ePHOTOzine: K-7 vs. D90 vs. 550D

youky63 · 08-25-2010, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by ll_coffee_lP

I can't say it enough, but those who say that the K-7 wasn't enough of an upgrade over the K20 just haven't used it enough. Metering is spot on ALL the time, WB is near perfect ALL the time, AF is vastly improved, 100% viewfinder matters, quiet shutter, many software upgrades (lens corrections, etc.). The difference between the two cams is massive, but many just want to hang on the fact that they use the same sensor and that the K20 had a tiny bit better dynamic range and a tiny bit better noise.

c[_]

Maybe the problem is that we use these nice cameras to... take photos. And when the result is not better (as you mentioned some people even say worse), the motivation for upgrading is not really the same than with a great improvement of IQ (especially when the lower model has this better IQ).
Since Kx is out, I cannot advise anymore anybody for a K7. IQ is for me the ultimate criteria. As most of the people on this forum for what I have understood.

hal_a · 08-25-2010, 06:28 AM

I clicked on the link, and found that they've taken down the comparison test. the page now only redirects to the Pentax K7's individual review.

falconeye · 08-25-2010, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Tranzistors

Interesting, the admin said, the review will be reworked and the article is not active.
Have never seen that before.

I tried to have a look now and this is what I got:

Quote:

Sorry the comparison test that you are looking for has been taken down due to inconsistencies in the review procedure. You may like to look at our individual review of the Pentax K7

Seems that the K-7 part was the reason to take it down.

If anybody wants to see the original article, it's still cached by Google but all but three images are gone.

opiedog · 08-25-2010, 07:18 AM

at least they had the decency to take down the flawed review.

Mike.P® · 08-25-2010, 07:59 AM

The editor (Peter Bargh) has made a couple of comments regarding the review on the Pentax User forum.

Quote:

Yes sorry about that review guys. It was done by a freelance contributor and wasn't checked thoroughly by the team when they put it up as we assumed the freelancer was accurate in his test procedure. It was deeply flawed and will be redone in due course.
Rest assured ePHOTOzine has no bias and it's always been our intention that the best camera wins.

The trouble these days with camera reviews is that you have to not only have read the instruction manual inside out, but know the camera inside out too, and that's every nook and crannie. Camera reviewers get cameras for a short space of time and have to compare all aspects thoroughly. The Canon and Nikon have already gone back so we need to get them back again. And to be credible the test needs to meet the expectations of the existing users who may have had the cameras for months, as well as be sure that every set-up is accurately done. It's quite a challenge to do something as thorough as what was intended in the space of time given to do it.

I'm not sticking up for the reviewer - shooting in centre weighted on one and pattern metering on another is unforgivable

IMO credit where credit is due .. he has stood up and said the review was flawed and that's the reason it was taken down.

pcarfan · 08-25-2010, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Mike.P®

The editor (Peter Bargh) has made a couple of comments regarding the review on the Pentax User forum.

IMO credit where credit is due .. he has stood up and said the review was flawed and that's the reason it was taken down.

I knew he was a stand-up sort of a guy, and that's why I suspected it wasn't intentional bias - he has proved his integrity again.

thibs · 08-25-2010, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Mike.P®

The editor (Peter Bargh) has made a couple of comments regarding the review on the Pentax User forum.

IMO credit where credit is due .. he has stood up and said the review was flawed and that's the reason it was taken down.

Yep and he seems to get exactly what the problem is (instead of moaning as some reviewers do).

solar1 · 08-25-2010, 08:47 AM

"I know Peter Bargh personally, he is a decent honest guy and I believe his opinion is unbiased and worthy of serious consideration. He is also a long time Pentax user as well, he publishes Pentax User magazine here in the UK." - Richard Day

source, see post 7: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/75990-tamron-s...4-5-di-ii.html

kalison · 08-25-2010, 09:40 AM

Wow, I have never seen an article taken down that quickly to correct their mistakes.

Nice job on notifying them of their improper testing.

I was going to say "Oh great, another crappy and incorrectly done review to knock Pentax down even farther out of people's consideration."

The K-7 is a wonderful camera, it deserves a proper comparison.

CWyatt · 08-25-2010, 12:56 PM

Credit for that quick response and actually discussing it with his readers.

