[JHD]

K-5 Dude. I recently ordered a K-7 and then refused the package, sent it back before it even got passed my door, after reading about it's inability to handle high (relatively low) ISO.

I bet you're new to photography. Have you ever heard of a thing called film??

[Winder]

K-5 Dude. I recently ordered a K-7 and then refused the package, sent it back before it even got passed my door, after reading about it's inability to handle high (relatively low) ISO. Youre k-x will give you cleaner, more grain free shots. Some people aren't bothered by the grain of the K-7, but why not admire the grain because you can instead of being O.K. with it because you have no choice? That's just me. Yes, noise, grain is a reality of photography we must deal with many times, but I like the idea of a sensor being able to control noise and produce as clean of an image as possible. Even at the lowest ISO, the kx is less noisy than the k-7. It's up to you. I figured why not get the k-5, just pay the extra 400 dollars and have a camera I feel I can be happy with for the next 5-7 years in this ridiculously evolving world of photography.

You have read about it, but never actually used one so you don't know what you are talking about.

Most reviews that you read are using JPEG for evaluation. If you shoot RAW and learn to process it you can get results equal to a D300 or 7D. I paid $768.00 for my new K-7 in June of 2010 ($100 fathers day rebate). 1/2 the price of a current K-5.
I will buy a K-5, but glass is much more important than the body. Good lenses are always a better investment than new bodies. Bodies drop in price consistently, and good glass increases in value. Buy good glass when it is brought to market..... buy bodies when they are being replaced by new models. Let the first adapter pay a premium and spend the first 6 months dealing with sensor stains and front focus issues.

[felixkh]

K-5 Dude. I recently ordered a K-7 and then refused the package, sent it back before it even got passed my door, after reading about it's inability to handle high (relatively low) ISO. Youre k-x will give you cleaner, more grain free shots. Some people aren't bothered by the grain of the K-7, but why not admire the grain because you can instead of being O.K. with it because you have no choice? That's just me. Yes, noise, grain is a reality of photography we must deal with many times, but I like the idea of a sensor being able to control noise and produce as clean of an image as possible. Even at the lowest ISO, the kx is less noisy than the k-7. It's up to you. I figured why not get the k-5, just pay the extra 400 dollars and have a camera I feel I can be happy with for the next 5-7 years in this ridiculously evolving world of photography.

Are you sure it cannot handle high ISOs? Have you read the thread that Adam posted? After I did, I tweaked the custom settings and now can take photos up to ISO 3200.

[justtakingpics]

I have the k-x and two kit lenses. I'd get the 50-135 in a second.

[Frogfish]

If you shoot RAW and learn to process it you can get results equal to a D300 or 7D.

WHAT !?! I'm sorry but that is just total nonsense. I suggest you do your research before making such a statement. It doesn't matter how good you are in PP you still can't process what isn't there (or is, in the case of excessive noise).

I will buy a K-5, but glass is much more important than the body.

This is oft stated as if learnt by rote and in most cases it is true ... but only to a certain extent. Depending on the shooting situation it doesn't matter how good your glass is if the body can't handle it. If that statement were true then body / sensor development would have stayed at the K10D, 30D, D30 level !

Good lenses are always a better investment than new bodies. Bodies drop in price consistently, and good glass increases in value.

In general that statement is true (better investment) but good glass increases in value ? Only if you are prepared to keep it for umpteen years or the line is discontinued and then replaced by either an inferior model or much more expensive one .... or you managed to buy the glass at a clearance price !

Let the first adapter pay a premium and spend the first 6 months dealing with sensor stains and front focus issues.

We are well past that now.

The K7 is a great camera, I have had one for the past 18 months and love it (but not as much as my K5 which I have had for 4 months), I used it yesterday with a 50-150 on it to take atmosphere shots at a golf event with a 17-50 on the K5 for group shots, dinner shots etc. ... and it performed superbly (I limit it's high ISO to 1,600 and 800 in general use) but it has it's limitations. There is a reason that you can't find the K7 on the DxO list of top sensors - it's because Pentax put an old out-dated sensor in it. Such a pity they didn't wait just a few months for the Samsung deal to expire as everything else about the camera is superb.

Comparing the K7 with the Kr is one thing but throwing the D300 and 7D into the mix has taken this debate into the realms of fantasy.

