Why K7 owners the happiest???

Gazooma said:

... 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.

Click to expand...

Ah, what is 'better'?

I see what you want to say, but even 6 years after, I still look at my son's photographs, taken with a small Minolta's A1 camera which had such an excellent lense, and they're full of life, detail and charm. I revive in myself every of those moments.

There's nothing I could do to better them now, for those moments are never to happen again.

For camera doesn't create images -- it only ignites our memories and we replay all of those moments inside, again and again.

Pretty much nailed it, if I wanted to really defend the noise of my camera, I would've gotten a Nikon D300 or D90. But I bought K-7 because the K-7 is... Well, the K-7.
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.

--
ASA_5 is RiceHigh

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

Roland Mabo said:

Pentax designs their cameras for photographic artists, for creative minds, for those with passion about photography as an art, to express oneself or ones creative ability or feelings.

Pentax does not design cameras for technical minded people which are more interested in technical fact sheets and curves. Pentax designs cameras to be a creative tool to make it easier for the photographic artist to express himself and his ideas and vision.

Because of this emotional approach to camera design, Pentax also attracts emotional users.

Click to expand...

Well said, Roland!

Uluru said:

Gazooma said:

... 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.

Click to expand...

Ah, what is 'better'?

I see what you want to say, but even 6 years after, I still look at my son's photographs, taken with a small Minolta's A1 camera which had such an excellent lense, and they're full of life, detail and charm. I revive in myself every of those moments.

There's nothing I could do to better them now, for those moments are never to happen again.

For camera doesn't create images -- it only ignites our memories and we replay all of those moments inside, again and again.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, Uluru.

OK, what is 'better'? Any long zoom P&S will do and most likely be able to capture that particular moment for you because the camera is with you, or it can shoot straight without much fiddling. Don't bother with any DSLR, K-7, K-x or any other, if that is what you want.

Most people here shoot DSLR's because I want to capture that moment the way I want to. If you think that about P&S and DSLR's, then I don't know why you are here complaining, go pick yourself up a P&S if that's how you see DSLRs.

Gazooma said:

Uluru said:

Gazooma said:

... 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.

Click to expand...

Ah, what is 'better'?

I see what you want to say, but even 6 years after, I still look at my son's photographs, taken with a small Minolta's A1 camera which had such an excellent lense, and they're full of life, detail and charm. I revive in myself every of those moments.

There's nothing I could do to better them now, for those moments are never to happen again.

For camera doesn't create images -- it only ignites our memories and we replay all of those moments inside, again and again.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, Uluru.

OK, what is 'better'? Any long zoom P&S will do and most likely be able to capture that particular moment for you because the camera is with you, or it can shoot straight without much fiddling. Don't bother with any DSLR, K-7, K-x or any other, if that is what you want.

Click to expand...

--
ASA_5 is RiceHigh

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

Not too technical, I see, and get emotional. That's how a great camera like Pentax can get to where it is today and still struggling to make a profit. I hope the Hoya people are more sensible and they seem to be after taking the reins. : )

DSLRs are about quality. These cameras and the right lens are not always with you. Don't you see what emotion can do, which seems to be what was behind your commnet? If the heart rules all the time without the head, then you end up with these mistakes. You do not understand what I was saying in my previous post? Try reading it again, this time use the brain and think.

Roland Mabo said:

K-7 is a great photographic tool, designed for photographers by photograpers, or actually photographic artists. Canon designs their pro and semi pro models for sports photographers. Nikon designs their semi-pro and pro cameras for photojournalists.

Pentax designs their cameras for photographic artists, for creative minds, for those with passion about photography as an art, to express oneself or ones creative ability or feelings.

Pentax does not design cameras for technical minded people which are more interested in technical fact sheets and curves. Pentax designs cameras to be a creative tool to make it easier for the photographic artist to express himself and his ideas and vision.

Click to expand...

Roland, where do Olympus and Sony (Konika/Minolta) fit in this picture?

Gazooma said:

K7 owners certainly sound very happy with their cameras here and they are very vocal when any comparison is made with the K-x's high ISO performance.

