[vizjerei]

Did any of you try to use the "Side by Side" option in DPReview? try it with 5DII, K-7 and D300, and check the fps of K-7, they say it is 3fps. No info about K-7 has HDvideo, but 5DII has it in note.. some more info are lacking too

[arpaagent]

But why would they say "nearly"? Thats what I want to know. I can see the perspective of this post and its relevance. They stick little slights like that in most reviews other than Canon or Nikon, its quite annoying.

Carl

Maybe they say "nearly" because with the SR active, then you may not get exactly what you see in the viewfinder. the sensor may be slightly out of alignment relative to the viewfinder while it is doing it's work. I don't know the technical details (i.e., when the SR actually begins being applied), but I'm just saying maybe it's related to SR.

...either way, no point in making a big deal about the wording. The viewfinder is 100% for all intensive purposes as far as I am concerned.

[elkarrde]

But why would they say "nearly"? Thats what I want to know.

it's "nearly" since real coverage depends on the lens focusing point - if the lens is focused to infinity, it's 100%, if not, it's "almost-but-not-quite-so" 100%.

[CoryV]

Starting to get OP's remorse here.. I think we should wait to see if dpreview corrects, or at least explains this in the full review. It seems they are really impressed with the camera as most of us are. I have no reason to believe the nearly was malicious.

I think we should move along until there is real drama to report.

-Cory

[Robert S Donovan]

Starting to get OP's remorse here.. I think we should wait to see if dpreview corrects, or at least explains this in the full review. It seems they are really impressed with the camera as most of us are. I have no reason to believe the nearly was malicious.

I think we should move along until there is real drama to report.

-Cory

DPR will not correct their statement. There is likely no way to test the VF coverage with 100% accuracy. With no absolutes "nearly" is as good as it gets.

[mattdm]

But why would they say "nearly"? Thats what I want to know. I can see the perspective of this post and its relevance. They stick little slights like that in most reviews other than Canon or Nikon, its quite annoying.

Carl

Starting to get OP's remorse here.. I think we should wait to see if dpreview corrects, or at least explains this in the full review. It seems they are really impressed with the camera as most of us are. I have no reason to believe the nearly was malicious.

I think we should move along until there is real drama to report.

-Cory

DPR will not correct their statement. There is likely no way to test the VF coverage with 100% accuracy. With no absolutes "nearly" is as good as it gets.

Guys, this isn't dpreview's statement! It's direct from Pentax!

[CoryV]

Guys, this isn't dpreview's statement! It's direct from Pentax!

Where? PENTAX News and Press Releases - Official PENTAX Imaging Web Site ctrl + F "nearly"

[mattdm]

Where? PENTAX News and Press Releases - Official PENTAX Imaging Web Site ctrl + F "nearly"

Remember, DP Review is based in the UK. The Pentax UK web site is strangely stuck in the past, but looks like the Pentax User web site got the same press release DP Review did (and the same one that was posted in the megathread early this morning):

Pentax K-7

Edit: or very close. The Pentax User version says "Approx." instead of nearly. But the other two match.

[snkenai]

They say "nearly" for the same reason your house deed says .33 acres "more or less". It is to avoid law suites from nitpickers!
Steve

[CoryV]

Remember, DP Review is based in the UK. The Pentax UK web site is strangely stuck in the past, but looks like the Pentax User web site got the same press release DP Review did (and the same one that was posted in the megathread early this morning):

Pentax K-7

Yeah i agree, there seems to be two versions around. I'm sorry i started the thread. I was just getting annoyed at folks here at work saying it wasn't 100% when everything i've seen says it was.
If we fault anyone it would be pentax for not getting the story straight.

I'm not 'nearly' as worked up about it as some might suppose

-carry on
cory

[jboyde]

But why would they say "nearly"? Thats what I want to know. I can see the perspective of this post and its relevance. They stick little slights like that in most reviews other than Canon or Nikon, its quite annoying.

Carl

And Sony too. I've never seen a new brand of camera rise up the ranks so quickly. Every Sony Alpha review I've read was glowing. Even with the problems of the proprietary hotshoe and questionable detail at high ISO. If Pentax had ANY of these deficiencies they would make a point of it to no end, and rightfully so! But the Alpha? Its just "Sony being Sony".

Camera reviews for Nikon/Canon/Sony mention the strengths. Reviews for Pentax/Samsung focus on the negatives and mitigate their strong points. Kinda like when the teacher had it out for you in elementary school.

[FunkyMonk]

You're not kidding! Of course that seems to be the case wherever I go. I kind of like it that way, though

Yeah..me too. I was down at the Auburn/Ole Miss baseball game a couple of weeks ago and got some pics with my K20D. This K-7 looks like the real deal. I may have to sell some gear to get it.

[Blue]

That 'nearly' 100% is still a shit-load more thatn my current K10D, that alone is enough to sell me since I don't already have the K20D. I will own this camera by years end.

That along with the improved cmos, frame speed and magnesium frame makes me twitch even though I currently have a K20d and K200d.

[Wheatfield]

My understanding is that there may be slight inaccuracies caused by the shake reduction, so the choice is ~100% with SR on, or 100% with SR off.
This camera is looking like the real deal, if it performs in the wild as well as it looks on paper, it 's gonna knock more than a few people for a loop.

[jct us101]

Oh Dpreview...