[eddie1960]

Glad to see you've kept the K7 for now. You will likely learn a lot off mastering it that you likely wouldn't with the k5 where you could . For those of us who shoot a lot with b/w as an end goal noise isn't a bad thing always (I liked grain in film why wouldn't I in Digital)

I've just finished reading a book that may help with your end results (the first few chapters focus on getting the right image to start a nice change for a software guide) including a good explanation of shooting Zone with your histogram. I got a lot of good hight iso on my K10 but spent a lot of time in post to get it right. I'm getting some better high iso on my K7 (formerly Jeff's) with less pp than before. in low iso I expose for the zone i want. in many cases it means i'm shooting low key images with a lot of black zones. not an issue as far as i'm concerned. If the digital noise is High I apply limited NR and then mask it with grain in b/w. Do I want a k5 sure, when Jeff sells his for a K3 in 2 years I'll pm him
I shot with a kx last year for a couple of weeks and aside from the High iso performance i hated the camera and returned it despite getting a smoking price ($450 with the kit lens). I'm with Robyn on what i want on the body (and add selective focus points which the kx doesn't have - when i'm shooting af at an event it's my #1 feature, no screwing around focusing and recomposing)

here's a link to the book

http://www.amazon.com/Black-White-Photoshop-Lightroom-monochromatic/dp/0240521595

[Winder]

Glad to see you've kept the K7 for now. You will likely learn a lot off mastering it that you likely wouldn't with the k5 where you could . For those of us who shoot a lot with b/w as an end goal noise isn't a bad thing always (I liked grain in film why wouldn't I in Digital)

I've just finished reading a book that may help with your end results (the first few chapters focus on getting the right image to start a nice change for a software guide) including a good explanation of shooting Zone with your histogram. I got a lot of good hight iso on my K10 but spent a lot of time in post to get it right. I'm getting some better high iso on my K7 (formerly Jeff's) with less pp than before. in low iso I expose for the zone i want. in many cases it means i'm shooting low key images with a lot of black zones. not an issue as far as i'm concerned. If the digital noise is High I apply limited NR and then mask it with grain in b/w. Do I want a k5 sure, when Jeff sells his for a K3 in 2 years I'll pm him

I think there is a lot of truth to this. I find that guys who shot film and did a lot of B&W work have to totally different opinion about noise and IQ.

Learn the Zone System. Don't worry about saving irrelevant shadow detail. I shot a ton of TMAX 3200 for concerts. Some of the most popular images were grainy, gritty, high contrast images that the band loved. The K-7 pretty much blows TMAX 3200 away.

[yusuf]

I think you are comparing it to much to the K-X(Much newer sensor), I can almost guarantee photos at lower ISO will look better on the K7 though...

No way in my experience, k-x dynamic range is much better, even at ISO 200, k-x pics looks better than k-7

[eddie1960]

I think there is a lot of truth to this. I find that guys who shot film and did a lot of B&W work have to totally different opinion about noise and IQ.

Learn the Zone System. Don't worry about saving irrelevant shadow detail. I shot a ton of TMAX 3200 for concerts. Some of the most popular images were grainy, gritty, high contrast images that the band loved. The K-7 pretty much blows TMAX 3200 away.

exactly, my k10 at 1600 was in many cases better than delta 3200 even at 1600. i actually added noise to get the gritty look in many cases and still shoot film as i feel digital is too clean for some things. (and if high contrast is a worry better avoid panf if you shoot film )
at this point the K7 is pretty much the best slr i've owned in almost every way. (except for the viewfinder which still isn't as nice as the one on my mx for instance). I still think i can produce a better image on medium format film if i have the time, but not when action is involved. are the K5 and 645D better , yep no doubt but I have no reason to be unhappy with the K7, and the saved cash is paying for lots of other fun toys like the mamiya super 23 6x9 rangefinder i bought

[audiobomber]

No way in my experience, k-x dynamic range is much better, even at ISO 200, k-x pics looks better than k-7

I have a K-x and K20D and prefer K20 IQ up to ISO 1600. I don't care too much about a stop or stop and a half of Ev. I'm more concerned with bright and punchy looking photos. The K-x hue is too blue most of the time and shows red and yellow bloom when you try warm it up or push the saturation, as in Bright or Landscape modes.

[JeffJS]

Glad to see you've kept the K7 for now. You will likely learn a lot off mastering it that you likely wouldn't with the k5 where you could . For those of us who shoot a lot with b/w as an end goal noise isn't a bad thing always (I liked grain in film why wouldn't I in Digital)

Not so fast there, Eddie. Check the marketplace.

[crossover37]

Not so fast there, Eddie. Check the marketplace.

Yup, did I mention I change my mind a lot? Lol. K5, final answer. I had good shots yesterday that would have been awesome but my shutter speed was too slow or there were blown highlights. If I had the K5 I would have had more keepers. I will make a checklist though tonight so I can force myself to use my flash and do the things I know I need to do to get better exposed shots.

[jstevewhite]

Yup, did I mention I change my mind a lot? Lol. K5, final answer. I had good shots yesterday that would have been awesome but my shutter speed was too slow or there were blown highlights. If I had the K5 I would have had more keepers. I will make a checklist though tonight so I can force myself to use my flash and do the things I know I need to do to get better exposed shots.

I think the K-5 is a better choice if you have the cash, as it *will* 'save' many shots and make others possible that simply aren't with the sensor from the last gen. OTOH, I feel obligated to point out that the K-5 won't save blown highlights unless you reduce your exposure setting... blown is blown.

[eddie1960]

and proper exposure is the first step in making a truly good print. you can learn on a k5 as well, the k7 just would have forced it

[Abstract]

and proper exposure is the first step in making a truly good print. you can learn on a k5 as well, the k7 just would have forced it

I love the advancements but I feel like its making it to easy in a way...There is a definite reason most beginner classes use Film. I feel you need to learn how to expose right and do everything right without an almost fail proof camera...

