[heliphoto]

Thanks much for the heads up on this - I'll pick up a copy if I can find one somewhere.

I recall that Pop Photo actually measures AF times at different EV's; do they, by any chance, compare performance of a K20D with a K-7/

Again, thanks for the heads up.

Jer

Jer, I don't know if they do, but if I get real inspired, I could do that (having both cameras). Just don't expect it to be too scientific . From experience, I can say that the K-7 is faster to focus (without testing, I won't say a percentage increase in speed), but also locks focus more often in poor conditions so the reduction in hunting makes the focusing really impressive. In fact, the K20D feels broken in comparison - to the point that I prefer to MF with the split screen vs. suffer the painful AF.

[johnmflores]

How many of us really have the ability to fairly compare Pentax with Canikon? I mean I believe Pentax makes great cameras and lenses. But I certainly make broad general statements about how it compares to the competition. If pop photo writes an article like that, I (like heliphoto) would certainly be tempted to verify their statements rather than just crying foul. Heliphoto why not rent a Canikon setup and make your own conclusions? I suspect that these mags are far from fair but very few of us have the breadth of experience of multiple brands.

+1. Every camera is a compromise of one thing or another - there's nothing wrong with recognizing what those compromises are and nothing wrong with reviews spelling out those compromises so photographers can make informed purchasing decisions.

I understood the compromises when switching from Nikon to Pentax - slower AF, slower FPS, etc... - but I also understood the benefits - cost, size, weatherproofing, legacy glass, etc...

So now I live with those compromises. My wallet is heavier, but there are certainly times when I wish the K20d had a focus assist lamp...

[lurchlarson]

IMHO, when it comes to bang for your buck, you get better value with the k-7. It's a newer camera than both the d90 or the 50d and it still cost the same. The Canikons are almost a year older than the K-7.

We have gotten to a place in camera technology where EVERY dslr now shoots about as good as film, so IQ criticism is getting pickier and pickier. It is so much so that people will often pick at things that the human eye can't even resolve.

I haven't had a chance to really use a K-7 but from the little bit I tried in the camera store with the 16-50 on it the AF was fast enough for me.

For me, the killer feature on the K-7 is it's ruggedness and light weight. I would hate to have to lug around a 50d and L lens with IS when I am hiking plus the rain cover for it. When you are hiking every ounce counts.

The K-7 is light, has the onboard shake reduction and da* lenses are weatherproof and light. As far as the AF, My k200d is plenty fast to get decent sports shots and when the action gets too quick, I've gotten pretty good at MF/Prefocus. Just stop down a bit and you'll get it plenty sharp. The K-7 with a da* would be a dream.

The terms Pro and Semi-pro are there to segment the market. For the most part its gobbledygook.

[nostatic]

Pop photo mag is brutal.

In the same issue they talk about the canon 70-200 f/4 and the pentax 60-250 f/4. For the canon it's all flowery praise and excellent comments. For the pentax it's touted as being too expensive (it's less than $100 more than the canon and is a $1300 lens), and every possible flaw is noted.

Pop photo shits on anything Pentax.

Maybe, but I shot the 50-135* (loved it) and now the Canon 70-200/4 IS (love it). If I had to choose between the two I'd have to say the Canon due to the ridiculously fast USM. Both give stellar images, and I can't compare back-to-back because they are were on different bodies. I haven't shot the 60-250* so I can't comment.

But seriously...I cannot find a flaw with the 70-200/4 IS either. I can't say that about every Canon lens I've tried so far though (*cough* 50/1.4).

[nostatic]

How many of us really have the ability to fairly compare Pentax with Canikon? I mean I believe Pentax makes great cameras and lenses. But I certainly make broad general statements about how it compares to the competition. If pop photo writes an article like that, I (like heliphoto) would certainly be tempted to verify their statements rather than just crying foul. Heliphoto why not rent a Canikon setup and make your own conclusions? I suspect that these mags are far from fair but very few of us have the breadth of experience of multiple brands.

Had Nikon, went to Pentax, now with Canon. All have strengths and weaknesses. I still maintain that the Pentax "value proposition" is in three areas:

1. weather sealed
2. small with good build quality
3. ltd prime lenses (gives a great small setup)

UI and how the camera fits in your hand is a personal criteria but important as well.

If those aren't important to you, frankly I think that Canikon is a better choice because it will generally out-perform wrt AF, fps, availability. If you buy spec sheets, then Canikon is also a better choice. But as a counter, I find the Pentax colors to be better than either Nikon or Canon (raw conversion with a default profile in Aperture).

The bottom line is that today there is very little to distinguish equivalent priced dSLRs. I would venture a guess that if you made a bunch of 8x10 prints from different cameras, most couldn't tell the difference. Even the entry level cameras are really that good now.

[lurchlarson]

If you buy spec sheets, then Canikon is also a better choice. But as a counter, I find the Pentax colors to be better than either Nikon or Canon (raw conversion with a default profile in Aperture).

The bottom line is that today there is very little to distinguish equivalent priced dSLRs. I would venture a guess that if you made a bunch of 8x10 prints from different cameras, most couldn't tell the difference. Even the entry level cameras are really that good now.

