Need your help

elandel · 03-28-2011, 12:08 PM

Hello folks,

I have a very big problem for me. Have to buy a new Dsrl and Pentax is my choice (already have an EPL-1 but now need more).
I was sure that I would buy a Kx and not a Kr because of possible F/B focus problems, but now I'm not so sure.

I did not consider the K7 only that I'm thinking it may be the best choice - K5 too expensive for me.

I mainly shoot everything but when I'm on holiday I love making fotos in Churc and there is often little light and no possible using flash.

In your experience is K7 a good choice for my needs?

Thanks

**Lowell Goudge** · 03-28-2011, 12:21 PM

any camera is, first and foremost only as good as the lenses you put on them, and the quality of any image taken is dependant abouot 95% on the photographer, and 5% on equipment.

I can't personally make any claim aout the K-x and K-r, but I do own a K7 and have found it to be a good camera, BUT the K-x, K-r and K5 are reported to be far superior in High ISO, if that is important to you, it is not a complaint against the K7 it is just how quickly the sensor technology can change.

elandel · 03-28-2011, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

any camera is, first and foremost only as good as the lenses you put on them, and the quality of any image taken is dependant abouot 95% on the photographer, and 5% on equipment.

I can't personally make any claim aout the K-x and K-r, but I do own a K7 and have found it to be a good camera, BUT the K-x, K-r and K5 are reported to be far superior in High ISO, if that is important to you, it is not a complaint against the K7 it is just how quickly the sensor technology can change.

Thank you for your reply.

Well what I should like to know is how are your shots at high iso settings, I mean did you take pictures in the conditions I wrote: inside Churches or museams, because I think that these are really the only real situations where high isos are needed. Indoor I can use flash so cthat would be no problem.
I thinh that 3200 iso should be fne for me. Did you take pictures at that iso and how are they?

**Dma110** · 03-28-2011, 12:30 PM

I have a K-x and find low light shooting no problem. I've shot
at 3300 iso and have excellent results. I've shot at night at
6400 and gotten good pics also

**Lowell Goudge** · 03-28-2011, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by elandel

Thank you for your reply.

Well what I should like to know is how are your shots at high iso settings, I mean did you take pictures in the conditions I wrote: inside Churches or museams, because I think that these are really the only real situations where high isos are needed. Indoor I can use flash so cthat would be no problem.
I thinh that 3200 iso should be fne for me. Did you take pictures at that iso and how are they?

I have used not only my K7 but also the K10 and my *istD for exactly those locations. I find I am always at 1600-3200 ISO indoors when travelling. To be honest, the K7 is better by far than the K10 at 1600 ISO, the *istD was very good at high ISO but limited to 6MP sensor so some might argue lacking in resolution, but it is still a good performer.

I find shake reduction helps tremendously, many shots are done at less than 1/30

I use mainly a sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 and also a tamron 28-75 F2.8 for travel shots.

elandel · 03-28-2011, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

I have used not only my K7 but also the K10 and my *istD for exactly those locations. I find I am always at 1600-3200 ISO indoors when travelling. To be honest, the K7 is better by far than the K10 at 1600 ISO, the *istD was very good at high ISO but limited to 6MP sensor so some might argue lacking in resolution, but it is still a good performer.

I find shake reduction helps tremendously, many shots are done at less than 1/30

I use mainly a sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 and also a tamron 28-75 F2.8 for travel shots.

Have you tried 6400? I think good lens are very, very usefull.

KxBlaze · 03-28-2011, 01:12 PM

For lowlight church photos the Kx will fair better than the K7 due to the high ISO performance of both but in most all other aspects the K7 is a better camera. So besides lowlight photography you will be better off with a K7. My opinion, get both so that way you can use the Kx when you know it will be dark and the K7 for everything else.

JeffJS · 03-28-2011, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by elandel

Hello folks,

I have a very big problem for me. Have to buy a new Dsrl and Pentax is my choice (already have an EPL-1 but now need more).
I was sure that I would buy a Kx and not a Kr because of possible F/B focus problems, but now I'm not so sure.

