k7d?

Started Apr 21, 2009 | Discussions
ropen Senior Member • Posts: 1,479
Re: k7d?

You both miss the fact that k7 is NOT a successor for any camera but a new breed (mid range premium so to speak) and it is tailored according to market demands. Most likely K20D will be replaced by a camera that will emphasis even more on pro features (and most likely with a larger sensor as well).

Wait a bit longer if you may!
Radu

binky wrote:

sir_bazz wrote:

ozdean wrote:

Weight and size are always an issue IMO.

Yeah everyones needs are different but my situation is that I own and
use a 2.5kg FA 300mm f2.8. A 200gram weight saving on a new body is
neither here or there.

Personally I would've rather seen development resources assigned to
things that lead to improvements in traditional camera features like
AF speed, low light focus tracking, selectable AF patterns etc.

I'm not bashing Pentax but I would've liked to have seen the new
"higher end" body as something that can be an effective tool in a
wider variety of situations as opposed to one that offers little over
the K20D apart from size and weight.

cheers,
bazz.
--
Zooms? pfffft!

I agree with you---enough of middle of the road cameras --where is
the pro or near pro full frame camera? Pentax force's me to look
else where and It breaks my heat

 ropen's gear list:ropen's gear list
Pentax K-3
Benna78 Regular Member • Posts: 256
Re: K7D photo

I don't really care about size and shape, I just care for the specs...

And please no EVF!!!...in the picture that shows the upper part of the camera I see a very strange prism housing...

No EVF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--

Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depended on the breaks.

Charlie Self Veteran Member • Posts: 3,924
Re: How do you know there is no improvement over K20?

Wallace Ross wrote:

We all have different needs and wants so some people will likely be
thrilled with the new camera and perhaps others will be disapointed
to a degree. Maybe my expectations are high but I can't help it. I
went out shooting yesterday with my K10D and didn't think "I wish
that it could do this or that". I find that many of the complaints
about the current cameras stem from "niche needs". Which I consider
valid but if I were a camera maker I would have to weigh them against
costs and many other factors.

My niche need currently is weight and size. My K10D is great but
sometimes I want something smaller and lighter (Yes I could borrow my
wifes KM but it isn't quite the same). That's why I generally have a
rangefinder in my pocket.

The weight factor for both camera and lenses is something the ardent FF wishers don't seem to fully consider. Years ago, I didn't either, but these days, a K20D and three lenses is about all the load I want on a full day. If it's a working day, that means two bodies and five lenses just to have some back up. Add in batteries, cards and other small bits and pieces, and it gets to be a lot for a guy my age to be lugging around, for example, Virginia International Raceway's 3.27 mile course all day, even if I use a cart to zip around the outside of the fence.

FF bodies are going to be heavier, though how much I can't guess. The lenses may or may not be heavier, but my guess is they will. Batteries may need to be larger, too.

For what? Magazines can currently run my images on a two page spread when that's needed, with light cropping. FF might make more cropping available, but ithat should be part of my technique, do the cropping while I'm composing the shot.

FF looks at higher cost and higher weight for no benefit whatsoever for me.

-- hide signature --
jamesm007 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,663
Re: How do you know there is no improvement over K20?

FF looks at higher cost and higher weight for no benefit whatsoever for me.

I think the Pentax President Ned B allready hinted there will be no FF read his blog. I agree with you bigger is better, but...
--
jamesm007,
http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z77/jamesm700/
WSSA member 266PX

 jamesm007's gear list:jamesm007's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-5 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Pentax smc DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL WR +12 more
trescue Contributing Member • Posts: 501
Re: How do you know there is no improvement over K20?

The weight factor for both camera and lenses is something the ardent
FF wishers don't seem to fully consider.

For what? Magazines can currently run my images on a two page spread
when that's needed, with light cropping. FF might make more cropping
available, but ithat should be part of my technique, do the cropping
while I'm composing the shot.

FF looks at higher cost and higher weight for no benefit whatsoever
for me.

I agree. Magazine work is the most demanding work I do, and APS-C is fine for a double pager. I take great pains to compose the shot properly so I don't have to crop very often.

When working I always have 2 cameras, 3 lenses and a flash, adding lenses etc. as needed. Don't need to add weight just for more limited DOF (which is not what I need anyway).

Full-frame is almost to APS-C as medium format was to 35mm. It's almost another format completely--you really need bigger, more expensive lenses to make the most of it. You need more memory cards, and more computer capability.

If someone wants full-frame, go to Cansonikon, and let Pentax make some great APS-C lenses, which is where the bulk of the SLR market is anyway.

Full-frame has its place to be sure, but I don't need it myself.

PeterNMIF Senior Member • Posts: 2,438
yana,

any clue about its weight?

Thanks.

Peter F.

 PeterNMIF's gear list:PeterNMIF's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 Olympus OM-D E-M5 NEX5R Sony Alpha NEX-6 Olympus E-M1 +1 more
Leok Regular Member • Posts: 190
Re: How do you know there is no improvement over K20?

trescue wrote:

The weight factor for both camera and lenses is something the ardent
FF wishers don't seem to fully consider.

For what? Magazines can currently run my images on a two page spread
when that's needed, with light cropping. FF might make more cropping
available, but ithat should be part of my technique, do the cropping
while I'm composing the shot.

FF looks at higher cost and higher weight for no benefit whatsoever
for me.

I agree. Magazine work is the most demanding work I do, and APS-C is
fine for a double pager. I take great pains to compose the shot
properly so I don't have to crop very often.

When working I always have 2 cameras, 3 lenses and a flash, adding
lenses etc. as needed. Don't need to add weight just for more limited
DOF (which is not what I need anyway).

Full-frame is almost to APS-C as medium format was to 35mm. It's
almost another format completely--you really need bigger, more
expensive lenses to make the most of it. You need more memory cards,
and more computer capability.

If someone wants full-frame, go to Cansonikon, and let Pentax make
some great APS-C lenses, which is where the bulk of the SLR market is
anyway.

Full-frame has its place to be sure, but I don't need it myself.

Full frame is great for natural light photography as the noise levels are extremely low even at high ISOs. Resolution isn't the issue...

FF lenses are often cheaper than crop factor lenses at the moment as they have been around for years so don't have the high development costs that APS-C lenses do.

Yes, you pay a penalty in weight, but if you need the performance its worth it.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads