The K-7 is a piece of crap! (SARCASM Alert)

Todd Adamson · 11-08-2010, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by JHD

Here in Canada, the K5 is almost double the cost of a K7. As good as the K5 is, it isn't IMO twice the camera.

I think this would depend on what you shoot. If you are an indoor sports shooter, for example, or live concerts, or maybe weddings, the high ISO capabilities alone make it more than twice the camera. Personally, once the D3 came out, I stopped thinking of high ISO capability as a primary parameter when considering bodies. At that point it was good enough that I could place more weight on other features.

I'll still probably grab a K-5 in the not-too-distant future, assuming I remain happy with Pentax gear, and I suspect I will.

designinme_1976 · 11-08-2010, 09:01 PM

What lenses have you tried? How do you find the AF of the K-7?

Todd Adamson · 11-08-2010, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by designinme_1976

What lenses have you tried? How do you find the AF of the K-7?

The DA 35/2.8 Macro, the FA77, and the A series 50/1.4. The AF seems fast and accurate enough to me, but I prefer manual focus, and I honestly never put AF to the test with tracking, low-light acquisition, etc. So I may be the wrong guy to ask.

WerTicus · 11-08-2010, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by Todd Adamson

BTW, who do I get to bash? What camera was awesome until the day the K-7 was released, that was then immediately relegated to the %$^% heap? ROFL

I have bad news for you, the K20d it replaced was actually better :P

This is one of the major reasons the K-7 didn't do very well, most with a K20d decided not to downgrade.

The K-7 introduced a new body shape, but took the k20d's sensor and made compromises to get video out of it.

Ps3737 · 11-08-2010, 10:27 PM

compared to my lovely K7

yeatzee · 11-08-2010, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by WerTicus

I have bad news for you, the K20d it replaced was actually better :P

This is one of the major reasons the K-7 didn't do very well, most with a K20d decided not to downgrade.

The K-7 introduced a new body shape, but took the k20d's sensor and made compromises to get video out of it.

SLIGHTLY better at high ISO.... thats the only thing the K20d has over the K-7.

The K-7 has vastly better WB, AF, etc. etc. etc.

Considering the swap from K20d to K-7 as a downgrade really shows a lot

**Ex Finn.** · 11-09-2010, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by Transit

arggg!!! don't say that .
I'm trying to convince myself to move from K100D to K-7 as we speak

Pete

It is well worth the upgrade, just get the K7.

Tommot1965 · 11-09-2010, 04:46 AM

to the OP

Im gonna stop reading forums..that way Ill never know how crap my camera is..LMAO

0rangepeel · 11-09-2010, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Tommot1965

to the OP

Im gonna stop reading forums..that way Ill never know how crap my camera is..LMAO

Ofcourse what's being said above is all subjective! The photographers ability outweighs the tool!

Urkeldaedalus · 11-09-2010, 06:01 AM

The K-7 bashing started a long time before the K-5 came out (if a year can be considered a long time), as people were disappointed that it wasn't an IQ improvement over the K20D. In turn, K20D owners forget that many K10D owners criticized the K20D when it came out for being too expensive for merely a sensor upgrade. Just the nature of being the top Pentax camera, I think.

As for DXOMark, those guys loved the Nikon D90 for a long time, but I always liked photos from the K20D better and I seriously think the K-7 is a much better camera than the D90. So is/was the Canon 7D. Different things are valued depending on what you choose to measure.

The K-7 has some flaws, but besides its weakness in continuous autofocus and high ISO, it really is a very refined picture taking tool that excels in so many ways. Part of why I'm glad the K-5 is gaining interest is that a lot of people who were hesitant to upgrade to the K-7 for whatever reason will get to enjoy how good of a camera the K-7 was since the two cameras share so much in common.

There are also way too many K-5 threads going on right now, but I take it as a sign that Pentax is finally getting some hype for a camera people can aspire to own eventually. Pentax has needed something like that for a long time, and if anything they need more of it in the future.

