2 new K-7 magazine reviews

thibs · 08-27-2009, 11:53 AM

End result is from Camera and any other tools used including printer/lab, softwares etc.
This is exactly what makes comparison difficult.

emalvick · 08-28-2009, 12:59 PM

I wonder what affect the exposure has on the ISO noise too in these comparisons.

I have a K10d, which I find works quite well up to ISO 800 with a minimal noise issue IF the image is exposed properly. To get a decent exposure I am typically using an EV +1/2 as if I trust the camera's exposure value, I end up having to add some exposure in post-processing, which ultimately results in more noise.

I know the K10d was notorious for underexposing a bit by default, which would lead to noisier results than you might get if you adjust your style to compensate.

That being said, I am one of those people who tolerates a noisy shot in exchange for the added detail and sharpness I get. I've also come to find that even my noisy ISO 800 shots end up with minimal noise once printed. Heck the noise in my ISO 1600 prints is better than what I used to get with ISO 400 film a lot of times (I've also learned a lot more about photography, so I'm sure that helps).

Cloggie_UK · 08-29-2009, 05:31 AM

Digital Photographer, one of the better U.K. Mags also did a review this month.

This is the magazine's current issue:

Digital Photographer - For enthusiasts and pros

They rated it 9 out of 10 and Editors Choice.

Some nice bits:

* If it appears expensive overall it's perhaps because, despite its reassuring solidity, the SLR feels like a consumer-level model with regard to its dimensions and intuitive operation. But in fact, it's a veritable wolf in sheep's clothing.

* With the K-7, think of an option and it's at your fingertips, with no faffing about.

* Those not already wed to Canon and Nikon, and who can afford the outlay, would therefore be wise to sit up and take note.

P.S. They compared the K-7 to the Nikon D300 and Canon 50D.

asw66 · 11-12-2009, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by Cloggie_UK

Digital Photographer, one of the better U.K. Mags also did a review this month.

This is the magazine's current issue:

Digital Photographer - For enthusiasts and pros

They rated it 9 out of 10 and Editors Choice.

Some nice bits:

* If it appears expensive overall it's perhaps because, despite its reassuring solidity, the SLR feels like a consumer-level model with regard to its dimensions and intuitive operation. But in fact, it's a veritable wolf in sheep's clothing.

* With the K-7, think of an option and it's at your fingertips, with no faffing about.

* Those not already wed to Canon and Nikon, and who can afford the outlay, would therefore be wise to sit up and take note.

P.S. They compared the K-7 to the Nikon D300 and Canon 50D.

This review is now online at Pentax K7 - Camera Profile and Review

benjikan · 11-13-2009, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by GLXLR

Maybe with some time there will be a new sensor in the K-7. Also, from what I have experienced recently, if you turn on NR to the lowest setting, the color grains at ISO 100 disappears (from a Fry's testing model).

And in my book, any magazine that gives the awesome FA macro lens a 65% isn't worth listening to.

Honestly, magazines should start testing in Raw/Jpeg. I didn't go buy a $400 camera and then shoot the same file format as a P+S... I am still waiting on DPreview's review.

The FA 100 Macro is a very capable lens and is as good as the best out there...

Some samples.

All still life shot with the DA 100 Macro: PublishedWorks Photo Gallery by Benjamin Kanarek at pbase.com

08-29-2009, 05:31 AM	#48
Cloggie_UK Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom Photos: Gallery Posts: 87	Digital Photographer, one of the better U.K. Mags also did a review this month. This is the magazine's current issue: Digital Photographer - For enthusiasts and pros They rated it 9 out of 10 and Editors Choice. Some nice bits: * If it appears expensive overall it's perhaps because, despite its reassuring solidity, the SLR feels like a consumer-level model with regard to its dimensions and intuitive operation. But in fact, it's a veritable wolf in sheep's clothing. * With the K-7, think of an option and it's at your fingertips, with no faffing about. * Those not already wed to Canon and Nikon, and who can afford the outlay, would therefore be wise to sit up and take note. P.S. They compared the K-7 to the Nikon D300 and Canon 50D. Last edited by Cloggie_UK; 08-29-2009 at 05:37 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Magazine publication	hooppjs	Post Your Photos!	5	12-04-2008 04:58 AM
New Photo Magazine	Damn Brit	Photographic Technique	1	05-07-2008 09:32 PM
Hint Magazine	benjikan	General Talk	4	03-15-2007 08:35 AM
SOON Magazine	benjikan	Photographic Technique	0	03-09-2007 07:52 AM
Issue One Magazine	benjikan	General Talk	2	02-13-2007 01:24 PM

08-27-2009, 11:53 AM	#46
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	End result is from Camera and any other tools used including printer/lab, softwares etc. This is exactly what makes comparison difficult.

08-28-2009, 12:59 PM	#47
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	I wonder what affect the exposure has on the ISO noise too in these comparisons. I have a K10d, which I find works quite well up to ISO 800 with a minimal noise issue IF the image is exposed properly. To get a decent exposure I am typically using an EV +1/2 as if I trust the camera's exposure value, I end up having to add some exposure in post-processing, which ultimately results in more noise. I know the K10d was notorious for underexposing a bit by default, which would lead to noisier results than you might get if you adjust your style to compensate. That being said, I am one of those people who tolerates a noisy shot in exchange for the added detail and sharpness I get. I've also come to find that even my noisy ISO 800 shots end up with minimal noise once printed. Heck the noise in my ISO 1600 prints is better than what I used to get with ISO 400 film a lot of times (I've also learned a lot more about photography, so I'm sure that helps).

11-12-2009, 05:25 AM	#49
asw66 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 347	Originally posted by Cloggie_UK Digital Photographer, one of the better U.K. Mags also did a review this month. This is the magazine's current issue: Digital Photographer - For enthusiasts and pros They rated it 9 out of 10 and Editors Choice. Some nice bits: * If it appears expensive overall it's perhaps because, despite its reassuring solidity, the SLR feels like a consumer-level model with regard to its dimensions and intuitive operation. But in fact, it's a veritable wolf in sheep's clothing. * With the K-7, think of an option and it's at your fingertips, with no faffing about. * Those not already wed to Canon and Nikon, and who can afford the outlay, would therefore be wise to sit up and take note. P.S. They compared the K-7 to the Nikon D300 and Canon 50D. This review is now online at Pentax K7 - Camera Profile and Review

11-13-2009, 09:38 PM	#50
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Originally posted by GLXLR Maybe with some time there will be a new sensor in the K-7. Also, from what I have experienced recently, if you turn on NR to the lowest setting, the color grains at ISO 100 disappears (from a Fry's testing model). And in my book, any magazine that gives the awesome FA macro lens a 65% isn't worth listening to. Honestly, magazines should start testing in Raw/Jpeg. I didn't go buy a $400 camera and then shoot the same file format as a P+S... I am still waiting on DPreview's review. The FA 100 Macro is a very capable lens and is as good as the best out there... Some samples. All still life shot with the DA 100 Macro: PublishedWorks Photo Gallery by Benjamin Kanarek at pbase.com