Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-09-2010, 09:26 AM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Cardiff, Wales
Posts: 2
Question to anyone who has migrated from K10D to K7

I have owned a K10D for the last 3 years and have been highly satisfied with my first Dslr. As I’m rapidly approaching the big 5 Oh, my wife very uncharacteristically suggested I should treat myself to a new camera. The obvious choice would be a K7. My main interest is landscape and in particular A2 printing. My question is to anyone out there who has moved between these two cameras is; will I see an appreciable improvement in A2 size prints? Also is the CCD of the K10D better suited to this sort of work than the CMOS chip? The improved af and video are of no interest to me as trees don’t tend to move around too much.

06-09-2010, 09:51 AM   #2
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,140
You'd have increased resolution, so you should see an improvement in landscapes. Overall, though, other parameters between photos from the two cameras are similar.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

06-09-2010, 10:15 AM   #3
Site Supporter
Nowhere Matt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Nowhere Land
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,318
My remarks will not directly answer your questions but in the interest of other comparisons...
I have had a K10 for 3 years and a K-7 since April. In spite of the many improvements, the addition of video and other differences, I still prefer my K10. I have gotten use to it's size and layout of the features. I do not like the placement of the Green Button on the K-7. Your thumb competes for space with your nose and eye when using the Green button.
I am not saying I regret the choice of a K-7, but for now, in most instances, it is my secondary body and my K10 remains the primary.
The lock button on the mode dial is a bit of a nussance.
Resolution and the LCD display and white balance are very good compared with K10 but I am still more satisfied with the K10's iso performance in the higher range.
I apologize for not speaking to your specific concerns and my aim is not to derail your questions. Just offering opinions with other things to consider.
06-09-2010, 10:54 AM   #4
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
while there is improved resolution it is marginal, remember that megapixels are for the area, therefore to go from 10-14 MP is only a 20% improvement in linear resolution not 40%

If you are shooting JPEGs there are other advantages such as in camera HDR and also highlight and shadow protect, both of these would be of interest to a landscape photographer.

There is also a higher quality jpeg setting, which seems to really only offer 12bit to 8 bit reduction, but no other compression.

Also, if you are shooting legacy lenses the metering accuracy is improved.

06-09-2010, 11:37 AM   #5
Site Supporter
LaurenOE's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,487
I have both. I loved my K10, but it just sits now that I have my K7. I thought I liked the larger size of the K10, but now I don't miss it.
06-09-2010, 11:57 AM   #6
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
If you're talkin landscapes at lowish ISO the K10 is an absolute monster resolution wise in RAW as it has a weak AA filter. i mean it's a beast, when i checked the files against those of the K20 .... i was surprised to say the least.
06-10-2010, 06:08 AM   #7
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
The K10 is amazing at iso 100. Probably one of the best iso 100's out there. The improvements in the K7 will be seen in other areas: a little better viewfinder (I didn't really notice much difference), significantly better auto focus, better high iso (at least a stop compared to the K10, mine had banding at iso 800 and over). The resolution is not that much different as others have said between the two cameras, but I much prefer the K7 over all for what I shoot.
06-10-2010, 06:21 AM   #8
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 68
You prefer the K10D's high ISO to the K-7?

QuoteOriginally posted by Nowhere Matt Quote
I am still more satisfied with the K10's ISO performance in the higher range.
Wow. I think that's the first time I've ever seen anyone write that.

I've read many posts in which people say ISO 100 on the K10D is better than ISO 100 on the K-7.

But I don't ever remember ever reading a post before in which some prefers ISO 800 (or 1600) on the K10D to ISO 800 (or 1600) on the K-7.

I don't own the K-7, but I do own both the K10D and the K-x, and I MUCH prefer the high ISO of the K-x to the K10D.

Not that any of this will help the OP in deciding whether to buy a K-7 for low ISO landscapes....

Greg

06-10-2010, 11:00 AM   #9
Senior Member
Painter's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 275
Once I had adjusted to the changes I really haven't used my K10D much. Not to be contrary to the others that are happy with their K10D's but I can't think of a single thing where it is better than the K-7. It's the sum of all the parts that really make the difference. Even something that seems simple like the blank out time between shots. The k-7 mirror just makes a little snick sound and you hardly notice it. The 100% viewfinder is very important If you like landscapes because you don't have to crop later because something strayed into the frame. The AWB is superb and even though I shoot RAW I then don't have to mess with it because it got it right from the beginning (I have made a minor adjsustment to my LCD to match my PC by shooting test targets). There are more reasons but initially I thought man maybe I didn't need to buy this new camera, but after about 2 weeks I couldn't go back.
06-10-2010, 03:22 PM   #10
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wimberley TX
Posts: 21
Kiss your wife and enjoy. I moved from the K10D to K7, and do lots of landscape. Thought I would hold on to the K10d for a year, but sold it 3 weeks after the K7 showed up and never looked back.