Originally posted by youky63

Maybe the problem is that we use these nice cameras to... take photos. And when the result is not better (as you mentioned some people even say worse), the motivation for upgrading is not really the same than with a great improvement of IQ (especially when the lower model has this better IQ).
Since Kx is out, I cannot advise anymore anybody for a K7. IQ is for me the ultimate criteria. As most of the people on this forum for what I have understood.

For me, this is a bit simplistic. It depends what matters for your shooting, and I can categorically say I have got shots with the K-7 I would not have got with my old K10D. I shoot a lot of street stuff and these things matter to me: shutter noise, camera responsiveness, AF speed. I don't worry if viewing at 100% there's a very slight noise or sharpness difference. The IQ of a shot I don't have isn't very good. The K-x is loud, has less user quick control, and slower AF. It's a fine sensor, but for me, there are other factors too.

Bonuses that are good, but not deal breakers, are 100% viewfinder, weather-sealing, TAv mode etc. Things I'd chuck in I-don't-care-at-all box are all the in-camera software things - HDR, CA corrections, lens corrections etc.

falconeye · 08-25-2010, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Mike.P®

The editor (Peter Bargh) [...] has stood up and said the review was flawed

I express my respect for Peter Bargh.
That's never an easy decision.

The problem he is addressing reminds me of the situation with software tests, like the better development environment by measuring the time needed to do a toy project where the real importance is with large scale projects.

That's almost impossible to do but the trend is to have mixed teams with at least one long-term and reputed expert for every environment.

Maybe, camera shoot-outs must be done with mixed teams too. Which sit together in the end to compile their final tabloids. Makes it more expensive of course but would provide a means to stick out of internet noise too

rawr · 08-25-2010, 01:41 PM

Once again this illustrates the need for rigor and careful execution in any technically based review of consumer technology on the web if the review is to have any credibility. The technology nowadays is so complex, and there are so many variables to understand and control for. Even reviewing toasters nowadays is hard to do properly without careful attention to detail.

Jonson PL · 08-25-2010, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by pcarfan

The matrix metering with my k10D can best be described as just working randomly, I could never fine tune it with test shots. It almost seems like magic when the k-7 gets it right every time - even in flash P-TTL, which after 1 year of use, I finally fooled the p-TTL two weeks ago when I took a shot of a person standing right in front a wall of windows.

Thanks, good to hear that P-TTL is improved

Originally posted by Mike.P®

The editor (Peter Bargh) has made a couple of comments regarding the review on the Pentax User forum.

Quote:
Yes sorry about that review guys. It was done by a freelance contributor and wasn't checked thoroughly by the team when they put it up as we assumed the freelancer was accurate in his test procedure. It was deeply flawed and will be redone in due course.
Rest assured ePHOTOzine has no bias and it's always been our intention that the best camera wins.

The trouble these days with camera reviews is that you have to not only have read the instruction manual inside out, but know the camera inside out too, and that's every nook and crannie. Camera reviewers get cameras for a short space of time and have to compare all aspects thoroughly. The Canon and Nikon have already gone back so we need to get them back again. And to be credible the test needs to meet the expectations of the existing users who may have had the cameras for months, as well as be sure that every set-up is accurately done. It's quite a challenge to do something as thorough as what was intended in the space of time given to do it.

I'm not sticking up for the reviewer - shooting in centre weighted on one and pattern metering on another is unforgivable

IMO credit where credit is due .. he has stood up and said the review was flawed and that's the reason it was taken down.

Thanks for the info. Well done by the editor, clear talk, instead of just trying to side-step problems

Originally posted by ll_coffee_lP

I can't say it enough, but those who say that the K-7 wasn't enough of an upgrade over the K20 just haven't used it enough. Metering is spot on ALL the time, WB is near perfect ALL the time, AF is vastly improved, 100% viewfinder matters, quiet shutter, many software upgrades (lens corrections, etc.). The difference between the two cams is massive, but many just want to hang on the fact that they use the same sensor and that the K20 had a tiny bit better dynamic range and a tiny bit better noise.
c[_]

Thanks, good hearing about the improvements over previous cameras

Originally posted by CWyatt

It depends what matters for your shooting, and I can categorically say I have got shots with the K-7 I would not have got with my old K10D. I shoot a lot of street stuff and these things matter to me: shutter noise, camera responsiveness, AF speed. I don't worry if viewing at 100% there's a very slight noise or sharpness difference. The IQ of a shot I don't have isn't very good. The K-x is loud, has less user quick control, and slower AF. It's a fine sensor, but for me, there are other factors too.

