[Mister Guy]

When ever you do a macro shot like this, the detail really pops. Especially with a good macro lens. With close to 15 mega pixels, the K20D or the K7 would show similar detail. You would need a magnifying glass to see the differences between the NIKON and the PENTAX.

I hate to disagree with you, because you are right, but I did want to point out strictly speaking you don't absolutely require macro for similar levels of detail in that sort of shot.

My personal favorite eye shot that I took was done with a K110D and either my Sigma 28-70mm or my kit lens, I honestly can't remember which.



It may not be EXACTLY as sharp as the D3X, but it ain't bad for a low end combination, and I'm personally a lot better now.

Oh, and mine is f/8 so it doesn't have nearly the same depth of field effect.

If you can't get the same effect with the K-7 and a limited macro lens, I'd be extremely upset.

---

Last edited by Mister Guy; 05-22-2009 at 07:28 AM.

[quarc]

Given the popularity and quality of that lens (and the A version too), why don't they relaunch it as a DA*?

I would not call it popular, only 900 were made. It is talked about a lot, a bit like a legend. I don't doubt it is/was a great lens though. Maybe we will se a DA* version, who knows.

[Cambo]

This image is from the Nikon D3X sample gallery. Do you think the K-7 would come close to this type of image quality?

the model is gorgeous; the makeup is incredible; the photograph...



...it's a well done, professional shot, but nothing I or dozens of other photographers on this board couldn't do and haven't already achieved in the studio with nice big soft lighting, an *ist D and pretty much ANY macro lens and some careful post-processing; the FA or DA 50 would give you the most depth of field and the sharpest image...actually, I take that back, I imagine (haven't tried it, though) pretty much ANY Pentax DSLR camera with that new DA*35 macro would probably spank it's stinky Nikkor pants, and you'd have about $6,000.00 left over to buy lighting and rent a studio for a couple of months, hire the model, makeup artist, take them for lunch...

The joy of Pentax - $ instead of $$$$.

Cheers,
Cameron

[apemen]

Well, the question is interesting,
so I decided to try and find it out for myself.

Not aesthetic for sure, very quick and ugly work.
No studio light, no make up - god forbid

This is from a K20D + DA* 200mm + tripod + remote trigger
Getting the focus right on the eye took a few minutes, minimal PP right out from lightroom.



"Can K-7 be able to take this picture"
It seems, technically speaking, yes ; it is even better if you look at the micro veins

---

Last edited by apemen; 05-22-2009 at 01:21 PM.

[janneman]

the eye, the eye!!!

[Rener]

OOH a challenge, well hows this





I have alot more if you want

Wow, great shots torphoto, and at a fraction of the cost and weight.https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/images/smilies/lol.gif

cheers,

Rene

[nanok]

lol.. exaggerate much? relax man. I am a beginner, no need to get frustrated. I have been looking at tons of cameras and decided on the K-7. I happen to admire that eye shot that everyone here seems to think is crap and wanted to know if the K-7 could take a picture as good. Nothing more , nothing less.

I happen to think it looks amazing, and if the consensus here is that any camera can do it then I am happy.

it's quite simple, really: many people have already hinted to this, but i will say it directly for your convenience: you are asking the wrong question. that particular shot can be taken with a number of cameras. not only the k7 or k20d, as people have mentioned here. your choice is fine, don't worry, the k-7 will serve you well i am sure. what you need to worry about is the brain behind the camera. you probably have a lot to learn (i know i still have, and been at this for a while..), concentrate on that, and stop worrying about the gear (at least for a while).

good luck!

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

To find out if a K-7 could take a picture as good as a $8000 camera.

no i dont youre right. I do know what I see, and I was just stating the obvious. no need to get defensive

By now I think you have noticed that it is only obvious to you.

actually my Pentax K1000 took better pictures than that
whats your point

Dave

You know, the OP does believes that he can compare camera resollution and quality by comparing pictures of different motives in different lighting with different lenses processed and down sized with different software as tiny pictures on a display

[NothingInCommon]

By now I think you have noticed that it is only obvious to you.

not true .. several people have said "not as sharp as but"

[joakimfors]

not true .. several people have said "not as sharp as but"

What?!

Only one person has said "not as sharp" and that immediately followed by "as the others" (refering to all the other pictures in this thread) when showing a 100% crop of a picture not taken in a studio with no make up and using a tele manual focus lens.

Edit: Oh, and look what just popped up over at DPR http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=31938638 Just as sharp as the D3x using a K-m and DA 35.

[robgo2]

If it *does* resolve as well as a D3x, for goodness' sake *shut up!* I want to be able to afford one of these in a few years.

Of course the K-7 won't resolve as well as the D3X, which has 24.5 MP and, by the way, costs $8,000. But what is the point of this question? What is the OP really trying to accomplish by asking it? Is he trying to remind all of us hyperexcited Pentaxians that Nikon will still have a superior camera even if the K-7 lives up to people's expectations for it.

But even so, what does it matter? The K-7 will be able to produce superb IQ and will more than suit the needs of all but the most demanding photographers, and it will come in a much smaller package and at a much lower price than the D3X. In some ways, it will even be superior to it.

Rob

[NothingInCommon]

What?!

Only one person has said "not as sharp" and that immediately followed by "as the others" (refering to all the other pictures in this thread) when showing a 100% crop of a picture not taken in a studio with no make up and using a tele manual focus lens.

Edit: Oh, and look what just popped up over at DPR Eye Eye Sir!: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review Just as sharp as the D3x using a K-m and DA 35.

very nice..

[NothingInCommon]

Of course the K-7 won't resolve as well as the D3X, which has 24.5 MP and, by the way, costs $8,000. But what is the point of this question? What is the OP really trying to accomplish by asking it? Is he trying to remind all of us hyperexcited Pentaxians that Nikon will still have a superior camera even if the K-7 lives up to people's expectations for it.

But even so, what does it matter? The K-7 will be able to produce superb IQ and will more than suit the needs of all but the most demanding photographers, and it will come in a much smaller package and at a much lower price than the D3X. In some ways, it will even be superior to it.

Rob

haha.. you guys read WAY too deep into this..ive stated repeatedly that Im a newb who happens to be interested in the K-7.

it was a straight forward question. I have been looking at sample shots from bunch of cameras and wanted to know the K-7 could take a picture that sharp. even though most people here seem to think the original sample shot is not impressive. I happen to think it is.

the answer is yes. it can take a picture just as good.

[d.bradley]

To me, iooks like the original nikon photo has been sharpened with very fine unsharp mask, probably 0.1-0.2 pixels. You can see sensor aliasing artifacts caused by this level of micro-contrast sharpening.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

To me, iooks like the original nikon photo has been sharpened with very fine unsharp mask, probably 0.1-0.2 pixels. You can see sensor aliasing artifacts caused by this level of micro-contrast sharpening.

Doesn't Nikon do that by default in the body?