models?

Well, errm, if the $700 lower price tag than either didn't get a green....

RAW DR is more than half a stop worse, but is "pretty much in line" with the competition. And then go on about how they couldn't find anything to list as a con. Worst DR in class sounds like a con to me.

The Pentax software ought to get a red though Not that I have used either of the others, but they can't possibly be as bad.

.92 mag * 1.6 / 1.5 = .98 = just barely smaller than the Canon on a camera that is vastly smaller. Why doesn't the Nikon get a green if the Pentax gets a red?

Size and weight, you might see as a big pro or you might prefer a larger body. Depends on the user and usage.

Thomas Karlmann said:

Not a troll post! I just wondered if any others, upon reading the Canon 7D review, thought that the K-7 was, if not slighted, noticed that some things were ignored as good or perhaps better than the 7D on K-7?

I thought that the table of statistics (page 20) -- comparing the cameras -- was not the way I would expect to see it. First: the fact that K-7 has DNG RAW format was not highlighted as a plus. I was surprised to see the K-7's VF get a red, although I have not looked thru all three models. Then, of course, the size & weight advantage got no 'green' either --- really, am I the only one who thinks this is a terrific advantage?

Click to expand...

7D's VF is 100% magnification, 100% coverage with 22mm eyepoint, versus K7's 92% magnification, 100% coverage with 18mm eyepoint. As for the size advantage, 7D is a camera targeting sports/action/birding/wildlife which require very large telephoto lenses. For those users, a large body is actually an advantage.

Thomas Karlmann said:

I also noticed, when commenting on noise, they seem to go on&on about how all the other cameras are leaving the K-7 in the dust -- then in one small sentance they mention RAW and say something like 'the K-7 gets close to the rest when shooting RAW'.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're trying to say here other than Pentax doing a lousy job with their jpgs.

Thomas Karlmann said:

Firstly, I am not about to diss the 7D. I just looked at the 7D body and said to myself that the 7D didn't have enough buttons on it to suit me -- my preference. I'm quite sure the 7D is a fine camera. I would just like to see the K-7 get credit when credit is due. (And of course, I would like to see the K-X sensor, somehow running with 4 data channels, put into the K-7.
--
Thom--

Click to expand...

I don't think any credit was taken away from the K-7. They aknowledge that it's a lot cheaper and has the added benefit of built-in SR.

Ilias

Leuf said:

The Pentax software ought to get a red though Not that I have used either of the others, but they can't possibly be as bad.

Click to expand...

Hehe, I agree, but DpReview stated they like the software that comes with the Pentax. I imagine they are familiar with that program.

Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://viking79.blogspot.com/ (9/9/09)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
See my PPG Shots: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/erictastad (8/31/09)

...I still have a Pentax K20D that will be sold. While a great camera from 100-800 iso, it couldn't hold things together at 1600 and higher compared to my 7D. While I admit that only a small number of shots I do at wedding reach 3200 and higher, when I do need those speeds, the Canon simply did better.

By no means is the Pentax a poor camera....I used my K20 a lot when travelling in the southwest doing landscapes, it simply could be better at higher isos for what I need.

If you never need speeds higher than about 1000 or 1250, then the K20D or K7 is definitely an solid option!

iliask said:

Thomas Karlmann said:

Not a troll post! I just wondered if any others, upon reading the Canon 7D review, thought that the K-7 was, if not slighted, noticed that some things were ignored as good or perhaps better than the 7D on K-7?

I thought that the table of statistics (page 20) -- comparing the cameras -- was not the way I would expect to see it. First: the fact that K-7 has DNG RAW format was not highlighted as a plus. I was surprised to see the K-7's VF get a red, although I have not looked thru all three models. Then, of course, the size & weight advantage got no 'green' either --- really, am I the only one who thinks this is a terrific advantage?

Click to expand...

7D's VF is 100% magnification, 100% coverage with 22mm eyepoint, versus K7's 92% magnification, 100% coverage with 18mm eyepoint. As for the size advantage, 7D is a camera targeting sports/action/birding/wildlife which require very large telephoto lenses. For those users, a large body is actually an advantage.

Click to expand...