Click to expand...

the KX is only 12Mp though - resize the K7 to 12Mp and the difference is less - the biggest thorn in the K7's side is that it's actually worse for high ISOs and Dynamic range than the K20 which uses the same basic sensor !! (maybe its the multi-channel readout needed for the gimmicky movie mode?) . there are cries of high ISO NR in K20 RAWs but in Capture One V5 I don't see much at 1600 (anything above ISO1600 is pushed anyway so irrelevant) .. The K7 body is a superb tool.

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

--
Jan Rinze
http://picasaweb.google.com/janrinze

Sony seems to have embarked on a different road than Konica-Minolta was travelling upon. Now Sony seems to fill their cameras with as much technology as possible, and they combines this with low build quality, cheap plastics and confusing user interface.

Sony also makes several versions of the same camera, so they are flooding the market and this confuses the customers.

So I would say that Sony makes cameras for consumers reading tehnical sheets rather than cameras for photographers.

--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

My opinion is that Pentax users like to take pictures, while people in the Canon forum and on many other forums spend their life comparing cameras, looking at 100% crops and whining if dpreview does not give the highest rates to their favourite cameras.

This means that Pentax users, as long as Pentax makes good cameras, are satisfied, while others are not.

AdamT said:

the biggest thorn in the K7's side is that it's actually worse for high ISOs and Dynamic range than the K20 which uses the same basic sensor !!

Click to expand...

That difference is so irrelevant to be noticeable only if pixel-peeping.

C1 does a better job than ACR in recovering details in the highlights, I am not sure there's difference in the DR range too.

Yes you can think it's a newer camera with a not better sensor, but it's a better camera, and despite the initial impressions, now DPR too publish a raw noise graph that puts the K20/K-7 in the very same league of the D300.

I'm happy with that sensor, and happier with the better focusing/shutter/exposure of the K-7. Would love a smaller selectable focusing area (à la Olympus).

There are better sensors but you'd lose SR, compactness, small primes, usability.

Sorry to say that, but the inferiority of Pentax is in my opinion in the zooms quality, not in the sensor. And I don't mean the superb kit zooms: I mean the supposedly better ones. There is not a serious trans-standard zoom. The half priced Oly 14-54, as opposed to the top of the line 16-50, is a superior lens. The 12-60 (similar price tag) is vastly superior. And if you can afford it, the 14-35 is on another planet (no equivalent chez Pentax). Just to speak of what I know.
What do you think?

tompabes2 said:

My opinion is that Pentax users like to take pictures, while people in the Canon forum and on many other forums spend their life comparing cameras, looking at 100% crops and whining if dpreview does not give the highest rates to their favourite cameras.

Click to expand...

I don't know what to say about this other than you must do some very selective reading on this forum. ;-)

Thank you
Russell

--
http://waorak.tripod.com/

zxaar said:

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

Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. I think the same could be said for many other DSLR camera purchases as well.

zxaar said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are plenty of them, what's your point here?

--
http://www.AlphaMountWorld.com

Alessandro63 said:

That difference is so irrelevant to be noticeable only if pixel-peeping.

Click to expand...

or if you need to crop of course

Alessandro63 said:

C1 does a better job than ACR in recovering details in the highlights, I am not sure there's difference in the DR range too.

Click to expand...

and detail especially - any worries about the sensor being soft are squashed when you develop in C1 instead of ACR or the Horrible Silkypix

Alessandro63 said:

Yes you can think it's a newer camera with a not better sensor

Click to expand...

in fact a worse one (if only marginally) which isn't good enough given the age of the K20

Alessandro63 said:

but it's a better camera

Click to expand...

Correct and that's what makes the poorer sensor performance pill harder to swallow

Alessandro63 said:

There are better sensors but you'd lose SR, compactness, small primes, usability.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately Samsung didn't do any work on their sensor performance wise in the intermediate time between the K20 and K7 developments - I get the feeling that its the need for gimmicks like Video which caused the performance downturn - gimme 1 stop cleaner than the K20 and no Video over 1/2 a stop worse plus video anyday, it's a Pro level still camera at the end of the day (but then that's just my opinion)

Alessandro63 said:

Sorry to say that, but the inferiority of Pentax is in my opinion in the zooms quality, not in the sensor

Click to expand...

