K7 Again! Should go for it now? Dilemma!

*jpzk* · 11-04-2009, 04:52 PM

Good evening to all!
It has been quite a while since I posted here - only to discover that the site now requires a donation for using the sell feautures of the MarketPlace - but that's ok, this site is well worth it.
So ...
I have had my "eyes" on the K7 ever since it came available here. I even went to try it out at the local store, equipped with my two DA* lenses (10-50 and 300 F4). I was amazed at the FPS and its quietness. The pics came out very good, given that they were all taken either in the store and/or through the store's large windows! I haven't tried it out on the other lenses though.

Anyway, now I am reading all sorts of comments on how bad the high ISO pictures come out with the K7. Apparently, the K-x does better in spite of its "starter's" camera status.
I own both the K10D and the K20D ... why did I want the K7? ...
Fast FPS, better AF, quieter, in a nutshell: needed for wildlife photography. (which I do 90% of the time). Are those reasons good enough for me in deciding to get the K7?
I am not so sure anymore.

If I only knew that a "hybrid" K7 - K20D - Kx would come out, then I would be willing to wait but that is unlikely, knowing Pentax.

Finally, in order to finance the K7, I was getting ready to put some items on sale here; I will probably do it as soon as I make up my mind with the help of those reviews (here on this site) from users of the K7 and possible comments to my thread.

So, Have all a good evening and I look forward to reading some comments/replies/opinions, and the like.
Cheers!

JP

Jadran · 11-04-2009, 05:05 PM

I found ridiculous that people tend to evaluate K-7 high ISO images as "realy bad", just becouse K-x has less noiser images at same ISO. No, they are not bad at all, take a look at dpreview review, take a look at falklumo tests at falklumo.blogspot.com (he is a member of this forum), and other reviews and see for yourself how bad K-7 images are.

*jpzk* · 11-04-2009, 05:17 PM

Jadran,

Thanks for the reply.
I am going to check those out right away, and I will report back and share what I read (although I guess most of the K7 users have now certainly read those reviews).
Cheers.

JP

**Ole** · 11-04-2009, 05:25 PM

If you're pleased with the K20D high ISO performance I don't see how the K-7 could disappoint you.

I find that the K-7 handles better and I like the quiet shutter and the high resolution of the back LCD - it is really great for reviewing the shots.

However, the K-7 is not a major step up from the K20D neither in features (unless you want movie and better live view) nor in image quality, so it's hard to say if shelling out the money is justified. Of course, if you photograph birds in flight I guess the higher frame rate would be valuable.

I have found that using a K10D as the second camera to my K-7 doesn't work well due to the different placement of the green button, the ISO button and the EV compensation button. It gets confusing in the field and slows me down. So you need two K-7's if you want two bodies...

*jpzk* · 11-04-2009, 05:42 PM

Jadran:
I just got the reviews as per your recommendations and I find falklumo.blogspot.com quite complete and most interestingly positive.
As for DpReview ... let's just say that there is a lot of talk and not much actual testing there.
I am happy with the review, showing this to be a great "semi-professional" DSLR.
JP

*jpzk* · 11-04-2009, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Ole

If you're pleased with the K20D high ISO performance I don't see how the K-7 could disappoint you.

I find that the K-7 handles better and I like the quiet shutter and the high resolution of the back LCD - it is really great for reviewing the shots.
Thanks Ole.
I see that this new rear screen is indeed much improved. That could also be a plus.
However, the K-7 is not a major step up from the K20D neither in features (unless you want movie and better live view) nor in image quality, so it's hard to say if shelling out the money is justified. Of course, if you photograph birds in flight I guess the higher frame rate would be valuable.
I did not/would not consider buying the K7 because of its video capabilities. The faster frame rate is a major item for me as well as the improved AF.
I have found that using a K10D as the second camera to my K-7 doesn't work well due to the different placement of the green button, the ISO button and the EV compensation button. It gets confusing in the field and slows me down. So you need two K-7's if you want two bodies...

Yes, that could be a problem when carrying both bodies during an outing. I never thought of this before and thanks for the reminder. Now ... I wonder if one could adjust the camera settings (ISO button, green button - which I never use - etc ... so that it would be somewhat useable as closely as possible to the K20d? ... just a thought.
JP

Pentaxor · 11-04-2009, 08:15 PM

you'd be suprised how the noises can make your photos look really nice. Noises are subjective. it can be considered as ugly by some and beautiful by others. it can be nice if the person knows how to use it's potential. however, we are talking about detail noise and not destructive noise.

kittykat46 · 11-04-2009, 08:19 PM

The K-X has better High-ISO noise than the K-7, thats undeniable.
Is the K-7 crippled with regard to High-ISO noise ? NO !

If you shoot RAW, the K-7's noise can be managed very well.
The K-7's High-ISO noise up to ISO3200 is of the fine-grained quality.
It looks good printed out on A4. I dont' have any bigger photo printer, so I can't comment on bigger prints.
It cleans up very well with the Noise Reduction functions typically available on any decent RAW converter, very minimal loss of detail.

