[rparmar]

A few things bother me about this review. First, it is not signed. A review without an author is useless to me, since I have no context for the contents. Instead it looks rather like some naive attempt at being "objective", as if that curious state ever exists. Whereas with an author I can check out their photographic style and output and learn a lot more about where to place the review in my reckoning.

On this subject it is not clear that the sample photos have been taken by the author, or if they have been provided by the manufacturers, or gathered from the field of real-world shots at large. The introduction somehow fails to contextualise them. The statement "These are NOT test images!" is confusing. What does it really mean?

Second, the chart highlights a slightly larger sensor and slightly more megapixels as advantages. There are several problems with this. If the difference is not photographically significant it is disingenuous to claim it as an advantage. Besides which, one could easily claim fewer pixels as an advantage since this results in lower-density photo sites and less noise (all else being equal).

The conclusions are not as comprehensive as they should be. Surely the EOS 7D has an advantage in terms of video control? This should be mentioned in the summary listing since it is of increasing importance to journalists among other shooters.

Lastly, I think that taking real-life selling prices from a respected source is more useful than comparisons of list prices. I am glad this has been done, but the sources are different for the cameras, which confounds comparison. If you want to split sponsorship between Adorama and B&H then provide both sets for both cameras.

Obviously a lot of work went into this comparison. No-one will ever be happy with claiming one camera better than another. I am glad that mention was made of the respective brand systems, since this is just as, if not more than, important than the benefits of one particular body or another.

---

Last edited by rparmar; 06-01-2011 at 05:02 AM.

[Geos]

Why? Are you getting blurry images with your K-5?
If this is an issue with all K-5s, then a lot of us here must miraculously be getting sharp images with our K-5s at all sorts of shutter speeds.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/108199-lumolabs-shutte...-7-camera.html

[Ash]

LumoLabs: Shutter induced blur with the Pentax K-7 camera - PentaxForums.com

I cannot comment on this study as with my K-5, I personally get sharp images handheld at shutter speeds of up to 2 stops longer than 1/FL. The SR mechanism seems to be working and I get no noticeable blur for my exposures of 1/60-1/125 sec, where it's reported to exhibit the worst effect (on the K-7). Most of my shots have been at 1/80 and 1/125, and again, I haven't noticed any effect of shutter vibration.

[RBellavance]

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/108199-lumolabs-shutte...-7-camera.html

You're confusing the K-5 with the K-7. Falk Lumo has tested the K-5 and found that while it does have a measurable amount of shutter-induced blur, it was not large enoug to actually be noticeable in day-to-day photography.

Ref: LumoLabs -- Shutter-induced blur for Pentax K-7

[sagiboy]

I have both the cameras...I like them both...I dont know if I can pick a fav..7D is heavy and coupled with my 70-200 L series lens is capable of some amazing pics. I recently acquired a pair of DA* zooms, and I'm impressed with them too. It depends on my mood, I pick up whichever I can..I have 6 DSLRs lying around....with grand total of 30 lenses or so........

[LFLee]

After the review I think I like Canon more than K-5...

Oh well... I already invested pretty heavily in Pentax (started 2 yrs ago when Pentax is the 'best bang for the bucks').

I like my K-5 but do hope it improves on the video side (60fps + full manual video control) like the 7D.

Oh well....

[Rondec]

HUH? the 7d exposure controls are at your fingertips AND whats the joystick have to do with it in M mode? You cant tell me that moving quickly between settings, quickly up, down or sideways is a bad thing. MUCH faster than having to scroll sideways through every setting to get to the last one.

I shoot in M mode all the time, and I can change shutter speed with with front dial and change aperture with the rear dial, if i want to change my ISO i hit the button right above the front dial.

Ergonomics are the hardest thing to argue about, because so much of it is a personal thing. At the same time, most people do seem to like Pentax ergonomics, while the 7D, not so much.

I think everyone agrees that the 7D is better for sports and for video. The question is if those things aren't a big part of your shooting experience which is better? I don't think the review really answers that question, although for pure image quality, I think both the D7000 and K5 have passed the 7D up.

[justtakingpics]

But is this image quality you can see with the human eye from a normal viewing distance or only by extreme pixel peeping? I did not see everything that was "bad" or "ugly" in the 7D images nor the K5. It is like the difference between 18 and 16 MP, full frame vs. crop (I think they look different. I know these are not crop) or something else. Is it like trying to judge computer CPU speeds based on benchmarks but you can't tell in real life?

[Rondec]

But is this image quality you can see with the human eye from a normal viewing distance or only by extreme pixel peeping? I did not see everything that was "bad" or "ugly" in the 7D images nor the K5. It is like the difference between 18 and 16 MP, full frame vs. crop (I think they look different. I know these are not crop) or something else. Is it like trying to judge computer CPU speeds based on benchmarks but you can't tell in real life?

