[Rondec]

Pentax actually gives adobe the specifications on their RAW files to help develop them in adobe's RAW software. On the other hand, Nikon doesn't and so there are multiple different color profiles to try to satisfy the Nikon faithful. Nikon really wants the people that buy their camera to also buy their own proprietary software to develop their RAW files.

To your question: Pentax has a specific niche that they hit beautifully with the K7. It is a small, weather sealed camera with great ergonomics. Image quality will probably be awash, but I could shoot/carry the K7 for hours without it bothering me. The 50D would be a different story.

[Freak]

Pentax actually gives adobe the specifications on their RAW files to help develop them in adobe's RAW software. On the other hand, Nikon doesn't and so there are multiple different color profiles to try to satisfy the Nikon faithful. Nikon really wants the people that buy their camera to also buy their own proprietary software to develop their RAW files..

Hmm not sure what you mean the point of that post shows the ACR does NOT have Pentax's profiles and that Adobe does have Nikons.. I for one would love it to be available as is the Nikon ones, as it would be nothing but useful.

[alexeyga]

I'd like to see the rest of that D90 image.

Sorry, this one is not work safe...

Also if you want full access to all the appropriate Pentax custom image colour profiles in your RAW processing, you can use the supplied Pentax DCU software. Otherwise, it is no big deal IMHO - until you mentioned it, I never even thought to look at that feature in LR.

I have yet to see a piece of software supplied with the camera that isn't total rubbish... Even the Nikon's NX2 that you have to pay for an unhealthy amount... It's probably the raw converter that gets the most out of Nikon RAW files... makes pixel-peepers orgasmic... but it also has about the worst interface i've seen yet... for me it's just unworkable... i don't have that kind of time to kill on every single image, nor I have the patience... And neither I'm changing ACR for anything else just because Pentax can't work it out with Adobe... or Adobe with Pentax... doesn't really mater...

B.t.w.... while i owned a Pentax camera, i never really paid attention to it either.... but after getting used to being able to choose profiles in PP with Canon and Nikon files... you do notice it, trust me! With the camera in your hand, the only things left to worry about are the "proper" exposure, DOF and ISO... everything else is a matter of a click in the RAW-converter... These color profiles are actually just curves pre-sets.... nothing that can't be fixed or adjusted in Photoshop, but again... personally, i don't have that kind of time or patience....

haha if the 60D had the body of the 50D i’d have jumped on that, but that isn’t the case.
admittedly, they are outdated in some respects... but they’re also in my price range

I'd get the 60D for the newer sensor alone.... who cares that it's plastic, it's the output that counts!!! That is if I was after Canon...

[Rondec]

Hmm not sure what you mean the point of that post shows the ACR does NOT have Pentax's profiles and that Adobe does have Nikons.. I for one would love it to be available as is the Nikon ones, as it would be nothing but useful.

Take a look at this thread: Help me understand Picture Control and NEF files.: Nikon D90 - D40 / D5000 Forum: Digital Photography Review, I think it explains things a little better than I can. Basically, Adobe reverse engineers things to try to emulate Nikon's proprietary software. Unfortunately, it isn't the same and suffers as a result.

This reverse engineering isn't necessary with Pentax because they have the necessary support from Pentax to develop the RAW software. Unfortunately, Adobe also doesn't feel it necessary to make a lot of templates for RAW development for Pentax, probably because it is a smaller company than Nikon/Canon.

[Freak]

This reverse engineering isn't necessary with Pentax because they have the necessary support from Pentax to develop the RAW software. Unfortunately, Adobe also doesn't feel it necessary to make a lot of templates for RAW development for Pentax, probably because it is a smaller company than Nikon/Canon.

Thanks for the link! but in real terms it still means it's us the Pentax users who are still missing out and Pentax should be fixing it with Adobe, just like Lens profiles and tethering.

These are small issues, which is why i think they should be fixed. It wouldn't cost much time/resources to get this done, but yet here we are. I do wonder what it takes to get these profiles from Pentax, and if users could hack their way around it, I'd be willing to try....

