[RMabo]

I am not impressed by the A55 - it is designed as an entry level plastic camera, but obviously there are those that buys camera from technical specifications (like those that buys speakers from technical data sheets instead of listening to them first...).

[ManuH]

OK the A55/A33 cameras are very clever but so what? The EVF is worst than an OVF and you loose 1/3 stop of sensitivity. I don't see the big deal here. I'll leave Pentax if they come with a similar design. These cameras are nice for gadgeteers not for photographers.

[andi]

and you loose 1/3 stop of sensitivity.

That's not 1/3 stop.
It's 1/3 of the amount of light reaching the sensor.
Quite a huge compromise imo.

[deejjjaaaa]

That's not 1/3 stop.
It's 1/3 of the amount of light reaching the sensor.
Quite a huge compromise imo.

1 stop is just doubling (or halving) the light... you do not worry much when you are going from ISO200 to ISO400 w/ recent Pentax cameras, do you ?

[ivoire]

Investing in another system is not cost effective for me. The K7 does most of what I use it for. If the K5 is vastly improved, I'd pick it up early. If not, will wait until the price drops and the reviews are in. The users here are good at picking Pentax apart.

[deejjjaaaa]

and you loose 1/3 stop of sensitivity.

not a big deal... 1/6 stop is a margin of error in testing

[pcarfan]

OK the A55/A33 cameras are very clever but so what? The EVF is worst than an OVF and you loose 1/3 stop of sensitivity. I don't see the big deal here. I'll leave Pentax if they come with a similar design. These cameras are nice for gadgeteers not for photographers.

Whew! thank you...finally someone else thinking the same way....brilliant LV and advances in video alone doesn't do it for me either ....10 fps but with auto exposure and no manual control, oh my!, the gadgeteers have indeed taken over

[glanglois]

1 stop is just doubling (or halving) the light... you do not worry much when you are going from ISO200 to ISO400 w/ recent Pentax cameras, do you ?

No, I don't worry at all. 200 to 400 on some cameras is a distinction without (much of) a difference.

But I may worry about about ISO 1600 to 3200. The difference using that arrangement is 0.6 EV, right? 50% is one stop and 30/50 is 60% of one stop, as others have noted elsewhere. Not "huge", but the result moves the noise more toward 3200 than 1600.

If the system struggles at 1600, we have a difference as well as a distinction.

After reading the review, one without RAW evaluation (!), I don't have a clue as to why the Gold Award was given. Perhaps 14 K gold plating. Very thin. Deposited atom by atom. Cannot stand close scrutiny. Don't polish it.

[Winder]

The A55 is not an interesting camera in itself. The sensor performance is what is interesting. Even with Sony's poor JPEG engine and the light loss from the mirror the camera is still producing decent images.

Put that same sensor in a K-7 with DNG and I think you will see a marked improvement. The mirror has to have some effect of sharpness as it in effect another filter. Sony's own RAW converter is pretty weak, so I will have to wait until DxO (which has done an excellent job on A900 files) or LR3 support this body.

With the mirror out of the way and RAW support for LR3 I think this sensor will be a winner.

[noser]

Impossible. They had one year to get the K-7 successor right and I'm sure they were already working on it when the K-7 hit the shelves. I expect some rather interesting upgrades in all aspects.

Please remember, everyone... The K-7 has a bad rep because of the "bad" high-ISO, but let's not forget that the K-7 is a MUCH better body than current K10D and K20D users realize. It's not about the specs on paper, it's how it handles in real life.

I'm a current K20D and K10D owner, and I don't think the K-7 has a BAD rap, it's just that the K-x seemed to upstage the K-7. Bad timing by Pentax.

1. Near perfect AF in AF.S, even in artificial lighting
2. Auto WB that's second to none
3. Near perfect dust removal (never had to touch my Arctic Butterfly since I bought my K-7 1 year and 2 months ago (!!!), and I change lenses on a daily basis)
4. Great Live View (IMHO)
5. 100% Viewfinder coverage

These, together with the other nice additions (horizon correction, PF removal, Magnesium-alloy body, etc. etc) make the K-7 such an attractive and well-performing camera. Especially given its price point and build quality.

I came from a K20D and I'm getting sick of current K20D users who think that the K-7 is not a real upgrade. Those users don't know what they are talking about...

It's not that the K-7 isn't a real upgrade, it's just that for $1400 (when it shipped), it didn't seem a big enough change in value. But you raise some interesting points...

1. Perfect AF? My K20D does ok in static accuracy, but it's slow. My understanding is the K-7 has a snappier AF, which I didn't know about until after lots of anecdotal reports.

2. No doubt the AWB could be improved (the K20D can't detect tungsten reliably), but I don't often hear this one.

3. Dust removal - this is the first time I've heard this. Hmmm...

4. I don't use LV much, mostly because of the silly little dance the mirror has to do to take a shot. I didn't know the LV in the K-7 was any different.

5. 100% VF... that would be nice, but I'm used to the K20D.

What does all this mean?

If the Pentax marketing department had pushed all the upgrades all at once in a blitz, the K-7 probably would have seemed like a new camera to me, and I probably would have bought one a few months ago, before all the chatter about Photokina started. Ah well...

And you forgot my favorite upgrade... the shutter sound. I love how the K-7 sounds like a camera, and not a switchblade. If they add back tethering and the bracketing button in the K-5... hmmm...



N.

[blende8]

...--- ...