92 mag * 1.6 / 1.5 = .98 = just barely smaller than the Canon on a camera that is vastly smaller. Why doesn't the Nikon get a green if the Pentax gets a red?

Good point, forgot about that.

iliask said:

iliask said:

I also noticed, when commenting on noise, they seem to go on&on about how all the other cameras are leaving the K-7 in the dust -- then in one small sentance they mention RAW and say something like 'the K-7 gets close to the rest when shooting RAW'.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you're trying to say here other than Pentax doing a lousy job with their jpgs.

iliask said:

Firstly, I am not about to diss the 7D. I just looked at the 7D body and said to myself that the 7D didn't have enough buttons on it to suit me -- my preference. I'm quite sure the 7D is a fine camera. I would just like to see the K-7 get credit when credit is due. (And of course, I would like to see the K-X sensor, somehow running with 4 data channels, put into the K-7.
--
Thom--

Click to expand...

I don't think any credit was taken away from the K-7. They aknowledge that it's a lot cheaper and has the added benefit of built-in SR.

Ilias

Click to expand...

iliask said:

7D's VF is 100% magnification, 100% coverage with 22mm eyepoint, versus K7's 92% magnification, 100% coverage with 18mm eyepoint.

Click to expand...

But the K-7 and D300 have larger sensors. The D300 has the largest vf, 7D in the middle, and K-7 the smallest. But if you convert the K-7 to 7D sensor size it is 1.00 to 0.98, apples to apples, not the large difference that 1.00 to 0.92 implies. We are talking about differences of half a millimeter here, basically they are the same unless you want to get out your calipers.

Leuf said:

Well, errm, if the $700 lower price tag than either didn't get a green....

RAW DR is more than half a stop worse, but is "pretty much in line" with the competition. And then go on about how they couldn't find anything to list as a con. Worst DR in class sounds like a con to me.

Click to expand...

DPR likes to comment on JPEG.

RAW DR is BETTER on the K-7: 10.5 EV vs 9.8 EV
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk7/page18.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page17.asp

JPEG DR is BETTER on the K-7 in total, ie if you apply -0.3 or -0.6 EV Comp on the K-7, it will have more highlight DR than the others.

By default, the K-7 apparently has less highlight DR which is most important.

At least thats how I read it, but certainly not how DPR interprets it.

Leuf said:

The Pentax software ought to get a red though Not that I have used either of the others, but they can't possibly be as bad.

.92 mag * 1.6 / 1.5 = .98 = just barely smaller than the Canon on a camera that is vastly smaller. Why doesn't the Nikon get a green if the Pentax gets a red?

Size and weight, you might see as a big pro or you might prefer a larger body. Depends on the user and usage.

Click to expand...

oh, and as it was pointed out, this is ISO 100 only, K-7 goes down the crapper at higher ISO.

I do wish they would simply set up all cameras at their (subjective perhaps) optimal settings prior to comparing them. I could be wrong, and judging by a couple of responses to this thread - I just might BE wrong, but I simply assume that everyone using a camera of this caliber tinkers with the settings to arrive at the result they're looking for. If that means turning NR up on jpgs, then we do it.

Personally, I shoot nothing but RAW. Otherwise, I will have nightmares about the shot I could have saved if I only had the latitude of the RAW format to work with. So, for ME, that makes most of these comparisons entirely pointless unless they do what I say above. Get the cameras in optimal condition for what they're comparing, and THEN make them fight.

The sad thing is that people will immediately discount the Pentax because its out of box, non-heavy-handed settings not matching up with the others based on these reviews.

Good high ISO performance (especially for 18mp!), decent DR despite the packed sensor, amazing detail at pixel level especially, and honestly very stiff competition for the K-7. Not that I would buy a Canon camera, but still ... gotta give credit where its due.

-Mouse

--

The Mouse Gallery
http://www.photobucket.com/andy_allen

'My boss just quit the job, says he's goin out to find the
blind spots and he'll do it ... the 3rd planet is sure
they're bein watched, by an eye in the sky that can't
be stopped - when ya get to the promised land ...
you're gonna shake the eyes hand.'

K-7: (in none of our several hundred real-life sample shots that we took while working on this review did we have any issues with focus accuracy)

EOS 7D: As usual we shot a few hundred real-life sample shots while working on this review and only had a very small number of pictures that were not focused properly.