Hmmm there's tamron and Sigma though - Sony are in the same predicament, the only really good zooms are the two very expensive full framers, the APS stuff (including the 16-80) are largely overpriced junk.

Alessandro63 said:

What do you think? (Olympus comments)

Click to expand...

I think Oly make far better zooms but their camera bodies are poor - the best thiing they make for image quality is the EP1, the DSLRs leave me cold and the noise, DR and resolution are all well behind the APS brigade, always will be I'm afraid.

As for the K7, it's a lovely body shell but I can't get around the Sub-K20 image performance - Both beat the canon 50D however, especially for native cleanness at base ISO let alone above that..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

AdamT said:

Alessandro63 said:

C1 does a better job than ACR in recovering details in the highlights, I am not sure there's difference in the DR range too.

Click to expand...

and detail especially - any worries about the sensor being soft are squashed when you develop in C1 instead of ACR or the Horrible Silkypix

Click to expand...

I was curious to investigate your comments about RAW devlopers and found this worthwhile comparison article:

RAW deathmatch – Lightroom 3 vs DXO 6 vs Capture One 5 vs Bibble 5
http://www.twin-pixels.com/lightroom-dxo-capture-one-bibble-5/

" Conclusion: It should come to no surprise that there’s no “perfect” program – each one has its strengths and weaknesses and your decision on which one is better for you should be based on the type of photography you do."

K7 owners are happiest because they own a KX too!

Roland Mabo said:

Sony seems to have embarked on a different road than Konica-Minolta was travelling upon. Now Sony seems to fill their cameras with as much technology as possible, and they combines this with low build quality, cheap plastics and confusing user interface.

Sony also makes several versions of the same camera, so they are flooding the market and this confuses the customers.

So I would say that Sony makes cameras for consumers reading tehnical sheets rather than cameras for photographers.

Click to expand...

Well said. Different version of a same camera is a stupid idea and confuse the heck out of consumer. Entry level for Nikon is D3000, for Canon is 1000d, for Sony....it either A230, A300, and A350, and to some extent A500, but not the A550. If you live in Asia or Europe, then A450 is sony highest end entry level dslr. If you live in USA, then A500 is your highest entry. Confused? You bet.

AdamT said:

Adam-T said:

That difference is so irrelevant to be noticeable only if pixel-peeping.

Click to expand...

or if you need to crop of course

Click to expand...

Given in a K20 cause I found a deal on a K-7, looked at files from both, and really can't see a difference worth noting.

Adam-T said:

Unfortunately Samsung didn't do any work on their sensor performance wise in the intermediate time between the K20 and K7 developments - I get the feeling that its the need for gimmicks like Video which caused the performance downturn - gimme 1 stop cleaner than the K20 and no Video over 1/2 a stop worse plus video anyday, it's a Pro level still camera at the end of the day (but then that's just my opinion)

Click to expand...

This is exactly my opinion, but won't say anything about video capabilities anymore. I had been a bit rude, but people jumped on me as if having video is a life-death matter. I don't use it, I'm quite happy with the camera and get on thinking without video we would have had a better photographic sensor. So it goes...

Adam-T said:

Adam-T said:

What do you think? (Olympus comments)

Click to expand...

I think Oly make far better zooms but their camera bodies are poor - the best thiing they make for image quality is the EP1, the DSLRs leave me cold and the noise, DR and resolution are all well behind the APS brigade, always will be I'm afraid.

Click to expand...

Again agree, but must say my EP1 has indeed a quality very near to the K-7. Ok, it's not the best APSC, but enough, and better than the E-3 I used. So, started asking myself what the heck they are doing. Oly's bodies are not poor, they are excellent, and 4/3 sensor quality can't be so far from APSC. But they always put in the wrong sensor...

Adam-T said:

As for the K7, it's a lovely body shell but I can't get around the Sub-K20 image performance - Both beat the canon 50D however, especially for native cleanness at base ISO let alone above that..

Click to expand...

K7 has a lovely shutter sound, I don't see (in print!) anything worse than K20, SR suits my personal shaking, and focusing "near misses" have diminished, especially under artificial light. Good deal for me. Before some higher iso performance, I'd be glad to have a faster priming SR and a more precise focusing area.
But this is personal preference, I don't care a bit of "grain".