Bonuses that are good, but not deal breakers, are 100% viewfinder, weather-sealing, TAv mode etc. Things I'd chuck in I-don't-care-at-all box are all the in-camera software things - HDR, CA corrections, lens corrections etc.

Thanks for sharing your experiences with the K7. Always interesting, how people go about their shooting habits

Blue · 08-25-2010, 03:54 PM

I have to give Peter Bargh credit for stepping up.

ll_coffee_lP · 08-25-2010, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by youky63

Maybe the problem is that we use these nice cameras to... take photos. And when the result is not better (as you mentioned some people even say worse), the motivation for upgrading is not really the same than with a great improvement of IQ (especially when the lower model has this better IQ).
Since Kx is out, I cannot advise anymore anybody for a K7. IQ is for me the ultimate criteria. As most of the people on this forum for what I have understood.

I'm sorry, but this is simplistic at best. What may be equated to the cams being essentially equivalent in IQ (the difference, if any, is minimal), is being far outshined by the massive improvements in usability of the K-7, and is being ignored.

Your comment may have some merit, but I truthfully think it only applies to measurebaters and forum users who like to argue on the interwebs (and likely never actually take pictures).

My opinion is based on the fact that I take well over 50,000 photos a year - so I'm well aware of IQ and it's importance, but for anyone who actually uses these camera's (you know, for "real life" pictures) they would find that the improvements in the K-7 are huge.

c[_]

08-25-2010, 08:20 AM	#51
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Originally posted by Mike.P® The editor (Peter Bargh) has made a couple of comments regarding the review on the Pentax User forum. IMO credit where credit is due .. he has stood up and said the review was flawed and that's the reason it was taken down. I knew he was a stand-up sort of a guy, and that's why I suspected it wasn't intentional bias - he has proved his integrity again. Last edited by pcarfan; 08-25-2010 at 08:42 AM.

08-25-2010, 08:47 AM	#53
solar1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Southern Calif Posts: 565	Pentax User Magazine "I know Peter Bargh personally, he is a decent honest guy and I believe his opinion is unbiased and worthy of serious consideration. He is also a long time Pentax user as well, he publishes Pentax User magazine here in the UK." - Richard Day source, see post 7: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/75990-tamron-s...4-5-di-ii.html

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ephotozine k-x review	Myoptimism	Pentax News and Rumors	77	11-12-2009 03:38 PM
ePhotozine DSLR group test	Camera lucida	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	08-27-2009 08:18 AM
ephotozine k-7 review	mutedphotos	Pentax News and Rumors	49	07-02-2009 03:15 AM
Pentax K-m review on ePhotozine	DroolingCrow	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	05-12-2009 07:34 AM
Ephotozine K20d Review	Vespa125125	Pentax News and Rumors	1	02-17-2008 11:18 AM

08-25-2010, 06:21 AM	#46
youky63 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Osaka Posts: 143	Originally posted by ll_coffee_lP I can't say it enough, but those who say that the K-7 wasn't enough of an upgrade over the K20 just haven't used it enough. Metering is spot on ALL the time, WB is near perfect ALL the time, AF is vastly improved, 100% viewfinder matters, quiet shutter, many software upgrades (lens corrections, etc.). The difference between the two cams is massive, but many just want to hang on the fact that they use the same sensor and that the K20 had a tiny bit better dynamic range and a tiny bit better noise. c[_] Maybe the problem is that we use these nice cameras to... take photos. And when the result is not better (as you mentioned some people even say worse), the motivation for upgrading is not really the same than with a great improvement of IQ (especially when the lower model has this better IQ). Since Kx is out, I cannot advise anymore anybody for a K7. IQ is for me the ultimate criteria. As most of the people on this forum for what I have understood.

08-25-2010, 06:28 AM	#47
hal_a Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Montreal Posts: 60	I clicked on the link, and found that they've taken down the comparison test. the page now only redirects to the Pentax K7's individual review.

