Very half-hearted effort at Luminous Landscape on K7 review

After a full day of initial familiarization I rarely found myself reaching for the K7 by choice. Not because of any particular failing, but simply because there were features or capabilities of other cameras available that simply were more compelling and which I felt would help me take better images more effectively.

He doesn't say which cameras he had available, nor which features were more compelling that would permit better images, i wonder why...

I think he has the Leica S2 under evaluation right now as well. Hard for any camera to compete with something like the S2.

Pentax has a very solid camera at a very impressive price point. That is a very good combination.

I would probably go for the 23K USD camera over the 1.2K USD camera as well. lol.

Winder wrote:

I think he has the Leica S2 under evaluation right now as well. Hard for any camera to compete with something like the S2.

I handled the K7 at a show in SF and I found the K7 to be nice but it didnt stand out compared to my friend's K20D. A few good things included in lens filters and low shutter noise. Also it was smaller. But I cant say wow its x times better where x is much greater than 1.

Think we should accept that review as is. Its a perspective given the authors experience (the same folks praised other pentax products including the limited lenses).

Personally I just want decent equipment at reasonable prices. Pentax used to be that and hence I chose it over others and learned a lot, had lots of fun. If I see a negative criticism of Pentax, I feel it is good and might help make a better product which I can upgrade to at some point
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/debojyoti_dutta/
http://picasaweb.google.com/ddutta

LOL, well said Tom

Possibly the 2nd worst reviewer I have ever come across...have you seen the sheer hilarity of Margaret Brown's "work"?

Um, of course he's entitled to his opinion duh, but we're the poor suckers that have to read it! Is LL a blog? No, a commercially run for-profit enterprise that portrays itslef as "quality" and "professional"

Shall I go on? Oh, OK.

Tom, I agree, I agree, I agree. He might have written the Hands On with the laptop on his knees at 1am, with the camera on the bed next to him, peering over the half-moon specs at the manual under the warm glow of the dimming fire...Vivaldi tinkling from the svelte 20K B&O speakers...taking a sip of warm malted milk (or is it Irish Coffee?)

And he's not bashing Pentax either. Have a glance at the 7D First Report for further enlightenment. But I guess one's gotta keep the clicks up...

In all seriousness, now I think that LL sucks , and shall take my business elsewhere.

humpf

PS no winks I mean it!

hammer9 wrote:

This guy really phoned in the review - don't even understand why he bothered to write it up:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/k7-hands.shtml

*************************
Tom in Delaware
Photoblog: http://homepage.mac.com/galoot_9/blog/momentary.html

Michael Reichmann states the following in the review and this seems to be the bsais of his ambivalence:

"But therein lies its failing in my eyes. The camera isn't compelling for any reason. In marketing terms it doesn't appear to offer a USP (Unique Selling Proposition). Almost every aspect of the camera is competent, and there are only a few failings. It isn't the fastest, the sharpest, the highest resolution, the smallest, the lightest, the fastest focusing, or have the fastest frames rates."

He misses the point with is statement in that all cameras are a compromise and a K-7 could well be the best compromise for many.

1) It isn't the fastest - No, the fastest is probably a Canon or a Nikon, but they are generally bigger/heavier and do not have in camera SR or some of the other K-7 features like weather sealing etc.

2) It isn't the highest resolution - No, but there is only one DSLR that has a higher resolution and that is the new Canon 7D which is bigger heavier and has no in camera SR. Anything else and you need a FF or MF camera which are bigger and therefore will not suit many people and even more than that they are hugely expensive

3) It isn't the smallest or lightest - No, it isn't but then to get a smaller and/or lighter camera you need to go to the Olympus offerings which then means a smaller sensor and higher noise or use a rangefinder type camera.

4) It's not the fastest focusing - No it may not be, but again, this may not be an issue for most and to get faster AFing cameras you need to make other compromises that you may not want/need to make.

5) It doesn't have the fastest frame rates - No it doesn't , but again there are the compromises that are outlined above. The offerings from other DSLR's which may have faster frame rates do not have SR, are bigger and heavier - Canon/Nikon FF and even their APS C DSLR's, may have a smaller sensor - Olympus, are more expensive - Nikon/Canon.

He also talks about the high ISO results being in the "middle of the pack", which again, is a compromise. If you want great high ISO results you need to go to a FF camera which is bigger, heavier, more expensive. The high ISO results of the K-7 are as good, if not better, than the APS C cameras in the same price range and camera similar size and he even linked to the glowing IR review of the K-7 which shows this to be the case!

The review seems to deliberately miss these points that the K-7 fits a market segment that many people are after, ie a compromise between the pro end and the consumer spec cameras, but still is small, light, has in camera SR, excellent IQ, weather sealing and can use the wonderful Pentax lenses which a few are weather sealed as well , which he omitted to mention and is an important feature for some, plus many more features that this sort of market segment wants.

There seems to be another error in his review with regards to the review time of the last shot and it takes up the same vein of ambivalence. He states that "It takes a couple of seconds from when the shutter is pressed until a review image appears on screen". Well this is not the case on my K-7, so it is either defective(possibly) or he has the auto lens correction turned on even though he states this is in RAW or jpeg (so did he really try?). My K-7 only takes a second at most and this fits in with his next statement that "Most current cameras are at least twice as fast".

I think we have to read between the lines as his review really smacks of, "I'll do the review but I am not going to like this camera" type approach. It really seems as though it was a rather hasty cobbled together review that he didn't really want to do, nor give a positive result for.

Also has his comedians mixed up; he alludes to Henny Youngman and not getting any respect. That was Rodney Dangerfield's shtick. His reviews often lack substance.
--
Regards, Paul

Lili's Dad