MRRiley · 11-09-2010, 06:13 AM

Your friendly moderator staff has added a SARCASM Alert to yon thread title to somewhat protect the OP from overly zealous forum members.

Mike
PF Moderation Team

As for the real subject of the thread. The K-7 doesn't suck. I decided to skip it simply because it was not "better" enough from my K20D to justify the cost. The new K-5 on the other hand is significantly better in almost every area (except body style for me... I prefer the K20D body style) so despite the price it is gonna be in my arsenal by February... At which time my K20D becomes the backup camera and my venerable K10D may just get treated to an IR conversion.

Tommot1965 · 11-09-2010, 06:33 AM

just been out with my new {to me} 2.8 70-200...taking photos in a outdoor sports stadium under lights of my kids basketball...now Im wishing for higher ISO...but the the K5 still wouldn't give me the 1000/s shutter speed I was after ....made do with a few shots with flash and ISO 1600 , then wound it up to 3200....did I wish I had the K5...nah...of course I did...!!

GeneV · 11-09-2010, 07:55 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by MRRiley

Your friendly moderator staff has added a SARCASM Alert to yon thread title to somewhat protect the OP from overly zealous forum members.

Mike
PF Moderation Team

As for the real subject of the thread. The K-7 doesn't suck. I decided to skip it simply because it was not "better" enough from my K20D to justify the cost. The new K-5 on the other hand is significantly better in almost every area (except body style for me... I prefer the K20D body style) so despite the price it is gonna be in my arsenal by February... At which time my K20D becomes the backup camera and my venerable K10D may just get treated to an IR conversion.

Mike, that was an excellent idea. My concern, and, I think, the concern of others about a number of threads like this that have cropped up is not, as Todd implies, that we don't want the positive energy of the earth disrupted by a negative statement. It is a much more concrete concern about the role and effect of our forum. I'm not keen on acting either as a fanboy club or needlessly circulating negative rumors about our sponsor (or having threads laced with trollbait, for that matter).

Very little gets written about Pentax, and it is surprising how often a search engine result for something Pentax-related pulls up nothing more than forum posts here. Sometimes all the viewer of search results sees is the thread title and a few fragments. Right now, at one of the most positive times for the Pentax line, our little band of Pentax enthusiasts has quite a few threads titled as disasters, with no hint of sarcasm. Among others, titles of our recent threads have hinted Pentax was dying, new purchasers being very afraid and now that the last Pentax flagship was a piece of crap. In some of the cases, these statements are not even necessary to express the real intent of the poster. The original poster here had good intentions, but misinterpretaions tend bounce around the internet world like a bad cold and become fact. That little title change fixes it--good job in moderating!

WerTicus · 11-09-2010, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by yeatzee

SLIGHTLY better at high ISO.... thats the only thing the K20d has over the K-7.

and colour, and dynamic range.... sorry i couldn't stomach that for the things it did to better.

yeatzee · 11-09-2010, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by WerTicus

and colour, and dynamic range.... sorry i couldn't stomach that for the things it did to better.

Well, according to DxO my K200d has better dynamic range than your K20d therefore better than the K-7 yet I have no issues to speak of

Better colour? Well I agree my K200d has slightly better color from its CCD sensor, but from what I've seen from the K20d's CMOS its again not as good as my K200d. Plus, colour is rather a moot point *IMO* with the advent of PP

Maybe I should throw away my K-7 and keep my K200d since its quite a better camera according to DxO

11-08-2010, 10:27 PM	#35
Ps3737 Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 26	*My ist DL is a piece of krappe** compared to my lovely K7

11-09-2010, 06:13 AM	#41
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	Your friendly moderator staff has added a SARCASM Alert to yon thread title to somewhat protect the OP from overly zealous forum members. Mike PF Moderation Team As for the real subject of the thread. The K-7 doesn't suck. I decided to skip it simply because it was not "better" enough from my K20D to justify the cost. The new K-5 on the other hand is significantly better in almost every area (except body style for me... I prefer the K20D body style) so despite the price it is gonna be in my arsenal by February... At which time my K20D becomes the backup camera and my venerable K10D may just get treated to an IR conversion. Last edited by MRRiley; 11-09-2010 at 06:20 AM.

