[Samsungian]

I like hands on reviews the best.

Part III has links to Part I & II

The Online Photographer: Pentax K-7 Review, Part III

[mickey]

Enjoyed the 3-part series.
If anything, the review has got me interested in TOP as a whole.

Now, if only Gordon stuck the K-7 in the freezer like the Norwegian reviewer...

[*isteve]

I like hands on reviews the best.

Part III has links to Part I & II

The Online Photographer: Pentax K-7 Review, Part III

At least the guy is a photographer not a gear head. I will take subjective print aesthetics over DXO analysers any day.

[Clem Nichols]

I saw where he said he would use ISO 3200 only if the only alternative were no picture at all. Is that how K-7 users feel?

CN

[*isteve]

I saw where he said he would use ISO 3200 only if the only alternative were no picture at all. Is that how K-7 users feel?

CN

I dont own one, but having tested one I would not use it, no. However I would not use ISO3200 on a regular basis on any camera except a D3/D700.

[pawzitiv]

What with the endless "noise" about high-ISO noise, I can only conclude that due to my 40 years of shooting film, my personal expectations of a high-ISO digital image are far too low. Call me a doddering old fool but I will gladly take detail plus noise over squeaky clean noiseless smear.

I believe it's camera makers like Canon and Nikon, plus the absurd list of accepted cameras that Getty Images uses to establish a minimum image quality standard that have duped the photographic community into believing that the only good image is a noiseless one.

I've posted these K-7 ISO 3200 images before and I don't consider these to be a last ditch alternative to no image at all:

[*isteve]

At this size as web shots they are fine, but I generally print shots at 14 X 11 and 19 X 13 and ISO3200 has a notable drop in DR, contrast and colour detail.

ISO1600 seems usable, which is fine by me.

[pawzitiv]

At this size as web shots they are fine, but I generally print shots at 14 X 11 and 19 X 13 and ISO3200 has a notable drop in DR, contrast and colour detail.

ISO1600 seems usable, which is fine by me.

Agreed, Steve. But I'd rather have a less-than-ideal image than none at all. When I know in advance that I'll be forced to shoot at ISO 1600 or 3200, I tend to switch to a total B&W mindset and I find these K-7 high-ISO images processed in Capture One plus Silver Efex Pro and printed to 13x19 on Ilford's Galerie Gold Fibre Silk yields some beautiful results. But, you have to like a bit of "grit" in your images and I acknowledge that this doesn't appeal to everyone.

Different boats, different long splices ..

Cheers,

[stanleyk]

Agreed, Steve. But I'd rather have a less-than-ideal image than none at all. When I know in advance that I'll be forced to shoot at ISO 1600 or 3200, I tend to switch to a total B&W mindset and I find these K-7 high-ISO images processed in Capture One plus Silver Efex Pro and printed to 13x19 on Ilford's Galerie Gold Fibre Silk yields some beautiful results. But, you have to like a bit of "grit" in your images and I acknowledge that this doesn't appeal to everyone.

Different boats, different long splices ..

Cheers,

I have been wanting to get Silver EFX. Is it that good? Sorry if the question seems redundant.

[mattdm]

At this size as web shots they are fine, but I generally print shots at 14 X 11 and 19 X 13 and ISO3200 has a notable drop in DR, contrast and colour detail.

They definitely have a high-ISO look, but I find it can really work in some images. I've got a few ISO 3200 and ISO 4000 photographs which I think look great as 4×6 prints, and in looking at them right now, I'm sure they'd stand up to at least 8×12, even viewed closely.

[pawzitiv]

I have been wanting to get Silver EFX. Is it that good? Sorry if the question seems redundant.

Yep .. as basic for B&W digital work as Tri-X and D-76 were for B&W film.

[dadipentak]

. Call me a doddering old fool but I will gladly take detail plus noise over squeaky clean noiseless smear.

This old fool agrees.

[Clem Nichols]

I find these last few posts very interesting and also a little confusing. I've read numerous posts stating that even a technically bad photo can look good when viewed on a computer screen at its low resolution. I've also read several which claim that a printed photo will look better than the monitor version of a noisy picture. Considering noise only and disregarding any other factors affecting image quality, which is going to look better, the monitor version or a similarly sized printed picture? (Understand I'm not talking about a 4 x 6 inch print.)

CN

[Zarkon]

I like the review but it isn't helping me fight the urge to get the K7. Since its metal body will now match the limited lenses and my older m42 lenses. High ISO performance is sometimes useful to me when shooting sports indoors or dimly lit banquets. My K10D with its CCD sensor isn't best suited to those environments.

[robgo2]

I have been wanting to get Silver EFX. Is it that good? Sorry if the question seems redundant.

I have been using Silver Efex since shortly after it came out. I love it. Previously, I was using Lightroom/ACR for B&W conversions, which I also liked, but the results I get from Silver Efex are superior and more consistent.

BTW, the entire Nik Software Suite is first rate--not inexpensive, but something that I would not want to be without. I have come to the conclusion that having the right software and knowing how to use it are far more important than having the best camera and lenses, insofar as producing great images is concerned.

Rob