[pcarfan]

i had too
i have two great lenses that i do plan on keeping,
just need a good body to couple them onto

Dave
T&T

No, what I am saying is, it sounds like you are convinced that the K-7 is no good, and you are ignoring all the comments that says otherwise and as soon as you heard the first responder say the K-7 wasn't THAT great (not bad, mind you), you immediately grabbed on to that reply and came to the conclusion that the K-7 is no good for your needs.

---

Last edited by pcarfan; 08-27-2010 at 07:12 PM.

[dafiryde]

Funny, I'
m reading the same posts as you, and I primarily seeing people saying th K-7 is much improved in AF speed, especially in low light. As should be obvious given the AF assist lamp. You must be reading extremely selectively to have come away with the opposite impression.

once again i am refering to the speed of the autofocus in dim light with no,no,no focus assist beam.
block yours and tell what happens

Dave
T&T

[dafiryde]

I'm currently sitting in my 35m2 livingroom. Light emerges from a 40w bulb, two candles and my 17" laptop screen. It's completely dark outside.

The K7 (1.10 fw) with the 16-50 set the AF lock within 1 sec on every object I do point it at. The K10 can't (painfully slow and often can't lock at all).
Things have improved, honestly.

Still, I would wait until after Photokina before making any decision on a new camera.

you see , you are the first person to respode with a self satisfaction test

thanks

Dave
T&T

[dafiryde]

So you have not tested K-7 with latest firmwares ? What lens you did use in your tests ?

I think K-7 is good focusing in low light. I have focus assist on all the time, but K-7 usually does not use it until it is really dim.

i was the proud owner of a K7 for a little over two weeks , but i never saw it

Dave
T&T

[dafiryde]

No, what I am saying is, it sounds like you are convinced that the K-7 is no good, and you are ignoring all the comments that says otherwise and as soon as you heard the first responder say the K-7 wasn't THAT great (not bad, mind you), you immediately grabbed on to that reply and came to the conclusion that the K-7 is no good for your needs.

my engish must be getting bad
even though its the only language i know
but i never said the K7 was no good
are you reading with a clear head

this is a paste from another web site on more or less the same issues

Not much to tell, the D90 is a hard nut to crack, ask Canon LOL. It's a complete camera with everything you need that goes low in price now. If you like Pentax, I would wait for the K8 or so, because the sensor in the Kx performs better in low light and high iso than the K7. The K7 is built sturdier (like the D300) than the D90. While Pentax has a range of older glass, so has Nikon. And since Pentax lenses have gone up in price as well, the real advantage has been eroded. There are more things in the pipeline within a month from other manufacturers. I would wait and see, you never know.
Dave
T&T

[Jyrkira]

i was the proud owner of a K7 for a little over two weeks , but i never saw it

Dave
T&T

I did not read your previous message properly. English is not my mother language and sometimes I don't get everything if I read too quickly.

I don't have much experience of K20D, but I had both K-7 and K200D at the same time. AF in K-7 really is improved a lot compared to K200D in low light environment.

In typical indoor lightning AF works so well that I don't even think about it. This was not the same with K200D. K-7 with fa 35 k-7 Lens AF always locks without hunting in situations where there is sufficient light for hand held shooting. And this is without the AF assist light.

[pcarfan]

my engish must be getting bad
even though its the only language i know
but i never said the K7 was no good
are you reading with a clear head

this is a paste from another web site on more or less the same issues

Not much to tell, the D90 is a hard nut to crack, ask Canon LOL. It's a complete camera with everything you need that goes low in price now. If you like Pentax, I would wait for the K8 or so, because the sensor in the Kx performs better in low light and high iso than the K7. The K7 is built sturdier (like the D300) than the D90. While Pentax has a range of older glass, so has Nikon. And since Pentax lenses have gone up in price as well, the real advantage has been eroded. There are more things in the pipeline within a month from other manufacturers. I would wait and see, you never know.
Dave
T&T

Oh! no, it's not the language issue here at all...good luck with your next purchase. If you still have hopes for Pentax, it's definitely worth waiting for Photokina.....your English is just fine.

---

Last edited by pcarfan; 08-28-2010 at 04:36 AM.

[dafiryde]

I did not read your previous message properly. English is not my mother language and sometimes I don't get everything if I read too quickly.

I don't have much experience of K20D, but I had both K-7 and K200D at the same time. AF in K-7 really is improved a lot compared to K200D in low light environment.

In typical indoor lightning AF works so well that I don't even think about it. This was not the same with K200D. K-7 with fa 35 k-7 Lens AF always locks without hunting in situations where there is sufficient light for hand held shooting. And this is without the AF assist light.

thanks, i welcome personal comparisons, especially without focus assistance, which is more or less the comparison i have been asking for

Dave
T&T

[dafiryde]

Oh! no, it's not the language issue here at all...good luck with your next purchase. If you still have hopes for Pentax, it's definitely worth waiting for Photokina.....your English is just fine.

i always had hopes for Pentax, i own 2 great lenses.
in my heart i would really like to keep them as a back up system, but to go thru that therapy with the K20D is out of the question.
in regard of shelling out $1500 for the expected Pentax K5 leaves a big ?
shelling out $865 for a new Nikon D90 or
shelling out $875 for a new Pentax K7 to use as a back up is attractive, but i would like to be convinced that the auto focus system is 100% better than the K20D which was SH_ T !!!!!!!