Cheers,

[GoneToTheDogs]

It's interesting how my K10d has an overall sensor score higher than the K7....

-Matt

[jimmydude]

I'd get the 60D for the newer sensor alone.... who cares that it's plastic, it's the output that counts!!! That is if I was after Canon...

well i live in a wet and humid city so i think it would be hard to get good output if your camera malfunctions in bad weather, no?

[Rondec]

It's interesting how my K10d has an overall sensor score higher than the K7....

-Matt

It does, although unfortunately the K10 tends to suffer from banding and very high noise levels over iso 800. At low iso (100, 200) it is amazing. The K7 to me is useable up to iso 1600, when I shot with the K10, I could only go to iso 800.

[alexeyga]

well i live in a wet and humid city so i think it would be hard to get good output if your camera malfunctions in bad weather, no?

You've spent too much time on Pentax-Forums... now you're infected with a very serious, anal WR bug... ''

Seriously, i have never seen so much WR anxiety as people are showing on PF... it's ridiculous... People should spend more time actually using their gear than keeping dust and moist away from it on forums...

[Rondec]

Well, as someone who had a camera die after a freak rain storm, I can understand the focus on weather sealing. On film I didn't worry about the weather as much, but then again there were fewer electronics. As someone who spends a fair time out doors, I would rather pay a little extra for weather sealing..

I do agree that some of the focus on degree of weather sealing between, say the 7D and the K7 is a little silly

[kittykat46]

Well.....the interesting experience I have when I go on outdoor trips with my local photography club.

When it rains (as it often does)....
most of the Canons and Nikons quickly go back into their water-resistant camera bags.
some continue with after-market wet gear (lens sleeves, body covers, stuff like that)
the only people really still with me have High-End Canons and Nikons costing easily several times my Pentax gear....

Honestly, I find it difficult to get technically good shots in the rain, still learning, but there's a special misty atmosphere that you can only really capture if you are right out there with a WR camera and lens.

[GoneToTheDogs]

It does, although unfortunately the K10 tends to suffer from banding and very high noise levels over iso 800. At low iso (100, 200) it is amazing. The K7 to me is useable up to iso 1600, when I shot with the K10, I could only go to iso 800.

I agree. My wife and I were with friends at a Phillies home game vs. the Mets a couple of weeks ago. Even under the stadium lights the minimum I could shoot was 800. This was compounded by hit and miss autofocus; I resorted to switching to manual focus but still ended up with a lot of throwaways. Methinks the Pentax 18-250 lens I was using focuses a little past infinity, or maybe a back focusing issue, or my eyes' focusing issue. Probably it's my eyes!

I like the K10 for what it does best- low ISO, high light shots. However, I find myself increasingly attending low light events (my son plays in an orchestra, and other similar events). I have been waiting awhile through the past two bodies hoping for an increased performance in both ISO/noise and focus, but from the discussions I have read in this and other boards the K20 and K7 have made just little improvements. I'll be interested in the feedback I read about the K5 when "real" people (us, the end-users) purchase and use the body in the real world. By that time, I'll be getting ready to pull the trigger on another body with better low light performance. Be it the K5 or something else, I'll see. I'm not wedded to any system in particular. I have an old Nikon FE film body with four lenses, and it appears the D7000 is compatible with those AI lenses. I have also shot Canon in the past but I am partial to Pentax; it consistently offers the most value for the investment.

-Matt

[Flowrider]

K7! I personally do like the 50d but for me the game would be clear!

greetings, flo

[brecklundin]

before you commit consider that Pentax lenses no longer represent the value they did even just a year ago. And the only higher end lense they have released in that time is the DFA 100/2.8 WR macro. Everything else is cheaper mid-to-low end glass. Not to say those lenses still won't give excellent results but know they are not built to last 40yrs as Pentax glass everyone remembers when the thing of Pentax again.