I think you hit the nail on the head. It's not all about spec sheets.

[unkabin]

We have gotten to a place in camera technology where EVERY dslr now shoots about as good as film, so IQ criticism is getting pickier and pickier. It is so much so that people will often pick at things that the human eye can't even resolve.

Yes. It comes down mainly to lenses again, as it pretty much always had with film. Maybe even more so, since the type of film is no longer in the equation.

[Big G]

The bottom line is that today there is very little to distinguish equivalent priced dSLRs. I would venture a guess that if you made a bunch of 8x10 prints from different cameras, most couldn't tell the difference. Even the entry level cameras are really that good now.

A very good point .

[mithrandir]

Despite the uneven K7 review, it did not stop PopPhoto from featuring a two page spread taken by a preproduction K7 on pages 8 and 9. The picture speaks for the K7 better than any review.

[Big G]

The funniest thing was that they also reviewed the D300s in the same issue. In bright light the K7 beat it in AF speed, but did get spanked starting at like 3EV.

The K7 was better in bright light that the D300s? Now that is interesting to know - I'm not a low light man unless it's landscape, but if I'm out attempting (badly...) birds in flight, I know a K-7 will help me with it!

[ll_coffee_lP]

Maybe, but I shot the 50-135* (loved it) and now the Canon 70-200/4 IS (love it). If I had to choose between the two I'd have to say the Canon due to the ridiculously fast USM. Both give stellar images, and I can't compare back-to-back because they are were on different bodies. I haven't shot the 60-250* so I can't comment.

But seriously...I cannot find a flaw with the 70-200/4 IS either. I can't say that about every Canon lens I've tried so far though (*cough* 50/1.4).

Nostatic - there's no doubt in my mind that that canon lens is great, but don't crap on the pentax lens because it is $65 dollars more when both lenses are around $1300 (as reported in the mag). If they were $300-$400 lenses then maybe they would have a point. The pentax lens also has 10mm more on the wide end and 50mm more on the long end - so dogging on it's extra weight is also absurd.

c[_]

[nostatic]

Nostatic - there's no doubt in my mind that that canon lens is great, but don't crap on the pentax lens because it is $65 dollars more when both lenses are around $1300 (as reported in the mag). If they were $300-$400 lenses then maybe they would have a point. The pentax lens also has 10mm more on the wide end and 50mm more on the long end - so dogging on it's extra weight is also absurd.

c[_]

I didn't read the review so I don't know the particulars. I'm just offering my take on why they might be so effusive about the 70-200/4IS.

The reality is that I don't believe any magazine reviews. They are all suspect. I trust actual user experiences (and even those need a grain of salt or three), and preferably my own as everyone has different expectations and needs.

[ll_coffee_lP]

...The reality is that I don't believe any magazine reviews. They are all suspect. I trust actual user experiences (and even those need a grain of salt or three), and preferably my own as everyone has different expectations and needs.

Agreed. Half the world thinks the Sigma 30 f/1.4 is a useless lens, when in actual fact it's a total beast. I would have never known if I didn't take the plunge and get one.

c[_]

[Jodokast96]

Nostatic - there's no doubt in my mind that that canon lens is great, but don't crap on the pentax lens because it is $65 dollars more when both lenses are around $1300 (as reported in the mag). If they were $300-$400 lenses then maybe they would have a point. The pentax lens also has 10mm more on the wide end and 50mm more on the long end - so dogging on it's extra weight is also absurd.

c[_]

And if you are really nit-picking prices, add on the Canon's collar, and you are now $90 more than the Pentax. Also funny how they rate the Canon 3.5 stars and the Pentax 4. So you get more reach on both ends, a better rated lens, and for $100 less? But somehow they managed to talk shit on it, namely about it's price? Given that and the horrible new layout of the magazine, it's clear there is some serious crack smoking going on.

[laissezfaire]

I found it to be a rather harsh article, really focused on negatives. More so than most other reviews.

Also, I'm rather stunned that they think the Canon 50D offers substantially higher image quality than even the K20D, since both DXO Mark and also DPR suggest otherwise. DPR actually states re: resolution, "The K-7 does quite well in this test. It makes the most out of its 14.6 MP sensor and produces a higher resolution than the 12 MP Nikon D300 and surprisingly also the EOS 50D, which comes with a higher nominal resolution." In other comments it just generally fairs as well or better.

In fact, when you look at DPR's review of the 50D itself, when compared to the K20D, it says, "The EOS 50D and Pentax K20D offer nearly identical nominal resolution and after taking the in-camera processing out of the equation by shooting RAW there is not an awful lot between them. Having said that the Pentax image shows just a tad more detail, especially in crops close to the edge of the frame (coins on label, batteries). It becomes obvious that at 15.1 megapixels nominal resolution the 50D is limited by the performance of the lens while the Pentax prime lens is still capable of resolving the K20D's 14.6 megapixels. "

I think Pop Photo relies on subjective testing that they then put into a quantitative scoring system then they compare "scores". This is a flawed method as compared to DPR which compares side by side images or DXO mark which is all measured w/o an iota of subjective bias at all.

The Pop Photo review is at odds with the two objective reviewers that I generally rely on: DPR and DXO mark.