11-09-2010, 07:55 AM - 1 Like	#43
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by MRRiley Your friendly moderator staff has added a SARCASM Alert to yon thread title to somewhat protect the OP from overly zealous forum members. Mike PF Moderation Team As for the real subject of the thread. The K-7 doesn't suck. I decided to skip it simply because it was not "better" enough from my K20D to justify the cost. The new K-5 on the other hand is significantly better in almost every area (except body style for me... I prefer the K20D body style) so despite the price it is gonna be in my arsenal by February... At which time my K20D becomes the backup camera and my venerable K10D may just get treated to an IR conversion. Mike, that was an excellent idea. My concern, and, I think, the concern of others about a number of threads like this that have cropped up is not, as Todd implies, that we don't want the positive energy of the earth disrupted by a negative statement. It is a much more concrete concern about the role and effect of our forum. I'm not keen on acting either as a fanboy club or needlessly circulating negative rumors about our sponsor (or having threads laced with trollbait, for that matter). Very little gets written about Pentax, and it is surprising how often a search engine result for something Pentax-related pulls up nothing more than forum posts here. Sometimes all the viewer of search results sees is the thread title and a few fragments. Right now, at one of the most positive times for the Pentax line, our little band of Pentax enthusiasts has quite a few threads titled as disasters, with no hint of sarcasm. Among others, titles of our recent threads have hinted Pentax was dying, new purchasers being very afraid and now that the last Pentax flagship was a piece of crap. In some of the cases, these statements are not even necessary to express the real intent of the poster. The original poster here had good intentions, but misinterpretaions tend bounce around the internet world like a bad cold and become fact. That little title change fixes it--good job in moderating! Last edited by GeneV; 11-09-2010 at 08:10 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
OH crap! just brough another camera.	Dom	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	12-04-2009 04:20 PM
Going through my old crap....	bluebronco	General Talk	4	10-27-2009 08:00 PM
Canadian Prices up already! Holy crap!	farfisa	Pentax News and Rumors	225	05-14-2009 12:12 PM
How do we acquire so much crap?	pingflood	General Talk	31	04-16-2009 01:59 PM
critique the crap out of this gallery	Gooshin	Photo Critique	6	02-05-2008 06:03 AM

11-08-2010, 08:39 PM	#31
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722 Original Poster	Originally posted by JHD Here in Canada, the K5 is almost double the cost of a K7. As good as the K5 is, it isn't IMO twice the camera. I think this would depend on what you shoot. If you are an indoor sports shooter, for example, or live concerts, or maybe weddings, the high ISO capabilities alone make it more than twice the camera. Personally, once the D3 came out, I stopped thinking of high ISO capability as a primary parameter when considering bodies. At that point it was good enough that I could place more weight on other features. I'll still probably grab a K-5 in the not-too-distant future, assuming I remain happy with Pentax gear, and I suspect I will.

11-08-2010, 09:01 PM	#32
designinme_1976 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Dayton Ohio Posts: 132	What lenses have you tried? How do you find the AF of the K-7?

11-08-2010, 09:03 PM	#33
Todd Adamson Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Iowa Posts: 722 Original Poster	Originally posted by designinme_1976 What lenses have you tried? How do you find the AF of the K-7? The DA 35/2.8 Macro, the FA77, and the A series 50/1.4. The AF seems fast and accurate enough to me, but I prefer manual focus, and I honestly never put AF to the test with tracking, low-light acquisition, etc. So I may be the wrong guy to ask.

