What Comes after the K7

CWyatt · 12-28-2009, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by ghelary

If you really need it, buy immediately Nikon, you are clearly not in Pentax target. As a would be photojournalist, you are certainly aware that most big papers have their own photo-gear inventory, that journalist share bodies and lenses and that for special works, they rent equipments (like super-tele)
For all the reason above, journalists use almost exclusively Nikon and Canon, this is not just a question of camera competence. A few years ago, Nikon had lost its edge, now it is Canon who had lost some support because of autofocus issues with their last generation.

Yes I use majority Nikon gear, D3 etc for work. Also speedlight 800, which Pentax doesn't match. The other big issue is availability of parts, rentals and service.

Originally posted by ghelary

Pentax target is landscape and outdoor photographer. Benjikan who opened this thread is already out of target, as he is in the fashion industry. If I remember correctly, he moved to the K10D because his Canon 1DsMKII showed regularly some color inconsistencies.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by 'outdoor' photographer. I also think Pentax's prime lens line up would be a great tool for fashion photography.

I'm generally set on zooms, and I think the Pentax Star range is good, if limited.

At the moment, a killer line up like a Nikon D300s (or D700, drool), 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 is out of my budget. If Pentax's next camera picked up K-x's high ISO ability, and was a decent AF improvement, a 16-50 and 60-250 kit would still be a very good kit, and thousands less than the (better) 3 lens Nikon kit.

I will possibly wait until Pentax's next body release and then decide whether to move to Nikon or not. Thinking 60/40 I'll move.

Last edited by CWyatt; 12-28-2009 at 05:47 PM.

ghelary · 12-29-2009, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by CWyatt

Yes I use majority Nikon gear, D3 etc for work. Also speedlight 800, which Pentax doesn't match. The other big issue is availability of parts, rentals and service.

Well, that's the reason Pentax doesn't try to compete, to get a tight support network, you need a lot of investment. And Pentax have neither the money, the market share and the will.

Originally posted by CWyatt

I'm not totally sure what you mean by 'outdoor' photographer. I also think Pentax's prime lens line up would be a great tool for fashion photography.

I'm generally set on zooms, and I think the Pentax Star range is good, if limited.

At the moment, a killer line up like a Nikon D300s (or D700, drool), 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 is out of my budget. If Pentax's next camera picked up K-x's high ISO ability, and was a decent AF improvement, a 16-50 and 60-250 kit would still be a very good kit, and thousands less than the (better) 3 lens Nikon kit.

I will possibly wait until Pentax's next body release and then decide whether to move to Nikon or not. Thinking 60/40 I'll move.

Outdoor photography is to me, mainly landscape, travel and street photography where Pentax size, weight and weather sealing is at advantage. This is also the official target of Pentax.

Fashion photography is a bit of specific world, since here high resolution and style are wery important. I remember that a reknown photographer was using a LF camera for its unique rendition. The K7 is currently on the low side regarding pixel count. Benjikan may disagree on this but Fashion is still the main market for Medium Format. Prime lenses are not that important, most shoots are at F8 where primes are matched by pro zooms.

Basically you want a Nikon pro setup for half the price. I don't think that will ever happen. Hoya's purpose is to make profit from the camera division. Pentax is not anymore a bargain brand, especially for lenses. I don't consider them expensive as compared to the competition as well. If Pentax makes a body that matches in every spec the top of APSC line from Canon and Nikon, expect it to be at around the same price.

Nubi · 12-29-2009, 07:06 AM

Availability of resources is the least of their problem with a company like Hoya in the background. Willingness of Hoya to blindly fund Pentax is another story, of course.

CWyatt · 12-29-2009, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Nubi

Availability of resources is the least of their problem with a company like Hoya in the background.