Josh
06-18-2010, 07:36 AM   #11
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Cardiff, Wales
Posts: 2
Original Poster
Thanks for all your comments.I was wondering what you meant by being surprised when comparing the RAW files K10/20 Alfisti. Is having a weak AA filter a good thing or a bad one?
06-18-2010, 11:15 AM   #12
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 10
K7

I went from a k10 to K7, noise handeling on the K7 is faaaar superior, so disregard that other coment, they must have been confused. for landscape i think you'll like:
1.) 100% view finder. the first few weeks i shot, i was still compensating for the 90% view fo the K10D, and then being anoyed when i looked at the image preview and didn't see slightly more in the photo than i had in the view finder, but once you're aware of it and used to it, it's fantastic.
2.) auto horizon leveling. you can turn this on or off, i would often line up a horizon as straight as i could, checking the tripod's level etc. and inevtibly end up making a TINY tweak in photoshop to get the line perfect. the K7 if it's close enough will "see" the horizon line and if necessary, rotate the sensor so it's perfectly lined up
3.) HDR. i don't use this feature, but i've seen some cool landscapes done by people who do.
4.) drive shooting frame rate. i don't know if you do any nature shots with the landscape shots, but the much faster drive mode shooting makes it easier to get the perfect shot of a fast moving bird/animal/etc.
5.) weight. slightly lighter adn smaller than the k10, so if you're backpacking / hiking to a remote location, the lighter the better!
06-19-2010, 11:25 PM   #13
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lévis, Canada (Québec)
Posts: 143
In my opinion, the K-7 has better noise structure and more "normal" exposure metering (with a tendency to clip highlights in contrasty scenes). The added resolution, although not as high as the pixel count might lead to think, can also be useful when making large prints.

The K10D has better color accuracy and more much conservative metering (resulting in more underexposed shots).

So overall, the pros balance out the cons, both ways, IMHO.

However, the K-7 has very interesting features the K10D hasn't, some especially useful for landscape photo, like the horizon level indicator, the composition adjustment and the 100% coverage viewfinder.

The K-7 even has mirror lock-up shutter release mode. All these features could justify switching from a K10D to a K-7, but in doubt, wait for the release of the next Pentax DSLR before making a move.

Last edited by tigrebleu; 06-19-2010 at 11:45 PM.
06-19-2010, 11:44 PM   #14
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lévis, Canada (Québec)
Posts: 143
QuoteOriginally posted by alanwm406 Quote
Thanks for all your comments.I was wondering what you meant by being surprised when comparing the RAW files K10/20 Alfisti. Is having a weak AA filter a good thing or a bad one?
I totally agree with Alfisti. Images coming from my K-7 only offer a little more resolution than those coming from my K10D when shooting RAW, and only when using excellent glass (my DA 16-45mm F/4 isn't up to the task on the K-7, while my Sigma 70mm F/2.8 Macro was quite capable).

A strong AA filter reduces the moiré and the jagged edges in diagonal lines coming from digital images, by "softening" these images a bit to avoid both effects.

So a weaker vertical AA filter results in sharper images, however with the side effects of more demosaicing artifacts, more moiré and more jagged edges in diagonal lines. Such artifacts are rarely visible unless you pixel-peep at 100% or you produce very large prints, however.

All that applies only if you shoot RAW, of course.

If you shoot in JPEG, the in-camera image processing can turn sharp images coming from a weak AA filter into soft images because of the image processing. The K10D is a good example of that. In RAW, it delivers sharp, crisp images, while in JPEG, the images always remain a bit soft even when in-camera sharpness is raised at the maximum.

But with careful RAW processing (especially at the sharpening phase), moiré and artifacts can be avoided while keeping high per-pixel detail.

That's one of the reasons why I always shoot RAW, unless I have no other choice.
06-20-2010, 05:35 AM   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,563
Here are my 2 euro cents:

I've dragged both my K10D and K-7 around half the world, working with both and looking at the results I always am surprised with the colors and quality of my K10D shots in bright sunlight...
Outdoors, with bright conditions, I like my K10D results better, that may be subjective.
Also, focus point selection is much more easy, even after the K-7 firmware upgrade.
The K-7 resolution and noise is only slightly better as has been said before.
Make sure to work with quality lenses, that and in camera calibration is more important than #pixels for A2 printing IMHO.

For everything else, the K-7 is better:
- Physical ergonomics, grip is much more pleasant.
- Dust reduction now *works*! What a relief
- Auto level, level indicator, ah, landscape? Yes!
- Lens AF calibration, wish I had that on my K10D... This will enable you the make sharper pictures making A2 printing no problem.
- Auto focus, it is sooooo much better, you will be surprised!
- The switches are locked on a K-7, it is hardly ever mentioned, but I've missed some very good shots because my camera mode dial or AF switch was accidently changed.
- Shutter sound, speed, frames/sec, in camera lens correction, lighter, smaller, 3"display, ...

Of course, if your wife accepts a rain check, and you can spend $1200 this fall instead of $750 now, wait 6 months and buy the K-8.
If not, you will not be disappointed by the K-7.

- Bert
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
a2, camera, dslr, k10d, k7, photography, question
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K10D question Eastern Shore Charlie Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 01-13-2009 01:56 AM
question about K10D DanLoc78 Photographic Technique 5 05-04-2008 08:33 AM
K10D and SR question.... dwinnert Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 05-15-2007 06:38 PM
BL K10D question. NLAlston Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 5 02-16-2007 11:24 AM
Just One More K10D Question. NLAlston Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 12-27-2006 02:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top