Originally posted by joerg My only critique is that if I had a tradition pro level K-Mount body like a larger FF or even APS-H camera, I would be far more inclined to own a smaller weather sealed full featured body like the K-7 seems to be shaping up to be. For me such a camera is more of a tool for pleasure and excursion, one which I would love to have if I was already vested in a large Pentax system.
Originally posted by KungPOW I expect this new camera will draw a number of Nikon and Canon users into the Pentax fold as dual system users.
In a way this new camera is a luxery like the limiteds. I don't yet see it as a camera that I would need, to me it might be a camera I want. Much in the same way I don't need the 15, 20, 31, 35, 40 and 43 Ltds. That range is covered just fine with a single zoom and a fast 50.
Good analysis. I'm a Canon user looking for a smaller system for situations where small size and/or discretion are more important than absolute quality. I was all set to get a K-m and some pancake lenses, but the K-7 will probably be much more up my alley--a lot less compromise to get the small size I want. If the K-7's AF gets up to speed with Canon's prosumer level I'd consider using it as a main camera for paid gigs, but as it stands I plan it as a 2nd system for situations where quick AF don't matter as much.
Originally posted by joerg While there have been a few cases of amazing pros using smaller APS-C bodies, they are by far the minority. I am not saying APS-C is not a capable format, but merely stating that the natural evolution of the digital K-Mount could have benefited by first targeting the users looking to move in that direction.
While I would love to own a K-7 and a 645D, that still makes no sense from the standpoint of wanting a complete system from Pro down.
Define "pro". If you don't go the snarky route and say it's anything that you can earn money with, it's a tough term to define. AF? Framerate? Viewfinder coverage? Weather sealing? Sensor size? Etc.? Arguments can be made for all of the above to differing degrees. I would argue that the Nikon D300 is a pro spec camera with an APS-C sensor, while the Canon 5D is a prosumer-spec camera with a FF sensor. And I say that as a happy Canon 5D user. So in my mind FF isn't the deciding factor for a camera being pro or not.
My point is that (again, pending the release of REAL specs) the K-7 could very well be the 1st true pro-spec camera in a compact form factor--fast AF, 100% viewfinder, good framerate, clean high ISO, etc. That would make it absolutely unique in today's market. If it's APS-C like all early indications point toward, the FF fanatics will dog it just because of that, but that doesn't make it any less relevant and remarkable. Note that I'm not calling you a FF fanatic; I just know that they're out there.
I don't want to sound like I'm cheerleading for a camera whose specs aren't even out yet, but rather I'm saying let's give the specs a chance before we dismiss it as a non-pro camera, because again sensor size isn't the be-all end-all of pro camera specifications.
Quote: I hope to eat my own words and watch the K-7 defy the general boundaries APS-C and smaller bodies impose much like the D300 did at launch, but I fear that Pentax simply could not have had the means to make a new sensor, new AF system, and all new design at the same time.
Every company has to work within its means. Pentax is much smaller than the 2 camera giants, and as such has to pick its battles. Making a pro-spec APS-C camera in a small form-factor would fully emphasize and capitalize on Pentax's unique qualities, instead of spending a bigger outlay just to become an also-ran in areas where the camera superpowers reign supreme. Yet again pending real specs, it could be exactly the camera Pentax needs to consolidate its niche and gain some new users at the same time. Nobody else is even close to putting out a small pro-spec camera. This could be something really special if executed properly.