[ShiftR]

Ahh, the joys of being a beginner and not losing sleep over small things (to me) that don't make me money.

[janneman]

Thanks.
And I am surprised to not yet have been bashed in return. I am still expecting for the "you best go to Canon, we will not miss you" stuffs.

I think the main problem is that you post is too long to enable us to pick the right quotes to bash .
Just amazed that SR des not work for you, works miracles for me.
AF and shutter on K-7 are fairly quiet. If you need quiet, that was the one thing to upgrade to K-7 for for you.

[Groucho]

First - I hope that 7D photo is not supposed to represent the best its sensor is capable of. If I see 100% shots like that coming from any of my bodies, including K20D and K-7, I am disappointed. Even my very old lenses can usually produce sharper results than that when viewed at 100%.

AF-C
Now some may say that it's user error, but consider this. I have tried dozens of times to shoot my kids riding on bicycles either towards me or across from me with AF-C - almost never AF was able to follow them with good focus and pics are a bit OOF. I seem to get better results with F8.0, locked AF at guessed distance. But then what is the point of AF-C?

I'm not making excuses for the camera as I have had mixed luck with AFC (actually, I rarely even try it)... but was the camera set up use all focus points? Having not spent much time playing with it, I assume that if you're set to center point only or user-selected point, that it will only focus on a moving object in that point. I generally use user-select now (after using only center-point in everything up to the K-7) and I think that most of the time when I have a hard time focusing, it's because there's not much contrast in the specific area I've chosen. I probably should play with using Auto more - and weigh the risks of it focusing somewhere I don't want vs not catching focus at all.

DR
Under normal conditions DR is not a problem. It has been a problem for me under intense sun in the mountains (thin air, more sunlight?). There the shadows are too dark. I can resolve this by upping the EV, than everything is brighter and background is more washed out or using a filter. But again, sensor does not handle this on it's own.

There is certainly more DR there, you just need to use raw. It's not unusual for me to use "fill light" and "recovery" in Lightroom. Of course, turning down the contrast should give you extra DR, too. The higher the contrast, the lower the DR, until everything turns purely white and black - the ultimate contrast.

I wonder how much of the DR discussion is users expecting lower DR based on lab numbers, rather than real-world results. That being said, I would love to see the DR of the old Fuji DSLRs available in a modern body.

High ISO
Tried shooting at ISO 800 at churches and F2.4-F2.8, because of low light. Pics are OK, a bit noisy, but Nikon D300 person next to me got MUCH BETTER pictures than me. Her technique was better?

There are so many variables... quality of lens, lens speed, and the big one - the in-camera processing. The D300 may have been putting out jpgs with lots of noise reduction, DR adjust, etc. Look nice on the LCD (which should be basically the same on D300 vs K-7) - not so nice on the PC. This is assuming that you just saw their photos on their LCD and not any other way. Certainly if both cameras were shooting ISO 800, you should see pretty comparable results.

Megapixels
Frankly, for me a 12MP sensor is big enough, if it delivers good High ISO performance.

Agreed - that's why I find the D700 much more interesting than the A850/900 or Canon's FF bodes. Unfortunately, the D700 has very limited adaptability to other lenses... if a camera existed with the FF D700 (or better still, the improved D3s sensor), with in-camera stabilization, and the Canon's ability to mount many other lenses on it via fairly simple adapters (or even just K-mount and M42s without needing glass for infinity focusing), it would be very, very compelling. Unfortunately, such a dream camera doesn't exist. If the K-5 truly does offer similar high ISO performance, than it will be the closest thing available.

[tomtor]

Here is a 100% crop of the eye from the the shot you requested.

http:

Allthough I think this is a nonsense off topic discussion ,
I don't think that's really sharp, eg from my 50-135 without USM:
(look at her hair and the fabric of the shirt)

(Also off topic, I like your skyskraper pic, very nice)

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[Sailor]

Ahh, the joys of being a beginner and not losing sleep over small things (to me) that don't make me money.

A word of assurance from an old geezer who has been shooting since the late '70's - you don't have to be a beginner to enjoy your current state of mind and bliss.

Jer

[Supernaut]

An intro price like the K-7 was when new leaves plenty of price range for a higher positioned camera above. FF @ 2000 Euro?