But thats a whole different discussion, good luck! :-)

[jstevewhite]

I love the advancements but I feel like its making it to easy in a way...There is a definite reason most beginner classes use Film. I feel you need to learn how to expose right and do everything right without an almost fail proof camera...

But thats a whole different discussion, good luck! :-)

And yet, one of the arguments current film ... "supporters"? "zealots"? ... use against digital photography is the dynamic range of negative film - which, when properly executed, according to Kodak, can approach 19 stops, or five more than the K-5.

Furthermore, film teaches you the opposite habits - expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights; I learned in film (digital didn't exist then) and I *still* fight that reflex. It's almost physically painful to back down the exposure so the hightlights don't blow out. I'm just now starting to remember regularly to expose for the highlights.

Beginner classes (IMO) use film because most are taught by people who believe that film contains pixie dust. At least most of the classes I've seen that specified film were such. An (art student) friend says, frequently, "Photography isn't art unless it's on film."

[Abstract]

And yet, one of the arguments current film ... "supporters"? "zealots"? ... use against digital photography is the dynamic range of negative film - which, when properly executed, according to Kodak, can approach 19 stops, or five more than the K-5.

Furthermore, film teaches you the opposite habits - expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights; I learned in film (digital didn't exist then) and I *still* fight that reflex. It's almost physically painful to back down the exposure so the hightlights don't blow out. I'm just now starting to remember regularly to expose for the highlights.

Beginner classes (IMO) use film because most are taught by people who believe that film contains pixie dust. At least most of the classes I've seen that specified film were such. An (art student) friend says, frequently, "Photography isn't art unless it's on film."

Hmmm even if that 19 stop thing is true, digital is getting there...for sure. Myself I use digital more then film. I hate that train of thought about it not being art if its not on film...seriously it feels like those people are trying to justify themselves to much and most who I hear say things like this are really bad actually so it makes sense.....

I hear you on the exposure thing, maybe I just have a different way of thinking when shooting, guess everyones minds work different, but I still feel like people should learn how to use the camera best and not rely on something just because its doing good enough on its own and the K-5 would help that train of thought if the person thinks that way.

[jstevewhite]

Hmmm even if that 19 stop thing is true, digital is getting there...for sure. Myself I use digital more then film. I hate that train of thought about it not being art if its not on film...seriously it feels like those people are trying to justify themselves to much and most who I hear say things like this are really bad actually so it makes sense.....

I hear you on the exposure thing, maybe I just have a different way of thinking when shooting, guess everyones minds work different, but I still feel like people should learn how to use the camera best and not rely on something just because its doing good enough on its own and the K-5 would help that train of thought if the person thinks that way.

That's a tough one in a philosophical sense. I mean, if you're having fun and getting the images you want, who am I to tell you you're "doing it wrong", or to tell you what you "need to learn"?

Now, when you come and say "How do you like this image?" I might say "It's pretty, but overexposed", or if you say "What's wrong with my photography" I might say, "You need to learn more about exposure".

Eventually all the knowledge of "proper" exposure will give way to essentially two things: "What shutter speed do I need to stop this action, or create this motion blur" and "What aperture do I need for the DOF I want in this image?" - that is, there will no longer be a question of 'proper exposure'.

[Winder]

And yet, one of the arguments current film ... "supporters"? "zealots"? ... use against digital photography is the dynamic range of negative film - which, when properly executed, according to Kodak, can approach 19 stops, or five more than the K-5.

Furthermore, film teaches you the opposite habits - expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights; I learned in film (digital didn't exist then) and I *still* fight that reflex. It's almost physically painful to back down the exposure so the hightlights don't blow out. I'm just now starting to remember regularly to expose for the highlights.

Beginner classes (IMO) use film because most are taught by people who believe that film contains pixie dust. At least most of the classes I've seen that specified film were such. An (art student) friend says, frequently, "Photography isn't art unless it's on film."

I think film teaches you how to think more. You only have a certain number of shots and you can't switch ISO every 3rd shot. The VF is better which makes it more enjoyable. The average photographer can not afford to "spray and pray" with film.

It think digital has its advantages for new photographers as well. The instant feed back, the lower cost, the ability for meta data to collect information to better understand what happened with the shot, the technology is amazing for some of us relics from the film days.

[jstevewhite]

I think film teaches you how to think more. You only have a certain number of shots and you can't switch ISO every 3rd shot. The VF is better which makes it more enjoyable. The average photographer can not afford to "spray and pray" with film.

It think digital has its advantages for new photographers as well. The instant feed back, the lower cost, the ability for meta data to collect information to better understand what happened with the shot, the technology is amazing for some of us relics from the film days.

Change that to "I think film teaches you to think DIFFERENTLY." and I agree. And regarding "Spray and pray", I think you're right. I see lots more DSLR users on "high speed continuous" than I ever did in film. That was one way to spot pros and wealthy enthusiasts - motor drives I thought my T90 was ROCKIN at 5fps (4.7, but hey), and you prefocus on the crack in the runway, and wind film during the time the model is passing that point. Six frames a model, six models per roll, and two bodies so you didn't miss one while changing out film.

I think that people who are driven to learn the art and technique can do so regardless of the system they start with. People who aren't so driven won't learn if you make 'em use a Westin meter and a Spotmatic with Panatomic X. Limitations are valuable when we *choose them ourselves*... I love to take an afternoon and go out with just one prime lens. Great stuff. But it's most useful when you pay attention and understand why you're doing what you're doing.

Maybe we start giving our students 512 MB SD cards for their assignment...