I mean the service network and availiability of rentals more than the company's resources.

stormcloud · 12-29-2009, 01:20 PM

think its a mistake for pentax to simply accept its current position - take a look at sony - they were a nobody in cameras but if you spend the money you can start to make progress into a market

i doubt now is the right time for it but pentax should be looking to increase its market share

the k7 and kx are no doubt helping as they have 2 great cameras out now - they just need a little work on the lens line up and after sales care

i hope shops might start thinking about stocking pentax again soon since the k7 and kx have gotten great reviews - but dont know might take more than that but pentax really should try and get cameras back in shops as people do like to see and hold a camera before they buy

Art Vandelay II · 12-29-2009, 09:58 PM

I spent 2 hours in B&H today comparing virtually every camera between $500 to $7000 USD and I have to say the K7 is my favorite aside from one serious problem; the view finder. In-fact it's so bad I will never buy one because of it. The worst part about testing it out in B&H is not that it's just small and dim compared to full frame cameras (I expected that), it's that they have the K7 located right next to the Olympus E-3. There is no reason the E-3 should have a brighter viewfinder (smaller sensor and all), but there it is on full display. It really makes the K7 look awful when compared side-by-side. Erogs, the K7 wins hands down (and that goes for every single DSLR I tested), but as far as the view finder goes, it's not only worse than the E3 and every single full frame camera, it's also worse than the D300 and the Canon 7D (as much as it pains me to say it, the 7D is an amazing APS-C camera, best Canon ergos ever).

I have no idea what's coming after the K7, but I do know they need to fix the peep hole problem ASAP.

Jyrkira · 12-30-2009, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay II

the view finder. In-fact it's so bad I will never buy one because of it. The worst part about testing it out in B&H is not that it's just small and dim compared to full frame cameras (I expected that), it's that they have the K7 located right next to the Olympus E-3. There is no reason the E-3 should have a brighter viewfinder (smaller sensor and all), but there it is on full display.

Did check what lenses were connected to K-7 and E-3 while you tested the cameras ? If there was a fast lens connected to E-3 and the kit lens on K-7 then this lens makes a big difference in brightness.

the swede · 12-30-2009, 04:03 PM

It was probably the kit lens :ugh:

The viewfinder in the K-7 is great, especially with a fast prime, or a DA* mounted.

MMVIII · 12-30-2009, 08:14 PM

Quite harsh opinion on the viewfinder.
And I would say probably premature. There is more to the quality of a viewfinder than maybe noticeable at a short glance.

It is said, that mere brigthness comes for a price: the increasing inability to judge the focus. I would always prefer a matte screen that brings me the ability to really see the difference between the objects in focus and the out of focus area to a brighter but nondiscriminating one. My (limited, also just shop tests) personal experience, my impression from reading fora and reviews and also the press releases from Pentax seem to indicate that the new "Natural-Bright-Matte III focusing screen" actually does "improve focusing accuracy during manual-focus operation".
It is decribed as "snappier", showing much clearer if in or out of focus.

YMMV, but for me this is one of the main qualities of a viewfinder.

elkarrde · 12-31-2009, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay II

I spent 2 hours in B&H today comparing virtually every camera between $500 to $7000 USD and I have to say the K7 is my favorite aside from one serious problem; the view finder. In-fact it's so bad I will never buy one because of it. The worst part about testing it out in B&H is not that it's just small and dim compared to full frame cameras (I expected that), it's that they have the K7 located right next to the Olympus E-3. There is no reason the E-3 should have a brighter viewfinder (smaller sensor and all), but there it is on full display. It really makes the K7 look awful when compared side-by-side. Erogs, the K7 wins hands down (and that goes for every single DSLR I tested), but as far as the view finder goes, it's not only worse than the E3 and every single full frame camera, it's also worse than the D300 and the Canon 7D (as much as it pains me to say it, the 7D is an amazing APS-C camera, best Canon ergos ever).

what?
three of my friends, all of them E3 owners (with 7-14, 14-54, 12-60, 50-200, panaleica 25/1.4, panaleica 14-150), were impressed by mere K100Ds viewfinder, when they saw it for the first time. all of them were even more impressed by K-7 viewfinder, so i think you were not paying enough attention, or you had really bad light conditions. or you're just trying to draw some attention to this thread.

Photomy · 12-31-2009, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by ogl

You've seen...? I've worked with RAW from 7D. It's the worst APS-C camera in terms of IQ. It's 100% product of marketing. Early diffraction, noise from ISO100, very narrow DR and it's almost unreal to get pictures with good sharpness.

Add the problems with AF of 7D.

DR no worse than Pentax K-7 according to dpreview tests. It is a little strange how Canon can make the DR flat at about 8.3 all the way to iso 1600 though. Is this very fine tuned noise reduction at each iso to achieve this result?

