Going from K-7 to Canon 7D

Docrwm · 10-03-2010, 06:45 PM

Don't know much about the Canon so I'll ask this - how is it in low light? Seriously, many of my son's games are at night and the lights are not University stadium quality so the lighting is a bit less than perfect. Part of why I got the K-x is because of its outstanding low light performance. I just got through shooting soccer at 6400iso after shooting Softball for my daughter earlier that day at 200. Just asking.

Raylon · 10-03-2010, 07:00 PM

I am extremely happy with the 6400 ISO on my 7D. Looks amazing. I would say the 7D at 6400 is about equal to what my K200D was at about 800. Here is a link to a 6400 ISO shot:

http://gallery.photographyreview.com/data/photography//554/IMG_5113_100pc.jpg

JohnBee · 10-03-2010, 07:01 PM

I believe its pretty close to the Kx.

Personally I wouldn't get a 7D for low light specifically, but for resolution and sheer performance(AF and continuous)... the 7D is simply amazing! It's the only camera that burries the D700 and matches the D3x in terms of resolving power. It also has amazing red channel performance from RAW(better than the D700) and the ability to pull detail like crazy.

Anyways, I really don't know much about Canon glass, but if I was in the market for an above average camera, this would definitely be on the top of my list.

Raylon · 10-03-2010, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

And from what I have seen so far, the IQ of the K-5 will be superior by a substantial margin.

Rob

I would like to know where you are pulling this from. We have hardly seen any real tests of the K-5 and you are already trying to declare it king of the APS-C world.

JohnBee · 10-03-2010, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Raylon

I would like to know where you are pulling this from. We have hardly seen any real tests of the K-5 and you are already trying to declare it king of the APS-C world.

Actually, we already have a good baseline from which to draw an early conclusion from. And.. to be fair, I'd say the K-5 has a very good chance of being very close to the 7D with respect to resolving power. However, this also depends on the AA filter and whatever other mojo Pentax chooses to use on the K-5 as well(so it could change).

Though from what I've seen, the Sony sensor comes close. But not quite in terms of resolving power to the7D.

Having said that, I'd be very impressed if it either matched or surpassed it. Happy! but surprised

brecklundin · 10-03-2010, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Docrwm

Don't know much about the Canon so I'll ask this - how is it in low light? Seriously, many of my son's games are at night and the lights are not University stadium quality so the lighting is a bit less than perfect. Part of why I got the K-x is because of its outstanding low light performance. I just got through shooting soccer at 6400iso after shooting Softball for my daughter earlier that day at 200. Just asking.

The Kx is nice but it's not going to come close to night action shots at high ISO as a 7D...it simply does not possess the power under the hood. Here are some discussions of the high ISO performance of the 7D:

Those are from one of the best sources for Canon info on the web so any of your questions can be answered there...you'll need to do your own comparisons but such is life. The K-x is a super body with a nice sensor but the 7D is simply in a different league...and that is no knock on the K-x because for many of us the difference is not going to be that much. However the features such as AF-C in low light of night sports of the 7D, well, the K-x, K20D or even the K-7 won't come close the the keeper percentage. Now whether that percentage is really that big of a deal, easily to the tune of a good $1500 difference in cost depending on lenses used with each body only you can decide for yourself.

Figure you are going to drop between $1700-$2500 for a 7D and a decent lense that can justify the sensor's resolving power....and remember the center AF point on the 7D is an f2.8 point compared to, I seem to recall, an f5.6 on the K-x and K-7...I also read in one review that the K-5 also has a slower center AF point of 5.6 as well which is sort of a let down, I think? But really I have no idea for sure and we all have no idea what the final body will deliver...

But you asked a good question...it's always wise to keep looking around as long as you don't feel you have something that is "not good enough" because any of today's modern DSLR's are going to deliver super results. I feel the K-x is a bargain but then again I am one to not believe in the "bang for the buck" when applied to DSLR's because, as a rule you need to buy the best body AND best glass you can afford. In fact buy glass that is better than the body so that glass is still relevant in a few generations. Hence why so many love the FA limiteds as well as the FA* or DA* series glass.

One last thing, the 7D craves FAST high end glass (for your kids sports I say get a EF70-200/4L IS or non-IS [a true steal at between $600-$650]. Both are amazing and the 7D's ability to shoot high ISO and the faster center AF point makes for a super combo...you could even look at the EF70-200/2.8L non-IS which is the same price as the F4-L/IS version...but the ability to shoot higher ISO is going to let you use higher shutter speeds w/o worry about significant noise issues.) in a way the old 20D/30D/40D/50D bodies did...ignore the 60D it's not close the the IQ of the K-x let alone the new K-r or K-5...

Anyway, this might piss of some people but I just wanted to answer your question. I am NOT saying to switch because I sense the K-5 might be able to deliver for your needs if you have some nice Pentax glass already. If not, then.....welllll, perhaps a look at the 7D is very worth the time to wait...

john5100 · 10-03-2010, 10:54 PM

Well, I just say PLEASE. I shoot concerts in very low light and the KX has a very high percentage of keepers. I shoot with folks with D700's, 5D MKII's, and the rest. My KX easily holds it's own in noise and focusing.

The 7D is good but it's so are other cameras. Enjoy your wonderful 7D but better than everything else...no.

The Melvins

brecklundin · 10-03-2010, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by john5100

Well, I just say PLEASE. I shoot concerts in very low light and the KX has a very high percentage of keepers. I shoot with folks with D700's, 5D MKII's, and the rest. My KX easily holds it's own in noise and focusing.

The 7D is good but it's so are other cameras. Enjoy your wonderful 7D but better than everything else...no.

The Melvins

If you are responding to me, which is patently unclear, you may have failed to read and comprehend what I wrote. Please read it again and do not just extract snippets to support your opinion...it is intended as a whole not in snippets.

WerTicus · 10-03-2010, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by brecklundin

The Kx is nice but it's not going to come close to night action shots at high ISO as a 7D...it simply does not possess the power under the hood.

Yes it does, the K-x is actually a little bit ahead of the 7d in sensor performance.

The rest of the 7d is ahead of the K-x of course.

DxOMark - Compare sensors

and if you compare 3200 iso samples after resizing you'll see exactly what dxo says is the case:

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

Why do you think we are all so excited about the k-5? Even better performance in a top end body. its going to be great

john5100 · 10-03-2010, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by brecklundin

If you are responding to me, which is patently unclear, you may have failed to read and comprehend what I wrote. Please read it again and do not just extract snippets to support your opinion...it is intended as a whole not in snippets.

No not you specifically; I'm just tired of these same old worn out "Canon is Better" conversations. (Generically speaking) enjoy what you have. All cameras have their pluses and minuses.

JohnBee · 10-03-2010, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by brecklundin

The Kx is nice but it's not going to come close to night action shots at high ISO as a 7D...it simply does not possess the power under the hood. Here are some discussions of the high ISO performance of the 7D:

Don't quote me on this, but I think the Kx and 7D share very similar ISO marks across the board. And while I don't think the 7D would win any points in the ISO performance scale, I would go as far as saying it would most likely gain keepers thanks to its superior AF.

brecklundin · 10-03-2010, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by JohnBee

Don't quote me on this, but I think the Kx and 7D share very similar ISO marks across the board. And while I don't think the 7D would win any points in the ISO performance scale, I would go as far as saying it would most likely gain keepers thanks to its superior AF.

Yeah, that is what I was trying to express...as I tried to point out, in a ham handed fashion I suppose, is the K-x is no slouch and for so many of us the any high ISO differences are not enough to differentiate the bodies....but when you combine the high ISO with the AF and other features of the 7D it's indeed a more advanced and probably a body that will offer less barriers to getting plenty of good shots as the person I was responding to asked. And that was for his kid's sporting events in low light.

Thanks for helping me clean up the comment to get across what I thought I was saying...d'oh!!