08-25-2010, 06:35 AM	#48
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Tranzistors Interesting, the admin said, the review will be reworked and the article is not active. Have never seen that before. I tried to have a look now and this is what I got: Quote: Sorry the comparison test that you are looking for has been taken down due to inconsistencies in the review procedure. You may like to look at our individual review of the Pentax K7 Seems that the K-7 part was the reason to take it down. If anybody wants to see the original article, it's still cached by Google but all but three images are gone.

08-25-2010, 07:18 AM	#49
opiedog Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NC Posts: 787	at least they had the decency to take down the flawed review.

08-25-2010, 07:59 AM	#50
Mike.P® Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Milton, Hampshire, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,154	The editor (Peter Bargh) has made a couple of comments regarding the review on the Pentax User forum. Quote: Yes sorry about that review guys. It was done by a freelance contributor and wasn't checked thoroughly by the team when they put it up as we assumed the freelancer was accurate in his test procedure. It was deeply flawed and will be redone in due course. Rest assured ePHOTOzine has no bias and it's always been our intention that the best camera wins. The trouble these days with camera reviews is that you have to not only have read the instruction manual inside out, but know the camera inside out too, and that's every nook and crannie. Camera reviewers get cameras for a short space of time and have to compare all aspects thoroughly. The Canon and Nikon have already gone back so we need to get them back again. And to be credible the test needs to meet the expectations of the existing users who may have had the cameras for months, as well as be sure that every set-up is accurately done. It's quite a challenge to do something as thorough as what was intended in the space of time given to do it. I'm not sticking up for the reviewer - shooting in centre weighted on one and pattern metering on another is unforgivable IMO credit where credit is due .. he has stood up and said the review was flawed and that's the reason it was taken down.

08-25-2010, 08:40 AM	#52
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Mike.P® The editor (Peter Bargh) has made a couple of comments regarding the review on the Pentax User forum. IMO credit where credit is due .. he has stood up and said the review was flawed and that's the reason it was taken down. Yep and he seems to get exactly what the problem is (instead of moaning as some reviewers do).

08-25-2010, 09:40 AM	#54
kalison Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Utah Posts: 376	Wow, I have never seen an article taken down that quickly to correct their mistakes. Nice job on notifying them of their improper testing. I was going to say "Oh great, another crappy and incorrectly done review to knock Pentax down even farther out of people's consideration." The K-7 is a wonderful camera, it deserves a proper comparison.

08-25-2010, 12:56 PM	#55
CWyatt Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,291	Credit for that quick response and actually discussing it with his readers. Originally posted by youky63 Maybe the problem is that we use these nice cameras to... take photos. And when the result is not better (as you mentioned some people even say worse), the motivation for upgrading is not really the same than with a great improvement of IQ (especially when the lower model has this better IQ). Since Kx is out, I cannot advise anymore anybody for a K7. IQ is for me the ultimate criteria. As most of the people on this forum for what I have understood. For me, this is a bit simplistic. It depends what matters for your shooting, and I can categorically say I have got shots with the K-7 I would not have got with my old K10D. I shoot a lot of street stuff and these things matter to me: shutter noise, camera responsiveness, AF speed. I don't worry if viewing at 100% there's a very slight noise or sharpness difference. The IQ of a shot I don't have isn't very good. The K-x is loud, has less user quick control, and slower AF. It's a fine sensor, but for me, there are other factors too. Bonuses that are good, but not deal breakers, are 100% viewfinder, weather-sealing, TAv mode etc. Things I'd chuck in I-don't-care-at-all box are all the in-camera software things - HDR, CA corrections, lens corrections etc.

08-25-2010, 01:20 PM	#56
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by Mike.P® The editor (Peter Bargh) [...] has stood up and said the review was flawed I express my respect for Peter Bargh. That's never an easy decision. The problem he is addressing reminds me of the situation with software tests, like the better development environment by measuring the time needed to do a toy project where the real importance is with large scale projects. That's almost impossible to do but the trend is to have mixed teams with at least one long-term and reputed expert for every environment. Maybe, camera shoot-outs must be done with mixed teams too. Which sit together in the end to compile their final tabloids. Makes it more expensive of course but would provide a means to stick out of internet noise too

08-25-2010, 01:41 PM	#57
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Once again this illustrates the need for rigor and careful execution in any technically based review of consumer technology on the web if the review is to have any credibility. The technology nowadays is so complex, and there are so many variables to understand and control for. Even reviewing toasters nowadays is hard to do properly without careful attention to detail.