I did not consider the K7 only that I'm thinking it may be the best choice - K5 too expensive for me.

I mainly shoot everything but when I'm on holiday I love making fotos in Churc and there is often little light and no possible using flash.

In your experience is K7 a good choice for my needs?

Thanks

Consider that if you can use a Tripod, you can negate any problems with High ISO by staying at ISO 100 and using a longer exposure. Of course, if you want photos of action in such a setting (people moving about), you'll want something more capable of handling such a situation. Not that the K7 isn't but if you're going flash-less you might want something a little more capable in that situation.

These are a few from My K7.. No churches but you may get an idea of what it will do (from my perspective).

Pentax K7 - a set on Flickr

Some ISO 6400 stuff. .

http://www.rolleiman.com/Photos/HelpandStuff/ISO6400/

Keep in mind here, you can use ANY ISO on the K7 if there is enough light. High ISO however should be used sparingly.

HEEGZ · 03-28-2011, 05:04 PM

I love my K7 but if you are tight on money you might consider getting a K-x which has better ISO performance and spend money on a fast lens that will work well for what you want to do. For what I've spent on my K7 and a handful of lenses I could have bought a K-x with a 31mm limited...

Wheatfield · 03-28-2011, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by HEEGZ

I love my K7 but if you are tight on money you might consider getting a K-x which has better ISO performance and spend money on a fast lens that will work well for what you want to do. For what I've spent on my K7 and a handful of lenses I could have bought a K-x with a 31mm limited...

+1. If high ISO on the cheap was my first criteria, I'd definitely have a Kx. If the K5 hadn't come along when it did, I'd have bought a Kx before my next low light event.
Lenses are so very important with low light that this is where you should be putting your money, and this type of photography is one where Pentax lenses excel.
Pentax still has more flare proof lenses than most of the others. I've always found that interiors invite flare, so this means a lot to me.
My Canon shooting friend comments often that he never sees flare in my pictures, even when I am shooting in conditions that make his lenses flare quite badly.
Granted, he's using mostly L zooms and I use mostly primes, I'm just sayin', is all.

HEEGZ · 03-28-2011, 10:45 PM

I've been thinking about my earlier advice and even that setup might be a bit too expensive. For about half the price of a K-x with 31mm you can get the K-r with the 35mm prime.

Pentax K-r Camera Kit W/35mm Lens (Black) 14678 B&H Photo Video

14678 Pentax K-r Digital SLR Camera with SMCP-DA 35mm f/2.4 AL Lens, Black

Amazon.com: Pentax K-r Digital SLR Camera with SMCP-DA 35mm f/2.4 AL Lens, Black: Camera & Photo

I don't have the K-r but I do have the 35mm and it is an excellent lens, quite noticeably better than the 18-55mm kit zoom. Anyways, just thought I would throw this idea out there as well.

**Lowell Goudge** · 03-29-2011, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by elandel

Have you tried 6400? I think good lens are very, very usefull.

actually yes,

Tried some night shots in Budapest last year with 6400.

while the results are a little noisy, i did not think they were as bad as some people suggest.

After all, what do you want to achieve when it is that dark.

also and even considering SR, my shots were at 1/4 second for 3200 and 1/8 second for 6400. DOubling the shutter speed made for a useable vs blurry shot. Both done using SR and my tamron 28-75F2.8 wide open at 75mm.

what it really comes down to, and I have maintained this since the onset of high ISO with the *istD, is if the difference is a useable shot vs no shot, I could care less about noise. I don't think I will be back to Budapest any time soon, so the shot I got, greatly improved due to bumping the ISO was worth it.

elandel · 03-29-2011, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

actually yes,

Tried some night shots in Budapest last year with 6400.

while the results are a little noisy, i did not think they were as bad as some people suggest.