[Asahiflex]

But you raise some interesting points...

1. Perfect AF? My K20D does ok in static accuracy, but it's slow. My understanding is the K-7 has a snappier AF, which I didn't know about until after lots of anecdotal reports.

It's indeed a much better AF system. What's more: I have *no* FF or BF issues with any of my AF Lenses (FA Limited, F*, FA*) so the lens adjustment is still on 0 (default).

2. No doubt the AWB could be improved (the K20D can't detect tungsten reliably), but I don't often hear this one.

It's true. The K-7 does very well in tungsten lighting, thanks to the modified WB sensor.

3. Dust removal - this is the first time I've heard this. Hmmm...

It's easy to forget about this feature because when you see no dust particles in your photos you aren't reminded about it. But it's there and it does its job unbelievably well. This feature alone would be worth the upgrade from my K20D.

4. I don't use LV much, mostly because of the silly little dance the mirror has to do to take a shot. I didn't know the LV in the K-7 was any different.

I meant that focusing in LV is much easier than before. On my K20D I could zoom in on the subject, but it was a pixelated mess. On the K-7 the magnified portion shows much more details, so it's easier to focus.

5. 100% VF... that would be nice, but I'm used to the K20D.

Again: you'll enjoy it when you have it.

If the Pentax marketing department had pushed all the upgrades all at once in a blitz, the K-7 probably would have seemed like a new camera to me, and I probably would have bought one a few months ago, before all the chatter about Photokina started. Ah well...

The words Pentax and Marketing cannot be used in the same sentence. Oh well, I just did that

[JohanBene]

if 70% of the light reaches the sensor that equals (ln 0,7)/(ln 2) = -0,515.
A loss of half an EV-step

[Groucho]

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?

Look - another user said that they've had trouble getting sharp photos from a 7D. You claim that you've had no problems getting sharp photos, and then offer up that 100% crop as evidence. That is hardly what I would call sharp. To sum up - you're making the 7D look bad. As I said, I hope that's not an indication of the best that the sensor can do, because frankly, it's not impressive.

I was reasonably happy with center point until I began to shoot aerobatics as well as, and especially, my twin toddlers. My daughter's, actually, but you get the point.

I used center point for a long time just based on years of shooting with my K1000. I still have to center my subject when manual focusing because of my Jinfinance focus screen. But I started using the other points when I noticed how much cropping I was having to do because of the subject of the photo ending up right in the middle of the photo instead of where I want - fairly annoying for people pictures!

I'm a current K20D and K10D owner, and I don't think the K-7 has a BAD rap, it's just that the K-x seemed to upstage the K-7. Bad timing by Pentax.

I've got both and I never even consider using the K-x unless I'm in a situation that desperately requires the highest ISO possible. In every other, the K-7 is a vastly superior camera. The K-x is great at the entry level, with the excellent IQ, feature set, and of course the colors... but it's still very much entry level.

It's not that the K-7 isn't a real upgrade, it's just that for $1400 (when it shipped), it didn't seem a big enough change in value. But you raise some interesting points...

It retailed at $1,300 and was $1,200 or less street price pretty much immediately.

1. Perfect AF? My K20D does ok in static accuracy, but it's slow. My understanding is the K-7 has a snappier AF, which I didn't know about until after lots of anecdotal reports.

2. No doubt the AWB could be improved (the K20D can't detect tungsten reliably), but I don't often hear this one.

3. Dust removal - this is the first time I've heard this. Hmmm...

4. I don't use LV much, mostly because of the silly little dance the mirror has to do to take a shot. I didn't know the LV in the K-7 was any different.

5. 100% VF... that would be nice, but I'm used to the K20D.

1. Very clearly superior. Still not perfect but I rarely curse it the way I did the K20D's.

2. K-7's AWB is, as they say, nearly perfect. I rarely touch WB in Lightroom unless I am going for a specific look. (Or when I shoot with a couple of my oddball lenses that totally skew the WB, especially my ancient Takumar 300mm.)

3. K-7's is ultrasonic (I think that's the correct term) rather than the violent sensor-shaking of the K20D's. Both were pretty good but the K-7's is a little bit better.

4. It's still there but much, much faster. The big thing is that you have the larger, higher-resolution LCD. This makes a huge difference and was one of the things that always bugged me a little about the K20D. You also have a lot more control, and it's much faster to zoom in and out, and when you do, you get much better photos rather than a blocky zoom of the original size. When tripod shooting, the liveview is really great to use (especially for something like the Lensbaby, which is really tricky to focus well using the standard viewfinder and the focus mount is moved off-center.)

5. Since I wear glasses most of the time, I didn't notice a big viewfinder change. I do love that I can see the level in the viewfinder though! I find that to be a really great feature.

[andi]

1 stop is just doubling (or halving) the light... you do not worry much when you are going from ISO200 to ISO400 w/ recent Pentax cameras, do you ?

maybe I'm weird, but to me, the quality of my image is the most important thing.
Rule number one - don't limit the amount of light if you don't need to.
That light will be often limited anyway, for example when I use a polarizer.
switching to a higher ISO is the last thing I want to do.
Even on my Canon 5D MkII which is (was, sorry, I just sold it) pretty good
with higher ISO. So yes, I do worry about it.
If by design, the camera cuts so much light, it's not the best idea imo.
And frankly, this camera is becoming just too small.
Have you seen this (and I can bet my hand is larger than this one):