11-08-2010, 09:35 PM	#34
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	Originally posted by Todd Adamson BTW, who do I get to bash? What camera was awesome until the day the K-7 was released, that was then immediately relegated to the %$^% heap? ROFL I have bad news for you, the K20d it replaced was actually better :P This is one of the major reasons the K-7 didn't do very well, most with a K20d decided not to downgrade. The K-7 introduced a new body shape, but took the k20d's sensor and made compromises to get video out of it.

11-08-2010, 10:36 PM	#36
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by WerTicus I have bad news for you, the K20d it replaced was actually better :P This is one of the major reasons the K-7 didn't do very well, most with a K20d decided not to downgrade. The K-7 introduced a new body shape, but took the k20d's sensor and made compromises to get video out of it. SLIGHTLY better at high ISO.... thats the only thing the K20d has over the K-7. The K-7 has vastly better WB, AF, etc. etc. etc. Considering the swap from K20d to K-7 as a downgrade really shows a lot

11-09-2010, 03:59 AM	#37
Ex Finn. Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Southern Maryland. Espoo. Kouvola. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,975	Originally posted by Transit arggg!!! don't say that . I'm trying to convince myself to move from K100D to K-7 as we speak Pete It is well worth the upgrade, just get the K7.

11-09-2010, 04:46 AM	#38
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	to the OP Im gonna stop reading forums..that way Ill never know how crap my camera is..LMAO

11-09-2010, 05:06 AM	#39
0rangepeel Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Vancouver Photos: Gallery Posts: 111	Originally posted by Tommot1965 to the OP Im gonna stop reading forums..that way Ill never know how crap my camera is..LMAO Ofcourse what's being said above is all subjective! The photographers ability outweighs the tool!

11-09-2010, 06:01 AM	#40
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	The K-7 bashing started a long time before the K-5 came out (if a year can be considered a long time), as people were disappointed that it wasn't an IQ improvement over the K20D. In turn, K20D owners forget that many K10D owners criticized the K20D when it came out for being too expensive for merely a sensor upgrade. Just the nature of being the top Pentax camera, I think. As for DXOMark, those guys loved the Nikon D90 for a long time, but I always liked photos from the K20D better and I seriously think the K-7 is a much better camera than the D90. So is/was the Canon 7D. Different things are valued depending on what you choose to measure. The K-7 has some flaws, but besides its weakness in continuous autofocus and high ISO, it really is a very refined picture taking tool that excels in so many ways. Part of why I'm glad the K-5 is gaining interest is that a lot of people who were hesitant to upgrade to the K-7 for whatever reason will get to enjoy how good of a camera the K-7 was since the two cameras share so much in common. There are also way too many K-5 threads going on right now, but I take it as a sign that Pentax is finally getting some hype for a camera people can aspire to own eventually. Pentax has needed something like that for a long time, and if anything they need more of it in the future.

11-09-2010, 06:33 AM	#42
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	just been out with my new {to me} 2.8 70-200...taking photos in a outdoor sports stadium under lights of my kids basketball...now Im wishing for higher ISO...but the the K5 still wouldn't give me the 1000/s shutter speed I was after ....made do with a few shots with flash and ISO 1600 , then wound it up to 3200....did I wish I had the K5...nah...of course I did...!!

11-09-2010, 10:00 AM	#44
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	Originally posted by yeatzee SLIGHTLY better at high ISO.... thats the only thing the K20d has over the K-7. and colour, and dynamic range.... sorry i couldn't stomach that for the things it did to better.

11-09-2010, 10:32 AM	#45
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by WerTicus and colour, and dynamic range.... sorry i couldn't stomach that for the things it did to better. Well, according to DxO my K200d has better dynamic range than your K20d therefore better than the K-7 yet I have no issues to speak of Better colour? Well I agree my K200d has slightly better color from its CCD sensor, but from what I've seen from the K20d's CMOS its again not as good as my K200d. Plus, colour is rather a moot point IMO with the advent of PP Maybe I should throw away my K-7 and keep my K200d since its quite a better camera according to DxO