GoremanX · 12-31-2009, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay II

I spent 2 hours in B&H today comparing virtually every camera between $500 to $7000 USD and I have to say the K7 is my favorite aside from one serious problem; the view finder. In-fact it's so bad I will never buy one because of it.

Ouch, I think you either got a bad sample or the lens that was on there was terrible. Or maybe someone putzed around with the focusing screen and messed it up. I find that the K7 viewfinder is light years ahead of many other SLR's I've tested. It's a noticeable improvement over previous Pentax DSLRs. It's bright and clear and sharp and has 100% coverage. It's also relatively large for an APS-C camera.

asdf · 01-01-2010, 04:02 AM

Please, no more megapixels. You can probably still squeeze more resolution out of many lenses at f/8, but I'd rather have a full-frame sensor but with the current pixel density.

eurostar · 01-01-2010, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by asdf

Please, no more megapixels. You can probably still squeeze more resolution out of many lenses at f/8, but I'd rather have a full-frame sensor but with the current pixel density.

At F/8 with more megapixels diffraction would kick in badly...

GoremanX · 01-01-2010, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by asdf

Please, no more megapixels. You can probably still squeeze more resolution out of many lenses at f/8, but I'd rather have a full-frame sensor but with the current pixel density.

bah, I could care less about full frame. But I agree that more megapixels is a waste.

There's still lots of advancements to be made with APS-C, though. Mostly in the direction of dynamic range and less noise. Those are far more important than the size of the sensor. As far as I'm concerned, the K7 is the perfect size and weight, and it has all the features I'll need for a very long time. Full frame would require a bigger, heavier body, and wouldn't do jack for features. There are already big, heavy full frame cameras out there, and I'm already not buying those. Give me a "K7 Super" (or whatever) with vastly improved sensor, though, and I might trade in my current K7 body.

Right now, I'm more interested in refinements to the existing firmware, and those wouldn't even require a new model.

12-29-2009, 07:06 AM	#78
Nubi Guest	HOYA is a big cat Availability of resources is the least of their problem with a company like Hoya in the background. Willingness of Hoya to blindly fund Pentax is another story, of course.

12-28-2009, 03:53 PM	#76
CWyatt Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,291	Originally posted by ghelary If you really need it, buy immediately Nikon, you are clearly not in Pentax target. As a would be photojournalist, you are certainly aware that most big papers have their own photo-gear inventory, that journalist share bodies and lenses and that for special works, they rent equipments (like super-tele) For all the reason above, journalists use almost exclusively Nikon and Canon, this is not just a question of camera competence. A few years ago, Nikon had lost its edge, now it is Canon who had lost some support because of autofocus issues with their last generation. Yes I use majority Nikon gear, D3 etc for work. Also speedlight 800, which Pentax doesn't match. The other big issue is availability of parts, rentals and service. Originally posted by ghelary Pentax target is landscape and outdoor photographer. Benjikan who opened this thread is already out of target, as he is in the fashion industry. If I remember correctly, he moved to the K10D because his Canon 1DsMKII showed regularly some color inconsistencies. I'm not totally sure what you mean by 'outdoor' photographer. I also think Pentax's prime lens line up would be a great tool for fashion photography. I'm generally set on zooms, and I think the Pentax Star range is good, if limited. At the moment, a killer line up like a Nikon D300s (or D700, drool), 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 is out of my budget. If Pentax's next camera picked up K-x's high ISO ability, and was a decent AF improvement, a 16-50 and 60-250 kit would still be a very good kit, and thousands less than the (better) 3 lens Nikon kit. I will possibly wait until Pentax's next body release and then decide whether to move to Nikon or not. Thinking 60/40 I'll move. Last edited by CWyatt; 12-28-2009 at 05:47 PM.