Dave
T&T

[Michaelina2]

i have a K20D and was wondering if any of you had both , if you noticed a major difference between
auto focus speed
low light focusing
high iso clearity

Dave
T&T

Yep... I have a K20D and K-7.

While the K20 is was a good --> great camera in its day and I enjoyed mine, it is obsolete technology. My K-7 is vastly superior in ALL respects. Once it came on the scene, the K20 was immediately retired. I've not picked it up since and don't plan too, either. The K-7 is very different and these differences have a learning curve. It takes some time gain mastery, but now, if I want to shoot up to iso3200... I can with confidence... no problem!

In fact, now that I've gotten a grip in the K-7, I'm finding my interest shifting from camera hardware/lenses to image processing tools and software. For me, the enhanced pp options provided by the likes of LR3+ and its competition are extending the K-7's product life well beyond the next generation of camera bodies. Pentax's Sept 2010 announcements will need to be game changing to move me off the K-7.

... my 2 cents... and cheers...

[audiobomber]

Yep... I have a K20D and K-7.

While the K20 is was a good --> great camera in its day and I enjoyed mine, it is obsolete technology. My K-7 is vastly superior in ALL respects.

Not all respects. It's not superior in image quality.

[NaClH2O]

Not all respects. It's not superior in image quality.

And I get better high ISO response from the K20...but my new K-x blows the lenses right off both the K-7 and the K20 when it comes to high ISO response. I hope the K-5 is as good as the K-x

NaCl(there is nothing like no-worry ISO 1600 shooting)H2O

[dafiryde]

Yep... I have a K20D and K-7.

While the K20 is was a good --> great camera in its day and I enjoyed mine, it is obsolete technology. My K-7 is vastly superior in ALL respects. Once it came on the scene, the K20 was immediately retired. I've not picked it up since and don't plan too, either. The K-7 is very different and these differences have a learning curve. It takes some time gain mastery, but now, if I want to shoot up to iso3200... I can with confidence... no problem!

In fact, now that I've gotten a grip in the K-7, I'm finding my interest shifting from camera hardware/lenses to image processing tools and software. For me, the enhanced pp options provided by the likes of LR3+ and its competition are extending the K-7's product life well beyond the next generation of camera bodies. Pentax's Sept 2010 announcements will need to be game changing to move me off the K-7.

... my 2 cents... and cheers...

Not all respects. It's not superior in image quality.

And I get better high ISO response from the K20...but my new K-x blows the lenses right off both the K-7 and the K20 when it comes to high ISO response. I hope the K-5 is as good as the K-x

NaCl(there is nothing like no-worry ISO 1600 shooting)H2O

now this is what i am talking about
the K20D autofocus sucks, where as the K7 is better
the k20 has better high iso, of which the k7 is worst

Dave
T&T

[Michaelina2]

...the k20 has better high iso, of which the k7 is worst

That statement, while commonly expressed, is flat-out wrong.

My experience with the K-7, when paired to capable pp software like LR3, out performs the K20D, and K-x in ALL respects. My observation is based on over 10,000 K-7 images, more than 10,000 K20D images, and about 5,000 K-x images created by me (Yep, I shoot a K-x, too). Now, I'm not saying the K20D is bad; just obsolete. As to the K-x, its a good camera, too, and I'm pleased to own one, but the K-7 simply out classes it in many ways.

I'm not asking you to agree with me, but the OP asked for an experienced opinion. I've paid my dues and feel I can speak with authority.

Again, based on my personal hands-on experience, I find the K-7 when paired to capable pp software and compared like lens to like lens to be vastly superior in ALL aspects to the K20D and K-x.

... my 2 cents...

Cheers...

[dafiryde]

That statement, while commonly expressed, is flat-out wrong.

My experience with the K-7, when paired to capable pp software like LR3, out performs the K20D, and K-x in ALL respects. My observation is based on over 10,000 K-7 images, more than 10,000 K20D images, and about 5,000 K-x images created by me (Yep, I shoot a K-x, too). Now, I'm not saying the K20D is bad; just obsolete. As to the K-x, its a good camera, too, and I'm pleased to own one, but the K-7 simply out classes it in many ways.

I'm not asking you to agree with me, but the OP asked for an experienced opinion. I've paid my dues and feel I can speak with authority.

Again, based on my personal hands-on experience, I find the K-7 when paired to capable pp software and compared like lens to like lens to be vastly superior in ALL aspects to the K20D and K-x.

... my 2 cents...

Cheers...

i am supprised
many reviewers claimed the KX blew the K7 out of the water at high ISO

Dave
T&T