**Rondec** · 10-04-2010, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by Raylon

I am extremely happy with the 6400 ISO on my 7D. Looks amazing. I would say the 7D at 6400 is about equal to what my K200D was at about 800. Here is a link to a 6400 ISO shot:

http://gallery.photographyreview.com/data/photography//554/IMG_5113_100pc.jpg

One interesting thing is that Canon typically over states the iso settings on their cameras. In reality, Iso 6400 on the 7D is measured by Dxo to be about iso 4500. I guess it helps them have less noise and a little more dynamic range. In comparison, the kx at iso 6400 is shooting at iso 5400, as measured by Dxo. Not a huge difference, but a difference none the less.

Big G · 10-04-2010, 04:39 AM

I bought a 7D and don't regret it one bit, although it's main BIG advantage over my K20D is the blinding AF performance. In addition, it gives me access to Canon's top / big glass for sports / wildlife. There are numerous lens rental places on the web, so when I need access to Canon's 400mm f/2.8, I can pick it up for not a lot of cash.

My K20D still remains a true faithful body - granted it's AF is garbage beside the 7D, but I have the fisheye and 10-20mm Sigma which still produce fabulous results on the K20D.

uchinakuri · 10-04-2010, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by john5100

Well, I just say PLEASE. I shoot concerts in very low light and the KX has a very high percentage of keepers. I shoot with folks with D700's, 5D MKII's, and the rest. My KX easily holds it's own in noise and focusing.
The Melvins

While I can understand your claim about the K-x holding its own against the 7D, to say that it holds its own against a full frame D700, for example? Either the folks youre going with are really poor users of their cams, or it's just way too much exaggeration...

10-03-2010, 10:33 PM	#36
brecklundin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,674	Originally posted by Docrwm Don't know much about the Canon so I'll ask this - how is it in low light? Seriously, many of my son's games are at night and the lights are not University stadium quality so the lighting is a bit less than perfect. Part of why I got the K-x is because of its outstanding low light performance. I just got through shooting soccer at 6400iso after shooting Softball for my daughter earlier that day at 200. Just asking. The Kx is nice but it's not going to come close to night action shots at high ISO as a 7D...it simply does not possess the power under the hood. Here are some discussions of the high ISO performance of the 7D: Mini-Review: 7D vs 5DII High ISO 3200-25600 - Canon Digital Photography Forums 7D and high ISO performance - Canon Digital Photography Forums Masamune -- 7D High ISO shots - Canon Digital Photography Forums Canon Digital Photography Forums Those are from one of the best sources for Canon info on the web so any of your questions can be answered there...you'll need to do your own comparisons but such is life. The K-x is a super body with a nice sensor but the 7D is simply in a different league...and that is no knock on the K-x because for many of us the difference is not going to be that much. However the features such as AF-C in low light of night sports of the 7D, well, the K-x, K20D or even the K-7 won't come close the the keeper percentage. Now whether that percentage is really that big of a deal, easily to the tune of a good $1500 difference in cost depending on lenses used with each body only you can decide for yourself. Figure you are going to drop between $1700-$2500 for a 7D and a decent lense that can justify the sensor's resolving power....and remember the center AF point on the 7D is an f2.8 point compared to, I seem to recall, an f5.6 on the K-x and K-7...I also read in one review that the K-5 also has a slower center AF point of 5.6 as well which is sort of a let down, I think? But really I have no idea for sure and we all have no idea what the final body will deliver... But you asked a good question...it's always wise to keep looking around as long as you don't feel you have something that is "not good enough" because any of today's modern DSLR's are going to deliver super results. I feel the K-x is a bargain but then again I am one to not believe in the "bang for the buck" when applied to DSLR's because, as a rule you need to buy the best body AND best glass you can afford. In fact buy glass that is better than the body so that glass is still relevant in a few generations. Hence why so many love the FA limiteds as well as the FA* or DA* series glass. One last thing, the 7D craves FAST high end glass (for your kids sports I say get a EF70-200/4L IS or non-IS [a true steal at between $600-$650]. Both are amazing and the 7D's ability to shoot high ISO and the faster center AF point makes for a super combo...you could even look at the EF70-200/2.8L non-IS which is the same price as the F4-L/IS version...but the ability to shoot higher ISO is going to let you use higher shutter speeds w/o worry about significant noise issues.) in a way the old 20D/30D/40D/50D bodies did...ignore the 60D it's not close the the IQ of the K-x let alone the new K-r or K-5... Anyway, this might piss of some people but I just wanted to answer your question. I am NOT saying to switch because I sense the K-5 might be able to deliver for your needs if you have some nice Pentax glass already. If not, then.....welllll, perhaps a look at the 7D is very worth the time to wait...