If there is much invested in R&D the past year it would mainly be included in the top camera. I'm sure that the technology level is raised a notch, and I'm not talking sensor here. I predict that we will see the result in K-5 or in an model above.

[Big G]

I disagree with statements about SDM lenses being slow because of SDM.
I have the DA 17-70 f/4 SDM lens and it is among the fastest focusing lenses that I own

I have the DA 17-70mm, and it is pedestrian at best. Yes, the SDM is nice but it's far from fast. My screw driven lenses are all much more zippy, shame about the noise. The Sigma 100-300mm is very ziiiiiiiip beep! and sure of it's focus.

First - I hope that 7D photo is not supposed to represent the best its sensor is capable of. If I see 100% shots like that coming from any of my bodies, including K20D and K-7, I am disappointed.

That's an absolutely absurd statement, how can you even say that without a like for like comparison? Have you considered that it was shot wide open? Have you considered the effect it would have if I downsampled it to the K20D's resolutions? How do you know how much sharpening I have applied, if any?

Allthough I think this is a nonsense off topic discussion ,
I don't think that's really sharp, eg from my 50-135 without USM:
(look at her hair and the fabric of the shirt)

(Also off topic, I like your skyskraper pic, very nice)

Again, you're not comparing like for like.

[tomtor]

Again, you're not comparing like for like.

You shot at F4, I at F3.5, You at 1/3200, I at 1/400, you checked the EXIF didn't you?

Don't ask me to show F2.8 shots, it's not worth my trouble.

[Big G]

Yes I did.

I'm talking about taking two shots of the same scene, with the same lens, with the same settings, at the same focal length in a controlled test.

Your lens is based on the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8, correct? That is a truly spectacular lens, sharp from f/2.8 and when stopped to f/3.4 and f/4 produces resolution figures that are virtually flawless. I am using a Canon 70-200mm at f/4 which doesn't ever reach the same resolution figures at 200mm. You're stopped down, I'm fully open.

Hell, I've even considered the Tokina for the 7D!

This is why it is absurd (and I see the same utter nonsense over on dpreview) to automatically assume that the sensor is at fault. I have the Sigma 10-20mm for my K20D and 7D - I could do a controlled test, crop to 100% and post those. That would be the only way to fairly test.

[tomtor]

Yes I did.

Your lens is based on the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8, correct? That is a truly spectacular lens, sharp from f/2.8 and when stopped to f/3.4 and f/4 produces resolution figures that are virtually flawless.

Sigh, not again, the Pentax DA50-135 is a Pentax design, you can look up the patent.

It's licensed to Tokina, not the other way around.

And yes, it's a sharp lens but according to the photozone.de tests not as spectacular as you state,
allthough my copy is really good. Perhaps they had a sub optimal copy.

[Big G]

What does it matter in this context; it's basically the same design? The resolution figures of the Pentax 50-135mm are still awesome and better than the Canon 70-200 f/4.

Anyway, back on topic, it will be a travesty if the measurebators write off the K-5 too soon with this 100% crop nonsense; k-x sensor qualities with Canon like AF and I may add one to my kit bag.

[chicochongchu]

I just really, Really, REALLY HOPE it can SYNC to 250th!

WTF is 180th sync, Pentax?!?!?!?!?!

[StigVidar]

I just really, Really, REALLY HOPE it can SYNC to 250th!

WTF is 180th sync, Pentax?!?!?!?!?!

1/180 is 1/2EV slower than 1/250 which is more or less negligible. If you can't make any photos with 1/180, I really don't think 1/250 will be the answer for you. Try high speed sync instead.

[Fototim]

But thats the limitation of the AF system as such. No AF system, not even a Canon , can predict random movement. That is the definition off random; it cannot be predicted!
AF is not a feature that automatically get what the photographer want in focus just by pointing the camera in the general direction of the subject. This is like blaiming the camera for being faulty because the photographer didn't get enough DOF in program mode.

I'm not asking for a system that predicts the unpredictable.

What I want is a system that enables me to link, let us say, five sensors in centre. That's all.

[Wizard]

The higher speed ISO is all I see missing in the k7 which I find more capable every time I use it and an incredible buy.