http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ needs Pentax K-7 to prove it - Page 2

ogl · 08-31-2009, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by thazooo

If you read the review of the istD, you might find why Pentax isn't 'jumping at the bit'
to have LL review the camera. Once Bitten, Twice Shy.

ist D was good machine, and first DSLR of Pentax, but not the best.
it's also big economic failure of Pentax. it's not the secret.

ist DL helped a bit to be Pentax alive and only K100D and K10D saved Pentax.
ist D could bury Pentax forever. announced on February, 2003, but released on September-October with very high price. Too expensive, too late.
Canon 300D was $800 (August 2003), ist D $1700. And the price of ist D was stable for years.

LL like 645 and 67 system of Pentax and offered very positive review of K10D and FA LIMITED which called "the one of the best lenses in the world".

Jasvox · 08-31-2009, 03:46 PM

Is Luminous Landscape a not for profit publication? Is it Pentax's obligation to send a camera to every publication in business? If L.L. has any desire to keep it's reviews current, why not use some of it's contacts within the business and get it's hands on a body of it's or rent one? I find it hard to believe the only way L.L .or any publication will review a brand new (and one with a buzz, I might add) body is to have that brand send them a comp body. It's a 2 way street...if you are in the business and your reviews are part of your business, then invest in one or at least rent one for yourself.

At the end of the day, does it really make a difference if they review it anyway? This body seems to be well documented all over the print and internet already.

Jason

Aristophanes · 08-31-2009, 04:50 PM

LL is gonna love the K-7 for many reasons, and kill it for the lack of an articulating LCD screen (the video need).

Pentax should have LL at the top of their list as it is a touchstone publication for many pro and prosumer users, and its bias is quality. They do have a thing against esoteric German glass, however, and that thing is price.

*Jonson PL* · 09-01-2009, 02:49 PM

Sean Reid has written some articles for LL.
A reader was interested in hearing Sean's opinion about the K10, so leant it to him.
Likely that would be the easiest way for a Michael R. review as well. That some Canadian Pentaxian, loans a K7 to him

*deadwolfbones* · 09-01-2009, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Jasvox

Is Luminous Landscape a not for profit publication? Is it Pentax's obligation to send a camera to every publication in business? If L.L. has any desire to keep it's reviews current, why not use some of it's contacts within the business and get it's hands on a body of it's or rent one? I find it hard to believe the only way L.L .or any publication will review a brand new (and one with a buzz, I might add) body is to have that brand send them a comp body. It's a 2 way street...if you are in the business and your reviews are part of your business, then invest in one or at least rent one for yourself.

At the end of the day, does it really make a difference if they review it anyway? This body seems to be well documented all over the print and internet already.

Jason

As far as I know, all of the major review sites get loaners from the manufacturers' PR departments. This is standard practice.

Zav · 10-07-2009, 09:56 PM

Hands on of the K-7 is up!
Pentax K7 Hands On

It sums it all:

It just failed to light my fire.

*nostatic* · 10-07-2009, 11:02 PM

as the saying goes, "be careful what you wish for."

*deadwolfbones* · 10-07-2009, 11:05 PM

Boucicaut · 10-07-2009, 11:22 PM

Well if a weather sealed body & lens kit at less than 1200 euros (Finland, can likely easily be found for even less), and with these specifications, can't be seen as a USP (unique selling point), then I don't know what to say...

Other than that, an ok review I guess.

Nubi · 10-07-2009, 11:38 PM

I have a mixed feeling about this review. I am not sure if he shot with it as much as he needed to. This happened to me as well, but you have to use this camera for a little while. Of course, a guy like that can get more out of a camera than I would in any given amount of time, many of his comments sounded so ... first impression-like. They don't seem so chewed and tasted and thoughtfully evaluated.

ghelary · 10-08-2009, 02:22 AM

While the tone of this review seems to be negative, the feeling I got from it was that the camera simply didn't fit him. Like a pair of shoes too small. he often complain about the size of the camera and the controls that are too close together.

If the review have been written by a women, we may have had exactly the inverse reaction. Praising Pentax for making a smaller camera than the competition with contols that just "fit".

This camera was simply not for him. At the end of the review, there is also this comment about Pentax making a camera "in the middle of the pack" for every feature. This is not true as Pentax as made the smallest camera of the competition, but it was obviously not a quality for him.

I'm taking it as a personnal view from a fine photographer whose requirements are simply not answered by the K7.
- He's a medium format shooter, so size and weight is not a hudge criteria
- Budget is not his concern (well he's able to invest into top of the line medium format)
- He has big hands.

So you know that if you look like him, the Pentax K7 may not be a camera for you.

Best regards,
Guillaume

ogl · 10-08-2009, 03:57 AM

It's rather subjective point of view of LEICA and MF photographer.
Nothing bad, nothing good. K-7 is not Michael Reichmann's camera.

If you see any mistakes or have any comments to such "blog-like opinion", it's easy to send it to Michael's email.

Rondec · 10-08-2009, 05:15 AM

An odd sort of review. Basically him rambling about how this camera wasn't what it wasn't. Obviously video, weather sealing, small size do not make a difference to him. I think it is interesting that he complains about the speed at which the photos are displayed and after being told that it takes longer if you have lens correction feature on, says basically, "Well, I expect that same speed even with that on." How many other cameras even offer this particular feature, that he can judge how long is a reasonable time for it to take?

equinox · 10-08-2009, 06:12 AM

I dont mind this guys site, but that review looked to be written by a 12 year old child. What the heck was Pentax thinking sending a camera to a nobody like this to make a one page ramble post like that.

I am sorry but that reviewer has no clue about which he is talking about. Having no time to compare cameras is one of the biggest copouts there is. Thats fine if you guys like him, however I won't be wasting my time on such useless ramblings.

No I don't own a K-7 and have no intention on buying one either.

Class A · 10-08-2009, 06:22 AM

I have to say I'm underwhelmed by the review.

The reviewer writes

I did not shoot enough with these two lenses though to draw and conclusions as to image quality.

So why mention them at all?
I guess it is nice of him to have included the paragraph because it gives away the kind of (lack of) attitude he had towards the whole review.

It seems like he hasn't spend sufficient time with the K-7 either.

And his note to Canon is supposed to be funny?

And what about his "not so instant review" comments? Instead of providing an additional paragraph he should have rewritten the whole comment, only remarking on a good feature (lens correction) that would have been even nicer with faster processing. BTW, all this is a non-issue with the many lenses that aren't corrected. Are the people using these not "serious photographers"? But he leaves the whole bit in as negative point. Again, perhaps not a bad idea as it gives away his kind of (non-) commitment.

Obviously price point, weathersealing, availability of fine image stabilised glass and an automatic horizon correction aren't important to him.

The reviewer is of course entitled to his personal view but I don't think he lives up to his responsibility of giving other people an opportunity to make a choice based on their priorities. If you are like him, the review works. If not, it is just irrelevant and not very informative.

At least he sends you to imagine-resource for a real review to have a look at what you can find out if you put in the time he didn't have

Because of schedule constraints during the time that I've had to work with the K7

Not the "I've had to work"...

He ends with the words

Don't regard this as damning with faint praise.

but his review is exactly that.

Given his initial disclosure

But before going further, just a word of disclosure. I've always had a soft spot for Pentax cameras,

the review is quite a damning. No way around that.

There are obviously cameras around that do a few things better than the K-7. But to not recognise its quite unique position is a failing of the reviewer not of the camera.

Luminous Landscapes has just dropped several notches in the respect they had from me.