After all, what do you want to achieve when it is that dark.

also and even considering SR, my shots were at 1/4 second for 3200 and 1/8 second for 6400. DOubling the shutter speed made for a useable vs blurry shot. Both done using SR and my tamron 28-75F2.8 wide open at 75mm.

what it really comes down to, and I have maintained this since the onset of high ISO with the *istD, is if the difference is a useable shot vs no shot, I could care less about noise. I don't think I will be back to Budapest any time soon, so the shot I got, greatly improved due to bumping the ISO was worth it.

Totally agree

hcc · 03-29-2011, 02:58 PM

In response to the original thread: if you are on a budget, consider the K-x or the K-7.

The K-x is smaller in size. Is this important for you ? You can only answer the question yourself.

The K-7 has WR. Again is this important ?

I have a K-7 and I shoot up to ISO3200. I do not shoot above ISO3200, but I do shoot in low light conditions: dusk, dawn, sunset, sunrise and indoor. Be real... no one want to shoot at ISO in purpose unless you want some grainy effect.

So let us talk about low liht conditions. In low light, I simply use a fast lens: i.e., a lens with large aperture and low f. I couple my K-7 with a Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f1.4 with great success. There are other great fast lenses (f1.8 down to f1,.2) with Pentax mount. The fast lens gives you great shots at lower ISO than other lenses. For example, with my Voigtlander 58mm f1.4, I never need to shoot above ISO800 at dusk or dawn

Hope that the comment will help.

simico · 03-30-2011, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Tried some night shots in Budapest last year with 6400.
...
also and even considering SR, my shots were at 1/4 second for 3200 and 1/8 second for 6400. DOubling the shutter speed made for a useable vs blurry shot.
...
I don't think I will be back to Budapest any time soon, so the shot I got, greatly improved due to bumping the ISO was worth it.

Just tell me what you photographed and I'll re-take the shot using ISO80 and tripod for ya

I agree that a noisy (or generally speaking, a technically suboptimal) shot is still 1000 times better than no shot at all or a blurry mess where you can't figure out what you're supposed to see.

03-28-2011, 12:08 PM	#1
elandel Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 42	Need your help Hello folks, I have a very big problem for me. Have to buy a new Dsrl and Pentax is my choice (already have an EPL-1 but now need more). I was sure that I would buy a Kx and not a Kr because of possible F/B focus problems, but now I'm not so sure. I did not consider the K7 only that I'm thinking it may be the best choice - K5 too expensive for me. I mainly shoot everything but when I'm on holiday I love making fotos in Churc and there is often little light and no possible using flash. In your experience is K7 a good choice for my needs? Thanks

03-29-2011, 10:01 AM	#12
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Originally posted by elandel Have you tried 6400? I think good lens are very, very usefull. actually yes, Tried some night shots in Budapest last year with 6400. while the results are a little noisy, i did not think they were as bad as some people suggest. After all, what do you want to achieve when it is that dark. also and even considering SR, my shots were at 1/4 second for 3200 and 1/8 second for 6400. DOubling the shutter speed made for a useable vs blurry shot. Both done using SR and my tamron 28-75F2.8 wide open at 75mm. what it really comes down to, and I have maintained this since the onset of high ISO with the istD, is if the difference is a useable shot vs no shot, I could care less about noise. I don't think I will be back to Budapest any time soon, so the shot I got, greatly improved due to bumping the ISO was worth it. Last edited by Lowell Goudge; 03-29-2011 at 10:07 AM.*

03-29-2011, 02:58 PM	#14
hcc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,001	In response to the original thread: if you are on a budget, consider the K-x or the K-7. The K-x is smaller in size. Is this important for you ? You can only answer the question yourself. The K-7 has WR. Again is this important ? I have a K-7 and I shoot up to ISO3200. I do not shoot above ISO3200, but I do shoot in low light conditions: dusk, dawn, sunset, sunrise and indoor. Be real... no one want to shoot at ISO in purpose unless you want some grainy effect. So let us talk about low liht conditions. In low light, I simply use a fast lens: i.e., a lens with large aperture and low f. I couple my K-7 with a Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f1.4 with great success. There are other great fast lenses (f1.8 down to f1,.2) with Pentax mount. The fast lens gives you great shots at lower ISO than other lenses. For example, with my Voigtlander 58mm f1.4, I never need to shoot above ISO800 at dusk or dawn Hope that the comment will help. Last edited by hcc; 03-29-2011 at 05:56 PM.

