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

Chwisch87 · 08-25-2010, 11:20 PM

Well the funny thing about Pentax Cameras is to get the most out of them you actually have know how to use a camera lol.

Supernaut · 08-26-2010, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by Chwisch87

Well the funny thing about Pentax Cameras is to get the most out of them you actually have know how to use a camera lol.

I think that it is true for other brands also. But reviewers seems to always have good knownledge about the big two brands and have those as reference.
If something differs from the C/N norm, it's easily considered as a con.

**Rondec** · 08-26-2010, 04:10 AM

The biggest problem with reviews is that every reviewer who actually shoots a fair amount on the side has a preference for what type of colors they like, ergonomics they like, button position and it is generally going to coincide with what they shoot regularly. From then on, the camera they are reviewing is going to be compared to that other camera.

That is not to say that bias is intentional, but it is generally there anyway. I am sure that if I reviewed a Canon camera, I would be comparing it to the K7 and saying the things that seemed to work better and worse based on that.

Class A · 08-27-2010, 03:28 AM

Originally posted by CWyatt

...I had the time today, being at home sick, so I signed up for the site and told them how bad this review is.

Thanks for taking the time and, wow, you and no doubt others made a difference this time.

World-class reaction by the ePHOTOzine editor to take the review down. I'm impressed.

Meanwhile, Michael Reichman's very weak opinion piece he calls a "K-7 Hands-On" review is still online (I'm not linking to it on purpose). He lost the plot on that one but instead of admitting his mistakes he defended them explicitly. Poor form.

**ManuH** · 08-27-2010, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Class A

World-class reaction by the ePHOTOzine editor to take the review down. I'm impressed.

I'm impressed too in a world where the reviewer is never wrong.

Originally posted by Class A

Meanwhile, Michael Reichman's very weak opinion piece he calls a "K-7 Hands-On" review is still online (I'm not linking to it on purpose). He lost the plot on that one but instead of admitting his mistakes he defended them explicitly. Poor form.

I don't know, as a hand-on it's not that bad. I think it's interesting to see the reaction of an "outsider". The K-7 should have been an exciting camera, and in some ways it is, especially for Pentaxians. But as MR pointed out "In marketing terms it doesn't appear to offer a USP (Unique Selling Proposition). Almost every aspect of the camera is competent, and there are only a few failings. But it also doesn't really excel at anything. It isn't the fastest, the sharpest, the highest resolution, the smallest, the lightest, the fastest focusing, or have the fastest frames rates." As bland as the K20D upgrade was, it had the highest resolution for an APS-C sensor at the time. The K-7 boast no particular feature above the others. It's "just" a compelling package.

Class A · 08-27-2010, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by ManuH

I don't know, as a hand-on it's not that bad.

I disagree. The first version contained some blunders that showed how little attention he gave the camera. He corrected them later but playing his omissions down rather than admitting to the reason as to why he overlooked some basic K-7 properties.

Can he be forgiven for being detracted by Hasselblads and Leica M9's while having to do a review for an APS-C camera built to a price? Yes, he can. Can he be forgiven for not realising that he lost contact with the audience the K-7 is meant for? I don't think so.

He didn't do the K-7 justice at all. While the K-7 might not be extreme in any particular category (would you really want it to be the smallest APS-C camera? Or the biggest? Or the most expensive? Or the cheapest?) it is awesome value for money. It combines many desirable features (half of which M. Reichmann never discovered during his non-review period) in a very affordable package. It never occurred to M. Reichmann that being the best compromise with respect to optimising many diverging design goals could be a virtue. Maybe the K-7 excels in being the best combination of features for the price possible? M. Reichmann looked for extremes in single areas but forgot that a good camera is made up by combining features/properties that gel together well and that are affordable as a whole.

N.B., the K-7 is arguably the best street photographer APS-C camera out there.