12-29-2009, 02:36 AM	#77
ghelary Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 613	Originally posted by CWyatt Yes I use majority Nikon gear, D3 etc for work. Also speedlight 800, which Pentax doesn't match. The other big issue is availability of parts, rentals and service. Well, that's the reason Pentax doesn't try to compete, to get a tight support network, you need a lot of investment. And Pentax have neither the money, the market share and the will. Originally posted by CWyatt I'm not totally sure what you mean by 'outdoor' photographer. I also think Pentax's prime lens line up would be a great tool for fashion photography. I'm generally set on zooms, and I think the Pentax Star range is good, if limited. At the moment, a killer line up like a Nikon D300s (or D700, drool), 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, and 70-200 f/2.8 is out of my budget. If Pentax's next camera picked up K-x's high ISO ability, and was a decent AF improvement, a 16-50 and 60-250 kit would still be a very good kit, and thousands less than the (better) 3 lens Nikon kit. I will possibly wait until Pentax's next body release and then decide whether to move to Nikon or not. Thinking 60/40 I'll move. Outdoor photography is to me, mainly landscape, travel and street photography where Pentax size, weight and weather sealing is at advantage. This is also the official target of Pentax. Fashion photography is a bit of specific world, since here high resolution and style are wery important. I remember that a reknown photographer was using a LF camera for its unique rendition. The K7 is currently on the low side regarding pixel count. Benjikan may disagree on this but Fashion is still the main market for Medium Format. Prime lenses are not that important, most shoots are at F8 where primes are matched by pro zooms. Basically you want a Nikon pro setup for half the price. I don't think that will ever happen. Hoya's purpose is to make profit from the camera division. Pentax is not anymore a bargain brand, especially for lenses. I don't consider them expensive as compared to the competition as well. If Pentax makes a body that matches in every spec the top of APSC line from Canon and Nikon, expect it to be at around the same price.

12-29-2009, 12:23 PM	#79
CWyatt Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,291	Originally posted by Nubi Availability of resources is the least of their problem with a company like Hoya in the background. I mean the service network and availiability of rentals more than the company's resources.

12-29-2009, 01:20 PM	#80
stormcloud Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 232	think its a mistake for pentax to simply accept its current position - take a look at sony - they were a nobody in cameras but if you spend the money you can start to make progress into a market i doubt now is the right time for it but pentax should be looking to increase its market share the k7 and kx are no doubt helping as they have 2 great cameras out now - they just need a little work on the lens line up and after sales care i hope shops might start thinking about stocking pentax again soon since the k7 and kx have gotten great reviews - but dont know might take more than that but pentax really should try and get cameras back in shops as people do like to see and hold a camera before they buy

12-29-2009, 09:58 PM	#81
Art Vandelay II Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 886	I spent 2 hours in B&H today comparing virtually every camera between $500 to $7000 USD and I have to say the K7 is my favorite aside from one serious problem; the view finder. In-fact it's so bad I will never buy one because of it. The worst part about testing it out in B&H is not that it's just small and dim compared to full frame cameras (I expected that), it's that they have the K7 located right next to the Olympus E-3. There is no reason the E-3 should have a brighter viewfinder (smaller sensor and all), but there it is on full display. It really makes the K7 look awful when compared side-by-side. Erogs, the K7 wins hands down (and that goes for every single DSLR I tested), but as far as the view finder goes, it's not only worse than the E3 and every single full frame camera, it's also worse than the D300 and the Canon 7D (as much as it pains me to say it, the 7D is an amazing APS-C camera, best Canon ergos ever). I have no idea what's coming after the K7, but I do know they need to fix the peep hole problem ASAP.

12-30-2009, 12:54 AM	#82
Jyrkira Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Finland Posts: 215	Originally posted by Art Vandelay II the view finder. In-fact it's so bad I will never buy one because of it. The worst part about testing it out in B&H is not that it's just small and dim compared to full frame cameras (I expected that), it's that they have the K7 located right next to the Olympus E-3. There is no reason the E-3 should have a brighter viewfinder (smaller sensor and all), but there it is on full display. Did check what lenses were connected to K-7 and E-3 while you tested the cameras ? If there was a fast lens connected to E-3 and the kit lens on K-7 then this lens makes a big difference in brightness.

12-30-2009, 04:03 PM	#83
the swede Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 2,310	It was probably the kit lens :ugh: The viewfinder in the K-7 is great, especially with a fast prime, or a DA* mounted.

12-30-2009, 08:14 PM	#84
MMVIII Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: EU Posts: 1,121	Quite harsh opinion on the viewfinder. And I would say probably premature. There is more to the quality of a viewfinder than maybe noticeable at a short glance. It is said, that mere brigthness comes for a price: the increasing inability to judge the focus. I would always prefer a matte screen that brings me the ability to really see the difference between the objects in focus and the out of focus area to a brighter but nondiscriminating one. My (limited, also just shop tests) personal experience, my impression from reading fora and reviews and also the press releases from Pentax seem to indicate that the new "Natural-Bright-Matte III focusing screen" actually does "improve focusing accuracy during manual-focus operation". It is decribed as "snappier", showing much clearer if in or out of focus. YMMV, but for me this is one of the main qualities of a viewfinder.

