first Pentax K-7 full review w/ FW 1.0

NigelAtherton · 06-24-2009, 02:46 PM

fyi

We have today received clarification from Pentax UK on the K-7 body they gave us for review, and have now amended our review to make this clear. Details here

Big G · 06-24-2009, 02:51 PM

Interesting.

All we need is a £950 RRP now

Dr_who · 06-24-2009, 02:53 PM

Also they re-worded the Battery grip to what they probably meant, or at least what they want us to think they meant

"Not least because there’s a new optional battery grip - the first for DSLR with both AA and li-ion battery compatibility from Pentax (D-BG4)"

bogiesbad · 06-24-2009, 03:24 PM

This forum has big muscles.

jogiba · 06-24-2009, 03:48 PM

K-7 FW 1.0 sample images 800-3200 iso:
Google Translate

frank · 06-24-2009, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by jogiba

K-7 FW 1.0 sample images 800-3200 iso:
Google Translate

Hey, those are my sample photos which I also posted here at the forum

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/62819-experiences-...s-imgs-11.html

Class A · 06-25-2009, 02:14 AM

Hi Nigel,

it is great seeing you entering a dialogue.

Originally posted by NigelAtherton

As Editor of What Digital Camera I have been following this discussion about our K-7 review with interest.

How about acting upon the feedback you received through this forum and the feedback left at your review? I realize you did this to a very small extent but do you actually plan to leave all the misinformation in the review?

Your reviewer writes:

Quote:

As a result it seems that shooting Raw in order to recover underexposure and inconsistent white balance is the best way to use the K-7. But, of course, this adds up to considerable post-production time.

This is a serious detractor for any potential buyer, however, it is just plain wrong.

Underexposure is a philosophy, a feature. You can get the same "blow your highlights on a regular basis" by dialling in a constant exposure compensation.

With respect to the white balance your reviewer failed to use the proper setting. The K-7 is one of the few cameras which will do a proper automatic white balance under Tungsten lighting. You just have to use the right menu setting.

And there is nothing "inconsistent" about the white balance. It is obvious that a RAW image will show a different white balance unless the software reads out the camera white balance. It seems that your reviewer screwed up and blames the camera.

Go through the feedback and this thread and you'll notice more examples of incompetent assessment. I personally think that you would not live up to your responsibilities as an editor if you left the review like that. It currently misinforms readers which is worse than not informing them at all.

I'm not a brand zealot. I applaud reviews which point out disadvantages. But your K-7 review was not done by an expert and there is quite some evidence of double standards.

jogiba · 06-25-2009, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by frank

Hey, those are my sample photos which I also posted here at the forum

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/62819-experiences-...s-imgs-11.html

Wow, 3200 ISO looks great !

Class A · 07-05-2009, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Class A

Hi Nigel,
it is great seeing you entering a dialogue.

I guess I praised you too early...

Where are you with all these good questions left unanswered?

BTW, do you give the K-7 "value for money" credit for having built-in image stabilisation? It does not seem like it. This feature severely impacts on "value for money" since Canikonians have to pay through the nose for each VR lens. If you do not just compare camera bodies but bodies plus a few good lenses, the K-7 has a big advantage in terms of "value for money" which you don't seem to take into consideration.

Oh, why should you? Pentax is not of your big advertisers, is it?

RMabo · 07-09-2009, 03:08 AM

It is simply silly to believe that a pre-production model suddenly becomes a production unit by loading it with firmware 1.00. It is still a camera with pre-production hardware!
A production unit littery means a unit taken from the official production line, and the pre-production unit was not! It has nothing to do with the firmware installed.

About "underexposure problem" - Pentax uses a mechanical aperture in their lenses and this means that the lenses has a variation. Yes, some lenses will be spot on, some slightly underexposing and some overexposing. This is because of the mechanical linkage of the aperture in the lenses. Nikon faces the same problem. I have seen many users reporting overexposure problems with Nikon and it is lens dependant, different from lens to lens.

It has always been like this with Pentax (and Nikon). You had to learn your camera and your lenses and then compensate accordingly. But, difference now is that DSLR's are like shooting slides and most film users that has changed to digital were using printfilm with a far broader exposure latitude where small exposure errors were not noticeable.

With digital you have to be spot on because of the very narrow and tiny exposure latitude (frankly, there is no exposure latitude, there is no margin. With film, there was a margin, with digital, there is no margin).