It is still (but not for much longer

) the best Pentax DSLR ever to mate with the FA Ltds. Luminous Landscapes used to praise Pentax lenses a lot. As to why M. Reichmann never realised that he had the best Pentax DSLR ever to shoot the Ltds. with, just escapes me. None of the reason that spring to my mind are flattering for him.

Originally posted by ManuH

... I think it's interesting to see the reaction of an "outsider".

The problem is that he stayed an outsider and never got sufficiently involved with the K-7 to realise that it is a great street photographer's tool (small, rugged, weather-resistant, small lenses available, etc.). Or that it is a great real estate agent tool (combination of SR with wide-angle lenses + in-camera HDR + in-camera lens correction).

EDIT: Gordon Lewis writes about the K-7

"...for those who "get it," it's a welcome alternative both to small cameras that are under-built and under-featured and large cameras that are overly heavy and over-priced."

Apparently he understood that it is not always about being the best in one single category (as that often comes at the expense of something else).

Akin · 08-27-2010, 04:09 PM

Digital Camera Reviews and Digital Photography Techniques

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

XD

Woops, sorry, i have not read the date of the post...

Last edited by Akin; 08-27-2010 at 04:25 PM.

**ManuH** · 08-28-2010, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Class A

Apparently he understood that it is not always about being the best in one single category (as that often comes at the expense of something else).

It's not just about being the best. The K-7 is also rather average on key points: IQ and AF for example. That's what I get from the Reichmann review, the camera didn't impress on any parameter. The only things that may stand out are the quiet shutter and the available Limited primes, things that MR overlooked. But it's not the D300 in a pocket that some people were expecting it to be.

Class A · 08-28-2010, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by ManuH

The K-7 is also rather average on key points: IQ and AF for example.

We disagree. But that's not a big problem.

The big problem is that Reichmann a) didn't give himself a chance of getting impressed and b) thought that his (limited) understanding of the camera had relevance for anyone else.

With the (lack of) commitment he put in, he should have said "I know jack sh*t about the camera so I better defer judgement to people who are willing to take some time to get to know it". But he thought he could look at it from a high horse and still be able to say something useful.

Do I care about differences between P&S cameras? No. But for some people it is important that someone cares about differences and gives them some guidance. I wouldn't be the right person for doing that unless I threw myself into the world of P&S cameras which I'd have little inclination or enthusiasm to do. But I don't blog about a P&S I didn't care to use as intended.

Originally posted by ManuH

But it's not the D300 in a pocket that some people were expecting it to be.

For some a D300 is better, for others a K-7 is better.
Have you read Gordon Lewis' K-7 review? He really liked the K-7. This guy knows his stuff (blog partner of Mike Johnston), he wouldn't praise the camera if it were as average as you appear to perceive it.

But again, this isn't really about our views on the K-7 or D300, but whether or not one should publish quarter-baked judgements.

**ManuH** · 08-28-2010, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Class A

We disagree. But that's not a big problem.

You can, of course. But I never saw tests where the K-7 was on top regarding IQ or AF. For AWB yes, it's one of the best, but it's not as important as a parameter of performance.

Originally posted by Class A

The big problem is that Reichmann

I don't disagree with you about Reichmann. But it was not a review, it was a "hands-on". So the relatively superficial "review" was to be expected.

Originally posted by Class A

For some a D300 is better, for others a K-7 is better.
Have you read Gordon Lewis' K-7 review? He really liked the K-7.

I read it and I don't dispute that the K-7 maybe better than the D300 for some. I'm certainly pleased with mine. But if we look objectively about some parameters like I said IQ and AF, the K-7 is just average. Not bad, just average. Not the best.

Originally posted by Class A

But again, this isn't really about our views on the K-7 or D300, but whether or not one should publish quarter-baked judgements.

If it was a "review" it would be awful but it's only a "hands-on".

pcarfan · 08-28-2010, 04:52 AM

What is meant by K-7 IQ being just average ? real IQ, or therotetical ?....are you guys saying you are seeing differences in IQ between D300 and the k-7 below iso 3200 shooting in RAW ? therotical or otherwise ?