*dadipentak* · 11-04-2009, 08:39 PM

I may have had a serious case of lba but I'm not really a gearhead and I'm quite pleased with my K20Ds so I'm going to wait until the K-7 price comes down a good bit more. Unless there are specific improvements that are really important to you (the only one which appeals to me relate to the viewfinder), I'd say wait.

*jpzk* · 11-04-2009, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Pentaxor

you'd be suprised how the noises can make your photos look really nice. Noises are subjective. it can be considered as ugly by some and beautiful by others. it can be nice if the person knows how to use it's potential. however, we are talking about detail noise and not destructive noise.

I believe that would more like using the "old" film at 400/800 ISO and render the image nostagically interesting, right? I am old enough to appreciate the ins and outs of using this particular type(s) of technique(s).
Good point, Pentaxor.
JP

*jpzk* · 11-04-2009, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by kittykat46

The K-X has better High-ISO noise than the K-7, thats undeniable.
Is the K-7 crippled with regard to High-ISO noise ? NO !
That's good to read, and thanks for the reply kittycat. Of course, since I do 90% wildlife/nature photography, I am usually well within the extremes of low light situations. However, I must say that I have been shhoting under rather nasty weather as well, such as for the past 4 to 6 weeks. Undesirable noise would be a problem.
If you shoot RAW, the K-7's noise can be managed very well.
The K-7's High-ISO noise up to ISO3200 is of the fine-grained quality.
It looks good printed out on A4. I dont' have any bigger photo printer, so I can't comment on bigger prints.
It cleans up very well with the Noise Reduction functions typically available on any decent RAW converter, very minimal loss of detail.

I "develop" my RAW pics (I shoot RAW only by the way) with the Pentax utilities and then import the photos to CS4. I very seldom use noise reduction software (I have a couple of decent ones such as Helicon Filter and Noiseware Pro), so if there would be an issue with noise, I suppose those would do the trick, right? As for prints, sorry if I am not used to your print nomenclature, but I have my prints done at a maximum of 14" x 17" ... I have yet to produce anything larger although I would like to try!

Thanks for the reply.
JP

*jpzk* · 11-04-2009, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by dadipentak

I may have had a serious case of lba but I'm not really a gearhead and I'm quite pleased with my K20Ds so I'm going to wait until the K-7 price comes down a good bit more. Unless there are specific improvements that are really important to you (the only one which appeals to me relate to the viewfinder), I'd say wait.

Dave,
I get your point. As I mentioned in another post, I only wish they had a "hybrid" K20D/K7/Kx in the works!
Cheers!

kittykat46 · 11-04-2009, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by jpzk

I "develop" my RAW pics (I shoot RAW only by the way) with the Pentax utilities and then import the photos to CS4. I very seldom use noise reduction software (I have a couple of decent ones such as Helicon Filter and Noiseware Pro), so if there would be an issue with noise, I suppose those would do the trick, right?

I use Silkypix 4.0 for RAW development. It has NR built into the software, and the K-7's noise cleans up nicely , up to ISO3200.
Noiseware is very good...even the Free Community version does a good job, just that it only allows pre-set controls.

Originally Posted by jpzk

As for prints, sorry if I am not used to your print nomenclature, but I have my prints done at a maximum of 14" x 17" ... I have yet to produce anything larger although I would like to try!
Thanks for the reply.
JP

Sorry, difference in geography. A4 is almost the same size as the Letter size in the US -
8 1/2" x 11". That's my most common photo print size.
14" x 17" prints may be worse off with noise, hard to say without trying out.

Jadran · 11-05-2009, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by jpzk

I believe that would more like using the "old" film at 400/800 ISO and render the image nostagically interesting, right? I am old enough to appreciate the ins and outs of using this particular type(s) of technique(s).
Good point, Pentaxor.
JP

I am "old" enough just as you, and my benchmark for noise is film, though, of course, there is no reason it should be any more in this digital age. (Has anybody seen photos from color film pushed at 800 ISO? I guess any true "noise-peeper" would suffer instant heart attack at that sight) So, I am more then satisfied with K-7 noise performance.

Since you are using CS4, you could try to open Raw files directly in Photoshop, it will open Adobe Camera Raw module, which is same as Adobe Lightroom.

My previous camera was K10, and i find K-7 big step up in every way. I didn't own K20, so I am not cleaver enough if K-7 would be worth investing. But, I like camera very much, especially its size, handling, AF speed.

*jpzk* · 11-05-2009, 07:26 PM

Kittykat:
You said you use Silkypix 4.0 for RAW development ...? Isn't that one of Pentax utilities?
I guess I won't mind the supposedly noisy high ISO levels (3200 or so) of the K7 that much because, as I mentioned earlier, I shoot mostly (95% of the time) well under 1600. Of course, it occasionally happens that under some very low lighting conditions that I wish for more IQ at higher ISO's.
So, A4 would be around 8 1/2 x 11 ... thanks for the conversion. I want to have some shots printed on larger formats so I suppose that with a bit of "noise control" and the proper printing techniques it shouldn't be a problem even at 1600 ISO ... 3200 maybe?
Talk soon.
JP