03-28-2011, 12:21 PM	#2
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	any camera is, first and foremost only as good as the lenses you put on them, and the quality of any image taken is dependant abouot 95% on the photographer, and 5% on equipment. I can't personally make any claim aout the K-x and K-r, but I do own a K7 and have found it to be a good camera, BUT the K-x, K-r and K5 are reported to be far superior in High ISO, if that is important to you, it is not a complaint against the K7 it is just how quickly the sensor technology can change.

03-28-2011, 12:26 PM	#3
elandel Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 42 Original Poster	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge any camera is, first and foremost only as good as the lenses you put on them, and the quality of any image taken is dependant abouot 95% on the photographer, and 5% on equipment. I can't personally make any claim aout the K-x and K-r, but I do own a K7 and have found it to be a good camera, BUT the K-x, K-r and K5 are reported to be far superior in High ISO, if that is important to you, it is not a complaint against the K7 it is just how quickly the sensor technology can change. Thank you for your reply. Well what I should like to know is how are your shots at high iso settings, I mean did you take pictures in the conditions I wrote: inside Churches or museams, because I think that these are really the only real situations where high isos are needed. Indoor I can use flash so cthat would be no problem. I thinh that 3200 iso should be fne for me. Did you take pictures at that iso and how are they?

03-28-2011, 12:30 PM	#4
Dma110 Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Gilbert Arizona Posts: 559	I have a K-x and find low light shooting no problem. I've shot at 3300 iso and have excellent results. I've shot at night at 6400 and gotten good pics also

03-28-2011, 12:41 PM	#5
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Originally posted by elandel Thank you for your reply. Well what I should like to know is how are your shots at high iso settings, I mean did you take pictures in the conditions I wrote: inside Churches or museams, because I think that these are really the only real situations where high isos are needed. Indoor I can use flash so cthat would be no problem. I thinh that 3200 iso should be fne for me. Did you take pictures at that iso and how are they? I have used not only my K7 but also the K10 and my istD for exactly those locations. I find I am always at 1600-3200 ISO indoors when travelling. To be honest, the K7 is better by far than the K10 at 1600 ISO, the istD was very good at high ISO but limited to 6MP sensor so some might argue lacking in resolution, but it is still a good performer. I find shake reduction helps tremendously, many shots are done at less than 1/30 I use mainly a sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 and also a tamron 28-75 F2.8 for travel shots.

03-28-2011, 12:48 PM	#6
elandel Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 42 Original Poster	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge I have used not only my K7 but also the K10 and my istD for exactly those locations. I find I am always at 1600-3200 ISO indoors when travelling. To be honest, the K7 is better by far than the K10 at 1600 ISO, the istD was very good at high ISO but limited to 6MP sensor so some might argue lacking in resolution, but it is still a good performer. I find shake reduction helps tremendously, many shots are done at less than 1/30 I use mainly a sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 and also a tamron 28-75 F2.8 for travel shots. Have you tried 6400? I think good lens are very, very usefull.

03-28-2011, 01:12 PM	#7
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	For lowlight church photos the Kx will fair better than the K7 due to the high ISO performance of both but in most all other aspects the K7 is a better camera. So besides lowlight photography you will be better off with a K7. My opinion, get both so that way you can use the Kx when you know it will be dark and the K7 for everything else.