Class A · 08-28-2010, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by pcarfan

....are you guys saying you are seeing differences in IQ between D300 and the k-7 below iso 3200 shooting in RAW ?

I'm certainly not.

Originally posted by ManuH

If it was a "review" it would be awful but it's only a "hands-on".

Whatever he called it, he should have kept it to himself. He served no one with this. Not Pentax, not any readers, not himself.

garyk · 08-28-2010, 07:04 AM

I hate to say this. But my K-7 sits my bag and is never used anymore. It is a great design but the sensor sucks. I now use my K-x exclusively. Bummer....
Anyone else found this to be true? Not here to start a fight but it is the truth. Its a dog compared to the k-x. At least mine is. I do not know squat about nikon or canon but the k-x is a real gem.

My bird pics here all with Pentax gear and Sigma. Now exclusively with the k-x.
http://www.pbase.com/gary1952

kalison · 08-28-2010, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by garyk

I hate to say this. But my K-7 sits my bag and is never used anymore. It is a great design but the sensor sucks. I now use my K-x exclusively. Bummer....
Anyone else found this to be true?
Gary's Photo Galleries at pbase.com

Nope.

I love th K7 and it's always with me.

pcarfan · 08-28-2010, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by garyk

I hate to say this. But my K-7 sits my bag and is never used anymore. It is a great design but the sensor sucks. I now use my K-x exclusively. Bummer....
Anyone else found this to be true? Not here to start a fight but it is the truth. Its a dog compared to the k-x. At least mine is. I do not know squat about nikon or canon but the k-x is a real gem.

My bird pics here all with Pentax gear and Sigma. Now exclusively with the k-x.
Gary's Photo Galleries at pbase.com

Do you find this to be the case with relatively low iso as well, or for high iso shots only ?

08-27-2010, 06:13 AM	#66
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by ManuH I don't know, as a hand-on it's not that bad. I disagree. The first version contained some blunders that showed how little attention he gave the camera. He corrected them later but playing his omissions down rather than admitting to the reason as to why he overlooked some basic K-7 properties. Can he be forgiven for being detracted by Hasselblads and Leica M9's while having to do a review for an APS-C camera built to a price? Yes, he can. Can he be forgiven for not realising that he lost contact with the audience the K-7 is meant for? I don't think so. He didn't do the K-7 justice at all. While the K-7 might not be extreme in any particular category (would you really want it to be the smallest APS-C camera? Or the biggest? Or the most expensive? Or the cheapest?) it is awesome value for money. It combines many desirable features (half of which M. Reichmann never discovered during his non-review period) in a very affordable package. It never occurred to M. Reichmann that being the best compromise with respect to optimising many diverging design goals could be a virtue. Maybe the K-7 excels in being the best combination of features for the price possible? M. Reichmann looked for extremes in single areas but forgot that a good camera is made up by combining features/properties that gel together well and that are affordable as a whole. N.B., the K-7 is arguably the best street photographer APS-C camera out there. It is still (but not for much longer ) the best Pentax DSLR ever to mate with the FA Ltds. Luminous Landscapes used to praise Pentax lenses a lot. As to why M. Reichmann never realised that he had the best Pentax DSLR ever to shoot the Ltds. with, just escapes me. None of the reason that spring to my mind are flattering for him. Originally posted by ManuH ... I think it's interesting to see the reaction of an "outsider". The problem is that he stayed an outsider and never got sufficiently involved with the K-7 to realise that it is a great street photographer's tool (small, rugged, weather-resistant, small lenses available, etc.). Or that it is a great real estate agent tool (combination of SR with wide-angle lenses + in-camera HDR + in-camera lens correction). EDIT: Gordon Lewis writes about the K-7 "...for those who "get it," it's a welcome alternative both to small cameras that are under-built and under-featured and large cameras that are overly heavy and over-priced." Apparently he understood that it is not always about being the best in one single category (as that often comes at the expense of something else). Last edited by Class A; 08-27-2010 at 07:43 PM.