12-31-2009, 09:36 AM	#85
elkarrde Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Zagreb, Croatia Posts: 387	Originally posted by Art Vandelay II I spent 2 hours in B&H today comparing virtually every camera between $500 to $7000 USD and I have to say the K7 is my favorite aside from one serious problem; the view finder. In-fact it's so bad I will never buy one because of it. The worst part about testing it out in B&H is not that it's just small and dim compared to full frame cameras (I expected that), it's that they have the K7 located right next to the Olympus E-3. There is no reason the E-3 should have a brighter viewfinder (smaller sensor and all), but there it is on full display. It really makes the K7 look awful when compared side-by-side. Erogs, the K7 wins hands down (and that goes for every single DSLR I tested), but as far as the view finder goes, it's not only worse than the E3 and every single full frame camera, it's also worse than the D300 and the Canon 7D (as much as it pains me to say it, the 7D is an amazing APS-C camera, best Canon ergos ever). what? three of my friends, all of them E3 owners (with 7-14, 14-54, 12-60, 50-200, panaleica 25/1.4, panaleica 14-150), were impressed by mere K100Ds viewfinder, when they saw it for the first time. all of them were even more impressed by K-7 viewfinder, so i think you were not paying enough attention, or you had really bad light conditions. or you're just trying to draw some attention to this thread.

12-31-2009, 10:46 AM	#86
Photomy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 174	Originally posted by ogl You've seen...? I've worked with RAW from 7D. It's the worst APS-C camera in terms of IQ. It's 100% product of marketing. Early diffraction, noise from ISO100, *very narrow DR* and it's almost unreal to get pictures with good sharpness. Add the problems with AF of 7D. DR no worse than Pentax K-7 according to dpreview tests. It is a little strange how Canon can make the DR flat at about 8.3 all the way to iso 1600 though. Is this very fine tuned noise reduction at each iso to achieve this result?

12-31-2009, 02:00 PM	#87
GoremanX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Georgia, VT Photos: Albums Posts: 1,657	Originally posted by Art Vandelay II I spent 2 hours in B&H today comparing virtually every camera between $500 to $7000 USD and I have to say the K7 is my favorite aside from one serious problem; the view finder. In-fact it's so bad I will never buy one because of it. Ouch, I think you either got a bad sample or the lens that was on there was terrible. Or maybe someone putzed around with the focusing screen and messed it up. I find that the K7 viewfinder is light years ahead of many other SLR's I've tested. It's a noticeable improvement over previous Pentax DSLRs. It's bright and clear and sharp and has 100% coverage. It's also relatively large for an APS-C camera.

01-01-2010, 04:02 AM	#88
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Please, no more megapixels. You can probably still squeeze more resolution out of many lenses at f/8, but I'd rather have a full-frame sensor but with the current pixel density.

01-01-2010, 09:25 AM	#89
eurostar Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albareto, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 819	Originally posted by asdf Please, no more megapixels. You can probably still squeeze more resolution out of many lenses at f/8, but I'd rather have a full-frame sensor but with the current pixel density. At F/8 with more megapixels diffraction would kick in badly...

01-01-2010, 10:41 AM	#90
GoremanX Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Georgia, VT Photos: Albums Posts: 1,657	Originally posted by asdf Please, no more megapixels. You can probably still squeeze more resolution out of many lenses at f/8, but I'd rather have a full-frame sensor but with the current pixel density. bah, I could care less about full frame. But I agree that more megapixels is a waste. There's still lots of advancements to be made with APS-C, though. Mostly in the direction of dynamic range and less noise. Those are far more important than the size of the sensor. As far as I'm concerned, the K7 is the perfect size and weight, and it has all the features I'll need for a very long time. Full frame would require a bigger, heavier body, and wouldn't do jack for features. There are already big, heavy full frame cameras out there, and I'm already not buying those. Give me a "K7 Super" (or whatever) with vastly improved sensor, though, and I might trade in my current K7 body. Right now, I'm more interested in refinements to the existing firmware, and those wouldn't even require a new model.