08-25-2010, 02:02 PM	#58
Jonson PL Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,842	Originally posted by pcarfan The matrix metering with my k10D can best be described as just working randomly, I could never fine tune it with test shots. It almost seems like magic when the k-7 gets it right every time - even in flash P-TTL, which after 1 year of use, I finally fooled the p-TTL two weeks ago when I took a shot of a person standing right in front a wall of windows. Thanks, good to hear that P-TTL is improved Originally posted by Mike.P® The editor (Peter Bargh) has made a couple of comments regarding the review on the Pentax User forum. Quote: Yes sorry about that review guys. It was done by a freelance contributor and wasn't checked thoroughly by the team when they put it up as we assumed the freelancer was accurate in his test procedure. It was deeply flawed and will be redone in due course. Rest assured ePHOTOzine has no bias and it's always been our intention that the best camera wins. The trouble these days with camera reviews is that you have to not only have read the instruction manual inside out, but know the camera inside out too, and that's every nook and crannie. Camera reviewers get cameras for a short space of time and have to compare all aspects thoroughly. The Canon and Nikon have already gone back so we need to get them back again. And to be credible the test needs to meet the expectations of the existing users who may have had the cameras for months, as well as be sure that every set-up is accurately done. It's quite a challenge to do something as thorough as what was intended in the space of time given to do it. I'm not sticking up for the reviewer - shooting in centre weighted on one and pattern metering on another is unforgivable IMO credit where credit is due .. he has stood up and said the review was flawed and that's the reason it was taken down. Thanks for the info. Well done by the editor, clear talk, instead of just trying to side-step problems Originally posted by ll_coffee_lP I can't say it enough, but those who say that the K-7 wasn't enough of an upgrade over the K20 just haven't used it enough. Metering is spot on ALL the time, WB is near perfect ALL the time, AF is vastly improved, 100% viewfinder matters, quiet shutter, many software upgrades (lens corrections, etc.). The difference between the two cams is massive, but many just want to hang on the fact that they use the same sensor and that the K20 had a tiny bit better dynamic range and a tiny bit better noise. c[_] Thanks, good hearing about the improvements over previous cameras Originally posted by CWyatt It depends what matters for your shooting, and I can categorically say I have got shots with the K-7 I would not have got with my old K10D. I shoot a lot of street stuff and these things matter to me: shutter noise, camera responsiveness, AF speed. I don't worry if viewing at 100% there's a very slight noise or sharpness difference. The IQ of a shot I don't have isn't very good. The K-x is loud, has less user quick control, and slower AF. It's a fine sensor, but for me, there are other factors too. Bonuses that are good, but not deal breakers, are 100% viewfinder, weather-sealing, TAv mode etc. Things I'd chuck in I-don't-care-at-all box are all the in-camera software things - HDR, CA corrections, lens corrections etc. Thanks for sharing your experiences with the K7. Always interesting, how people go about their shooting habits

08-25-2010, 03:54 PM	#59
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	I have to give Peter Bargh credit for stepping up.

08-25-2010, 06:50 PM	#60
ll_coffee_lP Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,972	Originally posted by youky63 Maybe the problem is that we use these nice cameras to... take photos. And when the result is not better (as you mentioned some people even say worse), the motivation for upgrading is not really the same than with a great improvement of IQ (especially when the lower model has this better IQ). Since Kx is out, I cannot advise anymore anybody for a K7. IQ is for me the ultimate criteria. As most of the people on this forum for what I have understood. I'm sorry, but this is simplistic at best. What may be equated to the cams being essentially equivalent in IQ (the difference, if any, is minimal), is being far outshined by the massive improvements in usability of the K-7, and is being ignored. Your comment may have some merit, but I truthfully think it only applies to measurebaters and forum users who like to argue on the interwebs (and likely never actually take pictures). My opinion is based on the fact that I take well over 50,000 photos a year - so I'm well aware of IQ and it's importance, but for anyone who actually uses these camera's (you know, for "real life" pictures) they would find that the improvements in the K-7 are huge. c[_]