08-28-2010, 07:04 AM	#73
garyk Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 488	I hate to say this. But my K-7 sits my bag and is never used anymore. It is a great design but the sensor sucks. I now use my K-x exclusively. Bummer.... Anyone else found this to be true? Not here to start a fight but it is the truth. Its a dog compared to the k-x. At least mine is. I do not know squat about nikon or canon but the k-x is a real gem. My bird pics here all with Pentax gear and Sigma. Now exclusively with the k-x. http://www.pbase.com/gary1952 Last edited by garyk; 08-28-2010 at 07:38 AM.

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, 11:20 PM	#61
Chwisch87 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Atlanta, GA Photos: Gallery Posts: 317	Well the funny thing about Pentax Cameras is to get the most out of them you actually have know how to use a camera lol.

08-26-2010, 12:07 AM	#62
Supernaut Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: West Coast , Sweden Posts: 467	Originally posted by Chwisch87 Well the funny thing about Pentax Cameras is to get the most out of them you actually have know how to use a camera lol. I think that it is true for other brands also. But reviewers seems to always have good knownledge about the big two brands and have those as reference. If something differs from the C/N norm, it's easily considered as a con.

08-26-2010, 04:10 AM	#63
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,662	The biggest problem with reviews is that every reviewer who actually shoots a fair amount on the side has a preference for what type of colors they like, ergonomics they like, button position and it is generally going to coincide with what they shoot regularly. From then on, the camera they are reviewing is going to be compared to that other camera. That is not to say that bias is intentional, but it is generally there anyway. I am sure that if I reviewed a Canon camera, I would be comparing it to the K7 and saying the things that seemed to work better and worse based on that.

08-27-2010, 03:28 AM	#64
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by CWyatt ...I had the time today, being at home sick, so I signed up for the site and told them how bad this review is. Thanks for taking the time and, wow, you and no doubt others made a difference this time. World-class reaction by the ePHOTOzine editor to take the review down. I'm impressed. Meanwhile, Michael Reichman's very weak opinion piece he calls a "K-7 Hands-On" review is still online (I'm not linking to it on purpose). He lost the plot on that one but instead of admitting his mistakes he defended them explicitly. Poor form.

08-27-2010, 05:55 AM	#65
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by Class A World-class reaction by the ePHOTOzine editor to take the review down. I'm impressed. I'm impressed too in a world where the reviewer is never wrong. Originally posted by Class A Meanwhile, Michael Reichman's very weak opinion piece he calls a "K-7 Hands-On" review is still online (I'm not linking to it on purpose). He lost the plot on that one but instead of admitting his mistakes he defended them explicitly. Poor form. I don't know, as a hand-on it's not that bad. I think it's interesting to see the reaction of an "outsider". The K-7 should have been an exciting camera, and in some ways it is, especially for Pentaxians. But as MR pointed out "In marketing terms it doesn't appear to offer a USP (Unique Selling Proposition). Almost every aspect of the camera is competent, and there are only a few failings. But it also doesn't really excel at anything. It isn't the fastest, the sharpest, the highest resolution, the smallest, the lightest, the fastest focusing, or have the fastest frames rates." As bland as the K20D upgrade was, it had the highest resolution for an APS-C sensor at the time. The K-7 boast no particular feature above the others. It's "just" a compelling package.

08-27-2010, 04:09 PM	#67
Akin New Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Santiago de Compostela Posts: 14	Digital Camera Reviews and Digital Photography Techniques 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 XD Woops, sorry, i have not read the date of the post... Last edited by Akin; 08-27-2010 at 04:25 PM.

08-28-2010, 02:05 AM	#68
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by Class A Apparently he understood that it is not always about being the best in one single category (as that often comes at the expense of something else). It's not just about being the best. The K-7 is also rather average on key points: IQ and AF for example. That's what I get from the Reichmann review, the camera didn't impress on any parameter. The only things that may stand out are the quiet shutter and the available Limited primes, things that MR overlooked. But it's not the D300 in a pocket that some people were expecting it to be.