As for their "L" analog DA* glass it is not a lot cheaper than the "L" versions (new prices):

DA* 16-50/2.8 SDM WR ~$1100 vs. EF 16-35/2.8L non-IS ~$1500
DA* 55/1.4 SDM WR ~$650 vs. EF 50/1.2L non-IS ~$1500
DA* 50-135/2.8 SDM WR ~$900 vs. EF 24-105/4L IS ~$1100
DA* 60-250/4 SDM WR ~$1300 vs. EF 70-200/4L IS $1200 (f2.8L IS ~$1800)

While the Canon lenses are w/o a doubt more expensive, few of those lenses have the worry of SDM failure. Still Canon has plenty of defective lenses like any company. But well, Canon somehow feel like much less of a risk when we are talking a grand or more a lense.

Anyway I simply wanted to show that while Canon lenses are indeed more expensive, it is not that much more expensive....so you buy two lenses a year vs. three or one vs. two...and I would add that the EF 70-200/4 (IS or non-IS) is one of the best zooms out there today...and the non-IS can be had for around $600-$650. A true bargain lense and an "L" to boot...but one lense is not enough to make a switch...usually.

When the DA* lenses are actually working they are super though pretty sluggish AF wise when compared to USM. But since the price increases really the difference is not near where it was 18-months ago.

BTW, I still think the Pentax glass is better, it's the AF guts which, well, are what they are...something which does not instill confidence when you are not a Black AMEX card holder...

[Rondec]

before you commit consider that Pentax lenses no longer represent the value they did even just a year ago. And the only higher end lense they have released in that time is the DFA 100/2.8 WR macro. Everything else is cheaper mid-to-low end glass. Not to say those lenses still won't give excellent results but know they are not built to last 40yrs as Pentax glass everyone remembers when the thing of Pentax again.

As for their "L" analog DA* glass it is not a lot cheaper than the "L" versions (new prices):

DA* 16-50/2.8 SDM WR ~$1100 vs. EF 16-35/2.8L non-IS ~$1500
DA* 55/1.4 SDM WR ~$650 vs. EF 50/1.2L non-IS ~$1500
DA* 50-135/2.8 SDM WR ~$900 vs. EF 24-105/4L IS ~$1100
DA* 60-250/4 SDM WR ~$1300 vs. EF 70-200/4L IS $1200 (f2.8L IS ~$1800)

While the Canon lenses are w/o a doubt more expensive, few of those lenses have the worry of SDM failure. Still Canon has plenty of defective lenses like any company. But well, Canon somehow feel like much less of a risk when we are talking a grand or more a lense.

Anyway I simply wanted to show that while Canon lenses are indeed more expensive, it is not that much more expensive....so you buy two lenses a year vs. three or one vs. two...and I would add that the EF 70-200/4 (IS or non-IS) is one of the best zooms out there today...and the non-IS can be had for around $600-$650. A true bargain lense and an "L" to boot...but one lense is not enough to make a switch...usually.

When the DA* lenses are actually working they are super though pretty sluggish AF wise when compared to USM. But since the price increases really the difference is not near where it was 18-months ago.

BTW, I still think the Pentax glass is better, it's the AF guts which, well, are what they are...something which does not instill confidence when you are not a Black AMEX card holder...

I am afraid your prices are off a little. The DA 16-50 currently sells for 750 dollars on Amazon and the 50-135 for 827 and the 60-250 1174. It is easy to get thrown by the MAP that pops up when you look at these lenses, but when you add them to the cart, they are quite a bit cheaper.

It is interesting that you picked zooms for your comparison, because that is where I think Pentax stands up pretty well. Where they don't have great prices is in cheap primes. Other than the new DA 35, they really don't have any cheap primes.

I also think that your post makes the point pretty clearly that Canon is steering people to full frame. The focal length ranges in all (except the 16-35) are optimized for full frame. 24-105 is just an odd focal range for APS-C. Basically the full frame equivalent of the 17-70 f4 lenses that run about 475 right now. If you feel like down the road you want to move to full frame, that is probably a good thing, but if you think you will be satisfied with a crop framed camera (even a high end one like the 7D or K5) you may end up frustrated.