Originally posted by Big G 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.
Originally posted by glanglois 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!
Originally posted by noser 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.
Quote: 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.
Quote: 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.