08-28-2010, 02:33 AM	#69
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by ManuH The K-7 is also rather average on key points: IQ and AF for example. We disagree. But that's not a big problem. The big problem is that Reichmann a) didn't give himself a chance of getting impressed and b) thought that his (limited) understanding of the camera had relevance for anyone else. With the (lack of) commitment he put in, he should have said "I know jack sh*t about the camera so I better defer judgement to people who are willing to take some time to get to know it". But he thought he could look at it from a high horse and still be able to say something useful. Do I care about differences between P&S cameras? No. But for some people it is important that someone cares about differences and gives them some guidance. I wouldn't be the right person for doing that unless I threw myself into the world of P&S cameras which I'd have little inclination or enthusiasm to do. But I don't blog about a P&S I didn't care to use as intended. Originally posted by ManuH But it's not the D300 in a pocket that some people were expecting it to be. For some a D300 is better, for others a K-7 is better. Have you read Gordon Lewis' K-7 review? He really liked the K-7. This guy knows his stuff (blog partner of Mike Johnston), he wouldn't praise the camera if it were as average as you appear to perceive it. But again, this isn't really about our views on the K-7 or D300, but whether or not one should publish quarter-baked judgements.

08-28-2010, 03:25 AM	#70
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by Class A We disagree. But that's not a big problem. You can, of course. But I never saw tests where the K-7 was on top regarding IQ or AF. For AWB yes, it's one of the best, but it's not as important as a parameter of performance. Originally posted by Class A The big problem is that Reichmann I don't disagree with you about Reichmann. But it was not a review, it was a "hands-on". So the relatively superficial "review" was to be expected. Originally posted by Class A For some a D300 is better, for others a K-7 is better. Have you read Gordon Lewis' K-7 review? He really liked the K-7. I read it and I don't dispute that the K-7 maybe better than the D300 for some. I'm certainly pleased with mine. But if we look objectively about some parameters like I said IQ and AF, the K-7 is just average. Not bad, just average. Not the best. Originally posted by Class A But again, this isn't really about our views on the K-7 or D300, but whether or not one should publish quarter-baked judgements. If it was a "review" it would be awful but it's only a "hands-on".

08-28-2010, 04:52 AM	#71
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	What is meant by K-7 IQ being just average ? real IQ, or therotetical ?....are you guys saying you are seeing differences in IQ between D300 and the k-7 below iso 3200 shooting in RAW ? therotical or otherwise ?

08-28-2010, 06:02 AM	#72
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by pcarfan ....are you guys saying you are seeing differences in IQ between D300 and the k-7 below iso 3200 shooting in RAW ? I'm certainly not. Originally posted by ManuH If it was a "review" it would be awful but it's only a "hands-on". Whatever he called it, he should have kept it to himself. He served no one with this. Not Pentax, not any readers, not himself.

08-28-2010, 09:21 AM	#74
kalison Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Utah Posts: 376	Originally posted by garyk I hate to say this. But my K-7 sits my bag and is never used anymore. It is a great design but the sensor sucks. I now use my K-x exclusively. Bummer.... Anyone else found this to be true? Gary's Photo Galleries at pbase.com Nope. I love th K7 and it's always with me.

08-28-2010, 09:21 AM	#75
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	Originally posted by garyk I hate to say this. But my K-7 sits my bag and is never used anymore. It is a great design but the sensor sucks. I now use my K-x exclusively. Bummer.... Anyone else found this to be true? Not here to start a fight but it is the truth. Its a dog compared to the k-x. At least mine is. I do not know squat about nikon or canon but the k-x is a real gem. My bird pics here all with Pentax gear and Sigma. Now exclusively with the k-x. Gary's Photo Galleries at pbase.com Do you find this to be the case with relatively low iso as well, or for high iso shots only ?