[dylansalt]

Lets be honest in some cases the body can make a world of difference (and yes I know the lens is important too)

If it didn't why the constant upgrading to later models or crossing over to different brands?

Can a K7 compete with the likes of a Canon 5D mK11 or 1dsMk11 for pro landscape photography or wedding photography, the all round ability of a Nikon D300/700 or the Canon 7D for sport photography.

Yes be realistic of your needs and purchase the appropriate tool (also considering the budget).

I for one initially laughed at the the need for clean Iso 1600/3200 etc but now I am now seeing how INCREDIBLY USEFUL it is.

Yes I can get a clean enough presentable shot with my K10D (which is still a fantastic performer) at ISO 1600 but if I was having to consistently shoot at these iso's and beyond then I would look for the tool that allows me to do this with less sweat involved.

A shot like this at ISO 1600 without flash would have been impossible a while back - the body/sensor with noiseware removal has now made this possible - with the likes of the 5dmk11/D700 and the kx etc it becomes even easier



Dylan

Dylan

This year was the funniest yet for me. For a couple of months, 50% of new threads were about K-7. It was "K-7 this" and "K-7 that", "I'm gonna get the first one off the ship", "It's going to be so cool". A bunch of grownups reliving their childhood fantasies about what they were going to get for christmas.
Then people get their K-7's and the party is over. "Green Lines", "this isn't so good", "that could be better".
99.99% of people buying k-7 from the get go didn't need it, they could have bought another lens and waited for the price drop. After all, everyone knows that the manufacturer uses the customer as guinea pig these days. "Let's shift those untested units, we can get it right when the customer identifies the bugs for us. Hee hee, all those suckers prepared to pay top dollar for something with bugs".
You see, the manufacturer knows that bragging rights are more important to these people than a camera without bugs.
Eventually, people will get it, less people will buy the product on release because they know it's not going to work properly. There will still be some idiots who buy the first release and they will identify the bugs but the profit forecasts will be in the toilet. The bugs will get fixed quicker and the price will come down quicker.
The next generation will have less bugs, they'll probably keep the initial price high just for the suckers.
Perhaps the generation after that, the product will be bug free and cheaper on release.
But that's probably a pipedream situation because after all, the suckers want a new camera more than they want a working camera.

What has this to do with forums? Well without forums, the suckers would have no one to talk about their new not fully functioning camera to.

Yep... DB's got it right.

Now all the talk is how much better the sensor is in the new KX (still barely available) and the questions of how could pentax / Hoya could put out an entry level camera with better Hi ISO sensor performance than their Flagship model!

Sheez Louiz... it has been this way since the K100d vs K10... the better Hi ISO was in the entry level camera and the features were in the Hi end model... nothin' new here. The Kx is a crippled body with a what appears to be a great sensor, just like the K100.

I hope DB's idiots buy up this Kx and get the bugs out for me by Christmas!

[Driver3]

A man on television tried to tell me how white my shirts could be. But he can't be a man, because he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me.

I doubt that my photos would be any better or worse with a different camera brand. I shoot what I can afford, which happens to be Pentax and a bag of Takumars. With film I very happily shoot the cheapest brand of film I can find and run it through Yashica, Ricoh, Pentax, Kodak, etc. I doubt I could do a Hassy or Leica justice. Since I can't afford them anyway I don't waste any time pondering the matter.

Stones-"Satisfaction"

[reeftool]

A man on television tried to tell me how white my shirts could be. But he can't be a man, because he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me.

I doubt that my photos would be any better or worse with a different camera brand. I shoot what I can afford, which happens to be Pentax and a bag of Takumars. With film I very happily shoot the cheapest brand of film I can find and run it through Yashica, Ricoh, Pentax, Kodak, etc. I doubt I could do a Hassy or Leica justice. Since I can't afford them anyway I don't waste any time pondering the matter.

Many of us are in that spot, myself included. I look for used lens bargains all the time and all my current lenses other than the 2 that came in the package deal with my camera were purchased used. I have owned Nikon film cameras and were unimpressed. Yes, I did get some very good pictures and I did like some things about the cameras but I also loved my Spotmatic. One of my favorites that I owned decades ago was a Miranda. Some friends who owned Nikon F's and Nikkormat's couldn't understand why I bought that camera. The store owner highly recommended it. He also sold Nikons along with other brands. He suggested I save my money and buy the Miranda, I wouldn't be disappointed. He was right.