Only way of Pentax (and Nikon) to cure this problem is to go for electronic aperture in the lenses (like Canon and 4/3-system), and this would make them loosing compatibility.

kent · 07-09-2009, 06:15 AM

It's strange but my pentax usually overexposes images when sigma mounted.

**ManuH** · 07-09-2009, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by RMabo

With digital you have to be spot on because of the very narrow and tiny exposure latitude (frankly, there is no exposure latitude, there is no margin. With film, there was a margin, with digital, there is no margin).

Well, you have a margin if you underexpose, especially if you shoot in raw. Overexposure is a big no-no in digital.

Originally posted by RMabo

Only way of Pentax (and Nikon) to cure this problem is to go for electronic aperture in the lenses (like Canon and 4/3-system), and this would make them losing compatibility.

They did that with SDM so there is always a possibility of having a dual system, electronic for newer bodies and mechanic for older ones. If Pentax, Nikon (and also Sony?) don't do it it's maybe because it does not worth it?

fwbigd · 07-09-2009, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by sezme

Final 'con': 'tough competition to compete against'

What does that even mean? That having good competition is a negative for this camera?! I'm so confused.

Reading between the lines the reviewer is saying that the K-7 did not meet the standards already set by the other camera manufactures.

A perfect example of why you don't buy a camera sight unseen over the internet!

jogiba · 07-10-2009, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by fwbigd

Reading between the lines the reviewer is saying that the K-7 did not meet the standards already set by the other camera manufactures.

A perfect example of why you don't buy a camera sight unseen over the internet!

Right, like a local camera store is going to let you do a full test before you buy.

Class A · 07-10-2009, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by fwbigd

Reading between the lines the reviewer is saying that the K-7 did not meet the standards already set by the other camera manufactures.

Reading between the lines the reviewer is telling you that he either hasn't got much of a clue about cameras or that he has an agenda to let other cameras appear in a better light.

07-09-2009, 08:19 AM	#118
fwbigd Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Fort Worth TX Posts: 339	Originally posted by sezme Final 'con': 'tough competition to compete against' What does that even mean? That having good competition is a negative for this camera?! I'm so confused. Reading between the lines the reviewer is saying that the K-7 did not meet the standards already set by the other camera manufactures. A perfect example of why you don't buy a camera sight unseen over the internet! Last edited by fwbigd; 07-09-2009 at 08:44 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Imaging-Resource full review of K-x	UnknownVT	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	03-12-2010 12:35 PM
Full K-7 review up at Imaging Resource	gazonk	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	08-23-2009 08:11 AM
Photographyblog K-7 Full Review (with disclaimer)	hunterr	Pentax News and Rumors	22	06-25-2009 07:55 PM
Full Moon Full Zoom	ismaelg	Post Your Photos!	8	06-08-2009 03:02 PM
Timeframe for full dpreview.com review?	jfsavage	Photographic Technique	4	05-27-2009 09:17 PM

06-24-2009, 02:46 PM	#106
NigelAtherton New Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: London Posts: 4	fyi We have today received clarification from Pentax UK on the K-7 body they gave us for review, and have now amended our review to make this clear. Details here

06-24-2009, 02:51 PM	#107
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	Interesting. All we need is a £950 RRP now

06-24-2009, 02:53 PM	#108
Dr_who Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 777	Also they re-worded the Battery grip to what they probably meant, or at least what they want us to think they meant "Not least because there’s a new optional battery grip - the first for DSLR with both AA and li-ion battery compatibility from Pentax (D-BG4)"

06-24-2009, 03:24 PM	#109
bogiesbad Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Lower AL Photos: Albums Posts: 355	This forum has big muscles.

06-24-2009, 03:48 PM	#110
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491 Original Poster	K-7 FW 1.0 sample images 800-3200 iso: Google Translate

06-24-2009, 09:49 PM	#111
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202	Originally posted by jogiba K-7 FW 1.0 sample images 800-3200 iso: Google Translate Hey, those are my sample photos which I also posted here at the forum https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/62819-experiences-...s-imgs-11.html