10-03-2010, 11:07 PM	#39
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	Originally posted by brecklundin The Kx is nice but it's not going to come close to night action shots at high ISO as a 7D...it simply does not possess the power under the hood. Yes it does, the K-x is actually a little bit ahead of the 7d in sensor performance. The rest of the 7d is ahead of the K-x of course. DxOMark - Compare sensors and if you compare 3200 iso samples after resizing you'll see exactly what dxo says is the case: Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page Why do you think we are all so excited about the k-5? Even better performance in a top end body. its going to be great Last edited by WerTicus; 10-03-2010 at 11:29 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Switching to Canon 5D, advice needed on adapting Pentax lenses on canon camera	hangu	Photographic Technique	4	08-19-2010 09:09 PM
Canon Rumors-> Canon to buy MF company	Winder	Pentax News and Rumors	34	08-08-2010 03:58 PM
Non-Canon zoom lens on Canon DSLR, what's up?	GerryL	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	21	06-26-2010 07:23 PM
For Sale - Sold: Canon EOS Digital Rebel + Battery Grip + Canon EF 28-135IS	inneyeseakay	Sold Items	0	04-30-2009 01:31 PM
For Sale - Sold: Canon Rebel XT/350D, Sigma 18-200, Canon 50mm (more)…	Duh_Vinci	Sold Items	14	02-01-2007 01:14 PM

10-03-2010, 06:45 PM	#31
Docrwm Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Somewhere in the Southern US Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,285	Don't know much about the Canon so I'll ask this - how is it in low light? Seriously, many of my son's games are at night and the lights are not University stadium quality so the lighting is a bit less than perfect. Part of why I got the K-x is because of its outstanding low light performance. I just got through shooting soccer at 6400iso after shooting Softball for my daughter earlier that day at 200. Just asking.

10-03-2010, 07:00 PM	#32
Raylon Guest	I am extremely happy with the 6400 ISO on my 7D. Looks amazing. I would say the 7D at 6400 is about equal to what my K200D was at about 800. Here is a link to a 6400 ISO shot: http://gallery.photographyreview.com/data/photography//554/IMG_5113_100pc.jpg

10-03-2010, 07:01 PM	#33
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	I believe its pretty close to the Kx. Personally I wouldn't get a 7D for low light specifically, but for resolution and sheer performance(AF and continuous)... the 7D is simply amazing! It's the only camera that burries the D700 and matches the D3x in terms of resolving power. It also has amazing red channel performance from RAW(better than the D700) and the ability to pull detail like crazy. Anyways, I really don't know much about Canon glass, but if I was in the market for an above average camera, this would definitely be on the top of my list.

10-03-2010, 07:35 PM	#34
Raylon Guest	Originally posted by robgo2 And from what I have seen so far, the IQ of the K-5 will be superior by a substantial margin. Rob I would like to know where you are pulling this from. We have hardly seen any real tests of the K-5 and you are already trying to declare it king of the APS-C world.

10-03-2010, 08:36 PM	#35
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by Raylon I would like to know where you are pulling this from. We have hardly seen any real tests of the K-5 and you are already trying to declare it king of the APS-C world. Actually, we already have a good baseline from which to draw an early conclusion from. And.. to be fair, I'd say the K-5 has a very good chance of being very close to the 7D with respect to resolving power. However, this also depends on the AA filter and whatever other mojo Pentax chooses to use on the K-5 as well(so it could change). Though from what I've seen, the Sony sensor comes close. But not quite in terms of resolving power to the7D. Having said that, I'd be very impressed if it either matched or surpassed it. Happy! but surprised

10-03-2010, 10:54 PM	#37
john5100 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,725	Well, I just say PLEASE. I shoot concerts in very low light and the KX has a very high percentage of keepers. I shoot with folks with D700's, 5D MKII's, and the rest. My KX easily holds it's own in noise and focusing. The 7D is good but it's so are other cameras. Enjoy your wonderful 7D but better than everything else...no. The Melvins