[Winder]

WHAT !?! I'm sorry but that is just total nonsense. I suggest you do your research before making such a statement. It doesn't matter how good you are in PP you still can't process what isn't there (or is, in the case of excessive noise).



This is oft stated as if learnt by rote and in most cases it is true ... but only to a certain extent. Depending on the shooting situation it doesn't matter how good your glass is if the body can't handle it. If that statement were true then body / sensor development would have stayed at the K10D, 30D, D30 level !



In general that statement is true (better investment) but good glass increases in value ? Only if you are prepared to keep it for umpteen years or the line is discontinued and then replaced by either an inferior model or much more expensive one .... or you managed to buy the glass at a clearance price !



We are well past that now.

The K7 is a great camera, I have had one for the past 18 months and love it (but not as much as my K5 which I have had for 4 months), I used it yesterday with a 50-150 on it to take atmosphere shots at a golf event with a 17-50 on the K5 for group shots, dinner shots etc. ... and it performed superbly (I limit it's high ISO to 1,600 and 800 in general use) but it has it's limitations. There is a reason that you can't find the K7 on the DxO list of top sensors - it's because Pentax put an old out-dated sensor in it. Such a pity they didn't wait just a few months for the Samsung deal to expire as everything else about the camera is superb.

Comparing the K7 with the Kr is one thing but throwing the D300 and 7D into the mix has taken this debate into the realms of fantasy.

It's not fantasy. I have shot two events with a Nikon guy and his D300. I run my DNG files through LR3.3 and my results with the K-7 hold their own against his D300 files. My K-7 does not handle reds as well and there are a couple of things to look for, but the prints are pretty much identical.

And good glass more than holds its own. I sold my E-3 and 35-100 f/2 after 3 years. I sold my 35-100 f/2 for more than I paid. Olympus has raised the price on their lenses so much over the past few years that I probably could have made money. No "upteen" years later. Buy good glass. It does not go down in value.

[Frogfish]

It's not fantasy. I have shot two events with a Nikon guy and his D300. I run my DNG files through LR3.3 and my results with the K-7 hold their own against his D300 files. My K-7 does not handle reds as well and there are a couple of things to look for, but the prints are pretty much identical.

Great - you shot two events with a Nikon guy and his D300 and make a blanket statement for that. And you throw in the 7D just why exactly ?

Sorry but DxO (and pretty much every other test report available) disagrees with you 100%.

[Winder]

Great - you shot two events with a Nikon guy and his D300 and make a blanket statement for that. And you throw in the 7D just why exactly ?

Sorry but DxO (and pretty much every other test report available) disagrees with you 100%.

I have been shooting a Canon 5D for 5 years. I have used the 7D on several occasions and I have been very close to buying one. Not because I like the camera, but because for the last three years I have been shooting with 3 different systems and the ability to put travel with 2 bodies and 1 set of lenses is pretty appealing. When I bought my E-3 there was nothing like the 7D in Canons line up.... or a K-7.

I'm not just basing my statement off of JUST 2 events I shot. I am using those two events as an example because we we both shooting the same thing at the same time and place. I think that real world jobs are a better way to judge than looking at 100% crops of shadow noise. I don't make a living selling 100% crops of shadow areas, so I don't care what they look like.

Up to 3200 I will be happy to shoot and match prints with a D300 or 7D shooter. I don't push my K-7 past 3200 and my 5D only goes to 3200 so past that I don't know. 3200 the chroma noise is getting bad and some prints will go through Topaz, but the printed results will match the competition.

[garyk]

What a crock. I have the K-20, K-x, K-7, K-5. I used the K-7 a few tmes then threw that sorry piece in my bag and used the K-x until the K-5 came out.
The K-7 is the worst body you could buy. I don't care what anyone says. It is trash that ripped off many a person. If you use a camera you will want to see some results at different levels. The K-7 only has one level. Low ISO. As far as PP goes. Frogfish nailed that one. If you crop forget it. No detail in even moderate ISO's. The E-3 is a dog also.

If Adam said that about the K-7 then he is trying to sell cameras. He knows it is a dog that won't hunt. But really he was trying to help people who bought the camera get some use out of it.
If the K-7 is mentioned along side a 7D or D300 IT IS FOLLOWED BY A CHUCKLE. Which turns into a laugh by all.

[cbaytan]

I have a K-7 and K200D, if I were you I would get a K200D and any lens I wish.