06-25-2009, 02:14 AM	#112
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Hi Nigel, it is great seeing you entering a dialogue. Originally posted by NigelAtherton As Editor of What Digital Camera I have been following this discussion about our K-7 review with interest. How about acting upon the feedback you received through this forum and the feedback left at your review? I realize you did this to a very small extent but do you actually plan to leave all the misinformation in the review? Your reviewer writes: Quote: As a result it seems that shooting Raw in order to recover underexposure and inconsistent white balance is the best way to use the K-7. But, of course, this adds up to considerable post-production time. This is a serious detractor for any potential buyer, however, it is just plain wrong. Underexposure is a philosophy, a feature. You can get the same "blow your highlights on a regular basis" by dialling in a constant exposure compensation. With respect to the white balance your reviewer failed to use the proper setting. The K-7 is one of the few cameras which will do a proper automatic white balance under Tungsten lighting. You just have to use the right menu setting. And there is nothing "inconsistent" about the white balance. It is obvious that a RAW image will show a different white balance unless the software reads out the camera white balance. It seems that your reviewer screwed up and blames the camera. Go through the feedback and this thread and you'll notice more examples of incompetent assessment. I personally think that you would not live up to your responsibilities as an editor if you left the review like that. It currently misinforms readers which is worse than not informing them at all. I'm not a brand zealot. I applaud reviews which point out disadvantages. But your K-7 review was not done by an expert and there is quite some evidence of double standards.

06-25-2009, 08:05 PM	#113
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491 Original Poster	Originally posted by frank Hey, those are my sample photos which I also posted here at the forum https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/62819-experiences-...s-imgs-11.html Wow, 3200 ISO looks great !

07-05-2009, 03:06 PM	#114
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by Class A Hi Nigel, it is great seeing you entering a dialogue. I guess I praised you too early... Where are you with all these good questions left unanswered? BTW, do you give the K-7 "value for money" credit for having built-in image stabilisation? It does not seem like it. This feature severely impacts on "value for money" since Canikonians have to pay through the nose for each VR lens. If you do not just compare camera bodies but bodies plus a few good lenses, the K-7 has a big advantage in terms of "value for money" which you don't seem to take into consideration. Oh, why should you? Pentax is not of your big advertisers, is it?

07-09-2009, 03:08 AM	#115
RMabo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 845	It is simply silly to believe that a pre-production model suddenly becomes a production unit by loading it with firmware 1.00. It is still a camera with pre-production hardware! A production unit littery means a unit taken from the official production line, and the pre-production unit was not! It has nothing to do with the firmware installed. About "underexposure problem" - Pentax uses a mechanical aperture in their lenses and this means that the lenses has a variation. Yes, some lenses will be spot on, some slightly underexposing and some overexposing. This is because of the mechanical linkage of the aperture in the lenses. Nikon faces the same problem. I have seen many users reporting overexposure problems with Nikon and it is lens dependant, different from lens to lens. It has always been like this with Pentax (and Nikon). You had to learn your camera and your lenses and then compensate accordingly. But, difference now is that DSLR's are like shooting slides and most film users that has changed to digital were using printfilm with a far broader exposure latitude where small exposure errors were not noticeable. With digital you have to be spot on because of the very narrow and tiny exposure latitude (frankly, there is no exposure latitude, there is no margin. With film, there was a margin, with digital, there is no margin). Only way of Pentax (and Nikon) to cure this problem is to go for electronic aperture in the lenses (like Canon and 4/3-system), and this would make them loosing compatibility.

07-09-2009, 06:15 AM	#116
kent Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 344	It's strange but my pentax usually overexposes images when sigma mounted.

07-09-2009, 08:03 AM	#117
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by RMabo With digital you have to be spot on because of the very narrow and tiny exposure latitude (frankly, there is no exposure latitude, there is no margin. With film, there was a margin, with digital, there is no margin). Well, you have a margin if you underexpose, especially if you shoot in raw. Overexposure is a big no-no in digital. Originally posted by RMabo Only way of Pentax (and Nikon) to cure this problem is to go for electronic aperture in the lenses (like Canon and 4/3-system), and this would make them losing compatibility. They did that with SDM so there is always a possibility of having a dual system, electronic for newer bodies and mechanic for older ones. If Pentax, Nikon (and also Sony?) don't do it it's maybe because it does not worth it?

07-10-2009, 09:43 AM	#119
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491 Original Poster	Originally posted by fwbigd Reading between the lines the reviewer is saying that the K-7 did not meet the standards already set by the other camera manufactures. A perfect example of why you don't buy a camera sight unseen over the internet! Right, like a local camera store is going to let you do a full test before you buy.

07-10-2009, 04:18 PM	#120
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by fwbigd Reading between the lines the reviewer is saying that the K-7 did not meet the standards already set by the other camera manufactures. Reading between the lines the reviewer is telling you that he either hasn't got much of a clue about cameras or that he has an agenda to let other cameras appear in a better light.