[Wheatfield]

Pentax unwittingly chose the inferior samsung sensor for their flagship camera K-7. I think this is a product liability. Why don't K-7 owners get together to have a class action and sue Pentax for compensation or force Pentax to re-call to replace the sensor.

I thought I had enough this Pentax BS. This was the reason I bought D7000 instead of K-5.

No one on this forum has any idea regarding what was available to Pentax when the K20 or K7 were being designed.
The K7 sensor is very good indeed providing it isn't pushed to stupid high ISO. As a studio camera at lower ISO, the detail is excellent, and the colour and gradation is superb.
The D7K looks like a decent enough camera, though I found the interface to be clumsy. What hobbles it is that it doesn't take Pentax lenses.
For myself, lenses are more important than cameras.
Some people like blingy camera bodies, some people prefer lens qualities that actually make their images better.

[Rondec]

No one on this forum has any idea regarding what was available to Pentax when the K20 or K7 were being designed.
The K7 sensor is very good indeed providing it isn't pushed to stupid high ISO. As a studio camera at lower ISO, the detail is excellent, and the colour and gradation is superb.
The D7K looks like a decent enough camera, though I found the interface to be clumsy. What hobbles it is that it doesn't take Pentax lenses.
For myself, lenses are more important than cameras.
Some people like blingy camera bodies, some people prefer lens qualities that actually make their images better.

The only other sensor probably available (assuming Nikon hadn't locked it up), was the sensor in the D90. The other thing is that iso 1600 is pretty decent on the K7. This particular photo was shot at iso 1600 in a museum with pretty poor light. Exif should be there but it was shot with 16-50 at 50mm f4.5 with shutter speed of 1/13 second.

[Pentaxor]

Pentax unwittingly chose the inferior samsung sensor for their flagship camera K-7. I think this is a product liability. Why don't K-7 owners get together to have a class action and sue Pentax for compensation or force Pentax to re-call to replace the sensor.

I thought I had enough this Pentax BS. This was the reason I bought D7000 instead of K-5.

any regrets on not getting the K-5?

[Pentaxor]

The point is that you own a K7 and are defending it's lack of what the K5 has come hell or high water,like the other K7 owners in this thread.Despite jstevewhite's(an others) best efforts people still won't accept that even though the models look the same they in fact different beasts.You might find that the "range" you can push and pull is greater on the K5 for instance,or maybe you won't have to push and pull at all.Ex K7 owner here.

it has nothing to do with me owning a K-7 but rather finding the camera competent for my use. remember, I could have opted for a k-x if the High ISO is all there is for me. heck, I even would prefer the K20D over the K-x without hesitation. and if you check all of my posts, I NEVER diss the K-5 nor said it is overrated. in fact, I love the K-5 camera because it has all the functionality that the K-7 possesses + upgraded sensor capability comes as a big bonus. the k-x would be different though, as I find it lacking on some things that I would had loved to have.

btw, the only reason why I haven't considered getting a K-5 is because I'm looking for a different functionality and capability that Pentax has not provided for consumers. an FF system with a fast AF mechanism or something that is innovative enough that would make me consider getting that certain camera. of course, IQ is important and should be competent enough for my use.

---

Last edited by Pentaxor; 05-13-2011 at 06:48 PM.

[peasant]

I think it is pretty obvious now that High ISO is pretty much overrated in terms of badly needing it.

First off I apologise for plucking a line out of a previous post,it might be poor form but it encapsulates the differences in this discussion for me.Simply put what high iso/dr gives to a lot of buyers is headroom.Average punters bowling around taking photos in dubious conditions.Not gearheads in studios(no offence).You just don't have to work as hard to get the shot and for a lot of amateurs(me)life is easier/I didn't say you dissed the K5 but you do seem to be arguing that its extra capabilities are extraneous.

[Pentaxor]

First off I apologise for plucking a line out of a previous post,it might be poor form but it encapsulates the differences in this discussion for me.Simply put what high iso/dr gives to a lot of buyers is headroom.Average punters bowling around taking photos in dubious conditions.Not gearheads in studios(no offence).You just don't have to work as hard to get the shot and for a lot of amateurs(me)life is easier/I didn't say you dissed the K5 but you do seem to be arguing that its extra capabilities are extraneous.

it only becomes extraneous when certain people think it is the ends of all means, thereby saying that it's the best thing that the camera could offer and the only thing that matters or treat it as the holy grail. if that is the case, then everybody should be pretty happy shooting at High ISO without having to worry about IQ (if it does renders the best possible IQ at such high sensitivity). or yet with a camera that has HIGHER ISO capability but lacks the functionality that a person that wanted an upgrade is looking for. that is why I said it is overrated and thus an issue. besides, it doesn't take an amateur to use a flash. you bought a dslr, then one should also learn the essential worth of a flash. sorry for getting off-topic regarding the flash. anyways, why would anyone consider upgrading to either a K-7/K-5 from a k-x which is deemed to have superior High ISO, if High ISO is the thing that defines the camera? personally, it doesn't make any sense unless they are looking for something that is not about High ISO performance.