10-03-2010, 11:07 PM	#38
brecklundin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,674	Originally posted by john5100 Well, I just say PLEASE. I shoot concerts in very low light and the KX has a very high percentage of keepers. I shoot with folks with D700's, 5D MKII's, and the rest. My KX easily holds it's own in noise and focusing. The 7D is good but it's so are other cameras. Enjoy your wonderful 7D but better than everything else...no. The Melvins If you are responding to me, which is patently unclear, you may have failed to read and comprehend what I wrote. Please read it again and do not just extract snippets to support your opinion...it is intended as a whole not in snippets.

10-03-2010, 11:20 PM	#40
john5100 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,725	Originally posted by brecklundin If you are responding to me, which is patently unclear, you may have failed to read and comprehend what I wrote. Please read it again and do not just extract snippets to support your opinion...it is intended as a whole not in snippets. No not you specifically; I'm just tired of these same old worn out "Canon is Better" conversations. (Generically speaking) enjoy what you have. All cameras have their pluses and minuses.

10-03-2010, 11:26 PM	#41
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by brecklundin The Kx is nice but it's not going to come close to night action shots at high ISO as a 7D...it simply does not possess the power under the hood. Here are some discussions of the high ISO performance of the 7D: Don't quote me on this, but I think the Kx and 7D share very similar ISO marks across the board. And while I don't think the 7D would win any points in the ISO performance scale, I would go as far as saying it would most likely gain keepers thanks to its superior AF.

10-03-2010, 11:50 PM	#42
brecklundin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,674	Originally posted by JohnBee Don't quote me on this, but I think the Kx and 7D share very similar ISO marks across the board. And while I don't think the 7D would win any points in the ISO performance scale, I would go as far as saying it would most likely gain keepers thanks to its superior AF. Yeah, that is what I was trying to express...as I tried to point out, in a ham handed fashion I suppose, is the K-x is no slouch and for so many of us the any high ISO differences are not enough to differentiate the bodies....but when you combine the high ISO with the AF and other features of the 7D it's indeed a more advanced and probably a body that will offer less barriers to getting plenty of good shots as the person I was responding to asked. And that was for his kid's sporting events in low light. Thanks for helping me clean up the comment to get across what I thought I was saying...d'oh!!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2010, 04:15 AM	#43
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by Raylon I am extremely happy with the 6400 ISO on my 7D. Looks amazing. I would say the 7D at 6400 is about equal to what my K200D was at about 800. Here is a link to a 6400 ISO shot: http://gallery.photographyreview.com/data/photography//554/IMG_5113_100pc.jpg One interesting thing is that Canon typically over states the iso settings on their cameras. In reality, Iso 6400 on the 7D is measured by Dxo to be about iso 4500. I guess it helps them have less noise and a little more dynamic range. In comparison, the kx at iso 6400 is shooting at iso 5400, as measured by Dxo. Not a huge difference, but a difference none the less.

10-04-2010, 04:39 AM	#44
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	I bought a 7D and don't regret it one bit, although it's main BIG advantage over my K20D is the blinding AF performance. In addition, it gives me access to Canon's top / big glass for sports / wildlife. There are numerous lens rental places on the web, so when I need access to Canon's 400mm f/2.8, I can pick it up for not a lot of cash. My K20D still remains a true faithful body - granted it's AF is garbage beside the 7D, but I have the fisheye and 10-20mm Sigma which still produce fabulous results on the K20D.

10-04-2010, 07:51 AM	#45
uchinakuri Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 57	Originally posted by john5100 Well, I just say PLEASE. I shoot concerts in very low light and the KX has a very high percentage of keepers. I shoot with folks with D700's, 5D MKII's, and the rest. My KX easily holds it's own in noise and focusing. The Melvins While I can understand your claim about the K-x holding its own against the 7D, to say that it holds its own against a full frame D700, for example? Either the folks youre going with are really poor users of their cams, or it's just way too much exaggeration...