[Designosophy]

The K-7 isn't a dog. You can take great photos with it, and if you search on this forum, you can find a number of examples of high-ISO photography with the K-7 that is surprisingly good.

I upgraded from a K-x to a K-7 and I don't regret it. The K-x let me be sloppy with exposure — I could underexpose and push the exposure in pp without too much pain. But the K-7 forces me to be a bit more deliberate and thoughtful. I think I'm taking better photos as a result. The K-7 has great color and contrast, and if you expose properly, you can get good photos through ISO 3200.

If I were a pro, I would go with the good lens and K-7. It is truly amazing the improvement that a great lens can make in contrast, color, smoothness, etc., even at the same ISO and aperture as a lesser lens. I used an M 50/1.4, a M 135/3.5 and a Tamron 28-200/4-5.6. The shots with the primes were head and shoulders above the shots with the (admittedly cheap) zoom. Here's the set, if you're interested. Again, I know that my photos aren't pro quality; I'm still a relative newbie.

That said, as an amateur who does a lot of shooting indoors, I am probably going to sell my K-7 (and some other items) and buy a K-5. I really enjoy indoor, low-ambient light photography, and the K-5 will be the better body for that.

Just out of curiosity, why get a zoom for portrait shooting? The subjects aren't going to be moving. I suppose you could recompose at different crops quickly, but a good prime will best a good zoom in final quality, even if you have to do the foot zoom.

[crossover37]

Design - ya i actually bought a K7, it's on its way in the mail. After researching primes, I am thinking about getting one. The 50-135mm f2.8 gives me a lot of flexibility because of zoom but it's not as fast. I would rather have better image quality though. I was considering the Sigma 85mm f1.4 but it's pricey. I want something sharp wide open.

[Frogfish]

Just out of curiosity, why get a zoom for portrait shooting? The subjects aren't going to be moving. I suppose you could recompose at different crops quickly, but a good prime will best a good zoom in final quality, even if you have to do the foot zoom.

There is a superb Pro portrait photographer on here (Benji @ Paris) and he stated (I'm 99% certain) the lense he uses by far the most is the ........ Pentax DA*16-50. Do a search for him and then check out his portfolios - wow !

[outsider]

Are you sure it cannot handle high ISOs? Have you read the thread that Adam posted? After I did, I tweaked the custom settings and now can take photos up to ISO 3200.

I don't know what exactly the k-7 can do. I've read some things here and there. I do know that it does not handle high iso readily, out of the box, without jerryrigging, tweaking, experimenting here and there. I'm glad Adam found just the right settings that gives the K-7 pictures with reasonably controlled noise at higher iso, but my opinion is that people shouldn't have to spend so much time, effort doing this or slowly accepting the fact that a little noise isn't all the bad after all, when in fact, the k-7 sensor was simply not what it should have been in terms of sensor technology when it was released. Just my opinion. I know excatly where I would have been, had I gone with the k-7 and not the k-5. An unhappy photographer, finding ways to accept and deal with noise and the fact that I may have to wait several years before affording an upgrade. Not f*cking fun. Look, I know you all may be satisfied with the k-7, but as someone who enjoys the modern look of clean photos, and the occassional, purposeful grainy photo, the K-5 suits me as the better upgrade. No, i'm not new to photography. Grain is an unavoidable biproduct of film just like chromatic abherration, etc. is to digital. You accept certain necessary limitations of the equipment you're using. I'm willing to accept the limitations of the k-5 because the manufacturers got the machine right for where digital technology is. They took their time, and got it right. If I were this young man, I would get the k-5 and buy a good, relatively inexpensive lens, which there are MANY of for the pentax body, in auto and manual. I wouldn't make the quick decision of getting an expensive pentax lens just for the name. Those da lenses have their issues and limitations.

[outsider]

I bet you're new to photography. Have you ever heard of a thing called film??

Your reply is a bit too generalized to be taken seriously. If you are serious, yes, I have heard of film and have used quite a bit of it in the 16 years i've been taking pictures. I enjoy film in older pictures I look at of family and friends, school days as I reminisce of the past. I enjoy low grain photos in digital photography. I enjoy an occassional grainy look in digital. It's a preference I need not waste my time explaining. Photgraphy is a highly varied, unique, customizable science, much more so than 10 years ago, with a plethora of tastes.