Need to compare like models really.. K7 and 7d are different price ranges I believe in most countries.. for example..

In Australia

• K7 is around $1,500 body only
• 7D is around $2,400 body only

D300s is the same price as th 7d and the K7 is around the same price as the D90 and 50d, not the D300s and 7d.. So the K7 holds on extremely well against much more expensive bodies here I think...

As for viewfinder coverage as others have said there is so little in it, I wouldn't bother mentioning a difference in the comparison page..

Canon 7d = 1.0 / 1.6 * 1.5 = 0.937
K7 = 0.92
D300s = 0.94

------------
Joel - K7, DA15, FA31, DA70, DA*200
My Gallery: http://www.eisner.id.au

Dave Luttmann said:

If you never need speeds higher than about 1000 or 1250, then the K20D or K7 is definitely an solid option!

Click to expand...

This is not true, if you shoot RAW it does as well as the competition if you use good noise reduction software. I have no problem shooting up to ISO 2000. I use up to 6400 if I don't mind noise (like for B&W conversion or others where I don't mind noise).

The following was taken with the K-7 and DA 16-45mm @ ISO 2000, 1/30th, f/4. Chroma noise reduction in LR3 beta (Seems excellent).



http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/4036620358/

( Note, flickr server acting up when I posted this, so the image might take a while to show )

This second was on the order of ISO 6400 (it was 2000 + 1.5 EV in lightroom, with other processing, so it is hard to say what it is equivalent to).



http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/3970310993

Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://viking79.blogspot.com/ (9/9/09)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
See my PPG Shots: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/erictastad (8/31/09)

that the excellent lenses available to Pentaxians are ALL stabilized.

A tremendous price advantage.

Sadly, not enough to overcome Pentax's unstable financial and company condition for me.

If the camera had a guaranteed stable future, and was likely to have an increasing lens set in the future, it would be the best camera.

I bought the K10D and K20D because they were by far the best value for the money. And I liked Pentax once I had it.

But because I have a limited amt of money, I will put no more into Pentax, switching back to Canon as I need more equipment than I now have with the Pentax.

ONLY because Pentax's future is clouded. And because Canon has a secure and predictable future. And makes an equally good product, with a much wider modern lens set.

The only downside is the expense of their good stabilized lenses. But that's better than the Pentax future as an increasingly niche product.

I just bought the Canon G11 as a "carry when I don't want the DSLR" unit and it is almost ridiculously good. It is actually absurd that a "point and shoot" (what a misnomer !) costing $500 produces this quality - including, I may say, at high ISO. A DSLR it ain't, of course - but WOW is what it is!
--
Bill Wilson

viking79 said:

Dave Luttmann said:

If you never need speeds higher than about 1000 or 1250, then the K20D or K7 is definitely an solid option!

Click to expand...

This is not true, if you shoot RAW it does as well as the competition if you use good noise reduction software. I have no problem shooting up to ISO 2000. I use up to 6400 if I don't mind noise (like for B&W conversion or others where I don't mind noise).

Click to expand...

Really? If it isn't true, then why is the 3200 and 6400 raw sample in the review show the 7D to be miles ahead of the K7? Sorry, but the test doesn't lie....and neither do the samples I took with my K20D.

No matter how many excuses come up, the Pentax is high iso limited. So please, no more of the "isn't true" comments.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page15.asp

viking79 said:

The following was taken with the K-7 and DA 16-45mm @ ISO 2000, 1/30th, f/4. Chroma noise reduction in LR3 beta (Seems excellent).



http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/4036620358/

( Note, flickr server acting up when I posted this, so the image might take a while to show )

This second was on the order of ISO 6400 (it was 2000 + 1.5 EV in lightroom, with other processing, so it is hard to say what it is equivalent to).



http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/3970310993

Eric
--
I never saw an ugly thing in my life: for let the form of an object
be what it may - light, shade, and perspective will always make it
beautiful. - John Constable (quote)

See my Blog at: http://viking79.blogspot.com/ (9/9/09)
Flickr Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28177041@N03/ (updated daily)
See my PPG Shots: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/erictastad (8/31/09)

Click to expand...