[peasant]

it only becomes extraneous when certain people think it is the ends of all means, thereby saying that it's the best thing that the camera could offer and the only thing that matters or treat it as the holy grail.

If any camera has the ability to take photos in a wide range of circumstances then I would say that is an advantage(you know the old adage,the best camera is the one you have with you,well here's a new line,get one that can take pictures of things you can hardly see)the K5 has an enhanced ability to do this compared to previous models, the photos are not only captured they are better too.Please try it for yourself even if you're not buying.

---

Last edited by peasant; 05-13-2011 at 11:06 PM.

[rawr]

If you are unhappy with your K-7 output, shoot RAW and use LR3 or DXO or similar, and you may be in for a pleasant surprise.

I remember when Lightroom 3 came around I was mightily impressed how good it made high ISO out of the K-x and K200D look. Ditto DXO optics Pro v6.5x (which has special modules supporting the K-7, K-x bodies etc and many popular Pentax lenses). Both apps really help expand the working 'headroom' of those cameras and the quality of the output you can get, particularly when shooting high-ISO.

[rawr]

you bought a dslr, then one should also learn the essential worth of a flash

High ISO means for me (recently):
- shooting indoor in dim venues where flash is not permitted or polite to use, and where even my 50/1.4 on the K-x can sometimes struggle to find enough light to auto-focus, let alone let me use 1/90 sec to help capture non-blurry motion on stage;
- shooting wildlife (birds mainly) with a 300mm telephoto, where (good quality) high ISO lets you use f8, f9 etc for greater DOF, especially at closer ranges (eg 7m and under) where DOF is razor thin with a telephoto;
- shooting 300mm telephoto hand-held tracking a fast moving subject through under-growth whilst maintaining a shutter speed >300/s under a wide range of lighting conditions.

In the last two usage cases in particular, even my hard-working K-x regular runs out of headroom for me. And in all three using flash wouldn't help much at all. I also imagine that shooting sports is another scenario where high-ISO is useful for similar reasons to mine, and where once again learning to use flash may not be the answer.

[peasant]

- shooting indoor in dim venues where flash is not permitted or polite to use, and where even my 50/1.4 on the K-x can sometimes struggle to find enough light to auto-focus,

Self confessed amateur says-I've lately bought a couple of manual only lens.My 50mm arrives at infinity at 5 metres,so,shooting manually could you not depending on your distance from the stage set for infinity, iso etc and shoot away?

[rawr]

could you not depending on your distance from the stage set for infinity, iso etc and shoot away?

Self-confessed amateur replies: True. That's what I often do, unless I push my way forward in order to get closer. But truth be told the FA50 1.4 does still do pretty well on the K-x and even K200D in sucking in enough light for AF to work, esp using spot AF. ( I also often use my M50 1.7 as well as a K135/2.5 Tak at gigs and venues because I love those lenses).

[cbaytan]

By the way, I still have my K-7. After using Adam's settings, I found K-7's photos are quite usable to me up to ISO 3,200. How much push and pull you can do in K-5, ISO25,000? Perhaps only journalists in the war zone would use that?

Hi there, scrolled through the thread without luck, would you point me Adam's settings post please? thanks.

[Macario]

I still think all this talk about needing High ISO is mostly based on not knowing your camera, and thus taking the easy route. I do believe that nayone that can't get a decent picture out of the K-7 upto ISO3200, does not know how to use the camera. I have had decent results at 3200ISo at night. And yes, I do see noise if I view it at 100%. But when I was shooting at night, I knew there were limitations, so I never intended to shoot to view the pictures at 100%. Know the limitations of any camera, and know how to work around them. That is how you will get good pictures.

And I also think the DR is overrated. The first thing I learned when shooting digital, shoot like slides, take an exposre from the highlights. Do that, and everything will be fine. And yes, maybe the shadows will be a bit dark, but if your subject is the shadow, then take the reading from the shadows.
Yes it is fantastic that you can have all the details in the shadows and all. But I do not look at a picture to see all the details everywhere. I want to see the subject, be drawn in by the subject. All the rest around it, the less the better, unless it is there to make the subject stronger.
The first time I started shooting with a K-7 in december and converting the pictures to B&W, I was very dissapointed. There was just too much detail (yes with the K-7). Resulting in me going back to scanning negatives, as there wasn't that much detail to see in shadows etc. Thus really seeing the subject. Now I am finally starting to be ok with converting to B&W from the digital files, thanks to Silver effex (oh but that's true, you loose detail in shadows when doing that )

[Pentaxor]

If any camera has the ability to take photos in a wide range of circumstances then I would say that is an advantage(you know the old adage,the best camera is the one you have with you,well here's a new line,get one that can take pictures of things you can hardly see)the K5 has an enhanced ability to do this compared to previous models, the photos are not only captured they are better too.Please try it for yourself even if you're not buying.

my question is, is High ISO the most important aspect that people should be looking for primarily? just a simple question.

[Macario]

my question is, is High ISO the most important aspect that people should be looking for primarily? just a simple question.

just a simple answer in my opinion: no