03-28-2011, 04:44 PM	#8
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by elandel Hello folks, I have a very big problem for me. Have to buy a new Dsrl and Pentax is my choice (already have an EPL-1 but now need more). I was sure that I would buy a Kx and not a Kr because of possible F/B focus problems, but now I'm not so sure. I did not consider the K7 only that I'm thinking it may be the best choice - K5 too expensive for me. I mainly shoot everything but when I'm on holiday I love making fotos in Churc and there is often little light and no possible using flash. In your experience is K7 a good choice for my needs? Thanks Consider that if you can use a Tripod, you can negate any problems with High ISO by staying at ISO 100 and using a longer exposure. Of course, if you want photos of action in such a setting (people moving about), you'll want something more capable of handling such a situation. Not that the K7 isn't but if you're going flash-less you might want something a little more capable in that situation. These are a few from My K7.. No churches but you may get an idea of what it will do (from my perspective). Pentax K7 - a set on Flickr Some ISO 6400 stuff. . http://www.rolleiman.com/Photos/HelpandStuff/ISO6400/ Keep in mind here, you can use ANY ISO on the K7 if there is enough light. High ISO however should be used sparingly.

03-28-2011, 05:04 PM	#9
HEEGZ Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Missouri Photos: Albums Posts: 258	I love my K7 but if you are tight on money you might consider getting a K-x which has better ISO performance and spend money on a fast lens that will work well for what you want to do. For what I've spent on my K7 and a handful of lenses I could have bought a K-x with a 31mm limited...

03-28-2011, 06:59 PM	#10
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,976	Originally posted by HEEGZ I love my K7 but if you are tight on money you might consider getting a K-x which has better ISO performance and spend money on a fast lens that will work well for what you want to do. For what I've spent on my K7 and a handful of lenses I could have bought a K-x with a 31mm limited... +1. If high ISO on the cheap was my first criteria, I'd definitely have a Kx. If the K5 hadn't come along when it did, I'd have bought a Kx before my next low light event. Lenses are so very important with low light that this is where you should be putting your money, and this type of photography is one where Pentax lenses excel. Pentax still has more flare proof lenses than most of the others. I've always found that interiors invite flare, so this means a lot to me. My Canon shooting friend comments often that he never sees flare in my pictures, even when I am shooting in conditions that make his lenses flare quite badly. Granted, he's using mostly L zooms and I use mostly primes, I'm just sayin', is all.

03-28-2011, 10:45 PM	#11
HEEGZ Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Missouri Photos: Albums Posts: 258	I've been thinking about my earlier advice and even that setup might be a bit too expensive. For about half the price of a K-x with 31mm you can get the K-r with the 35mm prime. Pentax K-r Camera Kit W/35mm Lens (Black) 14678 B&H Photo Video 14678 Pentax K-r Digital SLR Camera with SMCP-DA 35mm f/2.4 AL Lens, Black Amazon.com: Pentax K-r Digital SLR Camera with SMCP-DA 35mm f/2.4 AL Lens, Black: Camera & Photo I don't have the K-r but I do have the 35mm and it is an excellent lens, quite noticeably better than the 18-55mm kit zoom. Anyways, just thought I would throw this idea out there as well.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-29-2011, 10:27 AM	#13
elandel Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 42 Original Poster	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge actually yes, Tried some night shots in Budapest last year with 6400. while the results are a little noisy, i did not think they were as bad as some people suggest. After all, what do you want to achieve when it is that dark. also and even considering SR, my shots were at 1/4 second for 3200 and 1/8 second for 6400. DOubling the shutter speed made for a useable vs blurry shot. Both done using SR and my tamron 28-75F2.8 wide open at 75mm. what it really comes down to, and I have maintained this since the onset of high ISO with the *istD, is if the difference is a useable shot vs no shot, I could care less about noise. I don't think I will be back to Budapest any time soon, so the shot I got, greatly improved due to bumping the ISO was worth it. Totally agree

03-30-2011, 01:22 AM	#15
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Tried some night shots in Budapest last year with 6400. ... also and even considering SR, my shots were at 1/4 second for 3200 and 1/8 second for 6400. DOubling the shutter speed made for a useable vs blurry shot. ... I don't think I will be back to Budapest any time soon, so the shot I got, greatly improved due to bumping the ISO was worth it. Just tell me what you photographed and I'll re-take the shot using ISO80 and tripod for ya I agree that a noisy (or generally speaking, a technically suboptimal) shot is still 1000 times better than no shot at all or a blurry mess where you can't figure out what you're supposed to see.