I think the answer is yes. Dxo Mark gives the K5 sensor a 2 and 1/2 stop advantage in dynamic range and a 1/2 stop advantage on high iso. To me, the high iso advantage is greater for the K5 than reported there, because the K5 is not prone to banding (which the 7D is), meaning that high iso images clean up a lot nicer with the K5 than the 7D.

Of course, if you never shoot over iso 1600 and never shoot high dynamic range images, then it probably isn't a big deal.

Anyway, it isn't like Pentax can take credit for the sensor. It is pretty much all Sony's doing and that same sensor is in a couple of other (non-Pentax) cameras. It just happens to out perform Canon's sensors (at this point).

[Big G]

But is this image quality you can see with the human eye from a normal viewing distance or only by extreme pixel peeping? I did not see everything that was "bad" or "ugly" in the 7D images nor the K5. It is like the difference between 18 and 16 MP, full frame vs. crop (I think they look different. I know these are not crop) or something else. Is it like trying to judge computer CPU speeds based on benchmarks but you can't tell in real life?

At low ISOs, it's very hard to tell and there's not much in it until upwards of ISO 3200.

What the test (and indeed the only way) did was artificially push the shadows in RAW and look at the noise. There is also mention of banding which is much, much reduced when using Canon's DPP for RAW conversion. Adobe's RAW converter doesn't do a good a job as the actual manufacturer's tool and makes the image quality worse, so the 7D is handicapped in this comparison right from the start.

To me, the high iso advantage is greater for the K5 than reported there, because the K5 is not prone to banding (which the 7D is), meaning that high iso images clean up a lot nicer with the K5 than the 7D.

Again, DPP reduces banding significantly - Lightroom and ACR make it worse. Banding is only present at low ISO, it was an issue in high ISO on the 50D but not 7D.

[Rondec]

At low ISOs, it's very hard to tell and there's not much in it until upwards of ISO 3200.

What the test (and indeed the only way) did was artificially push the shadows in RAW and look at the noise. There is also mention of banding which is much, much reduced when using Canon's DPP for RAW conversion. Adobe's RAW converter doesn't do a good a job as the actual manufacturer's tool and makes the image quality worse, so the 7D is handicapped in this comparison right from the start.



Again, DPP reduces banding significantly - Lightroom and ACR make it worse. Banding is only present at low ISO, it was an issue in high ISO on the 50D but not 7D.

Doesn't it handicap the camera if you are unable to use lightroom?

[Big G]

You can certainly use Lightroom and ACR, but the output from DPP is simply better than ACR for RAW.

[HappyRockets]

I see these comparisons as pretty useless. At the end of the day, it always come down to how does the camera feel in your hand. Every single person is different.
Specifications are specifications, there's nothing too special about them. Really, it comes down to IQ and how does the camera feel in your hands.

The way i see it is, if you don't like the 7D cause it doesn't sit well in your hands, don't buy it. And, same goes for the K-5.

Why would you want to take photos with something you hate holding???????

This whole comparison thing sent me up the wall when i was looking to buy a new camera. I went held a d700, d7000, 60D, 7D, E-5...the only ones that felt good were the 7D and K-5. the IQ and lens quality is better on Pentax...and hey hey...i bought a k-5


When you cut all the crap. It always comes down to the person behind the camera.


(sorry if that sounded a little crass. but all these comparisons are done and dusted...)

Exactly why I changed over from Canon back to Pentax.

People thought I was dumb for this being my main reason, but it's so true... If you hate holding the camera, then there's less chance you'll use it...

I couldn't stand holding my 30D, thought it was too bulky and heavy. The 7D was my next planned upgrade, but it's even heavier and bulkier!

No thanks!

[Class A]

A few things bother me about this review. First, it is not signed.

I agree that it would be good to know who was involved in the testing and writing. I noticed that with a number of other article descriptions as well.

Besides which, one could easily claim fewer pixels as an advantage since this results in lower-density photo sites and less noise (all else being equal).

More pixels are always better (all else being equal). The 'higher noise' argument applies to individual pixels but not to whole images. Please see the DxOMark article "Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise".

[dylansalt]

A camera test should cover EVERY situation that the said camera could be used.

If I purchase an expensive top of the range dslr it must perform in every area e.g. flash, auto-focus, sport, landscape, low and high iso etc - to complete the package it must have the accessories, lens choice in all focal lengths from manufacturer easily available

The only thing against the 7D is its size, for some

That can't be said about the K5

Any dslr today is capable of producing superlative picture quality but when comparing dslrs from different manufacturers one has to look at the whole offering.

When someone starts out in photography they really don't always know what genre they will end up shooting.

When someone buys a 7D they are good to go with a dslr and system that can cover every situation with consummate ease without having to work "hard" at it