[Cosmo]

Full frame cameras are pro cameras.

APS-C just can't compete, therefore they are semi-pro.

[shuie]

Full frame cameras are pro cameras.

APS-C just can't compete, therefore they are semi-pro.

That is roughly like saying MF is a pro format, therefore FF cannot compete. If your specific need does not require wide angle, but rather uses telephoto primarily, and if IQ is up to snuff APS-C would be a benefit, not a detraction.

[schmik]

Full frame cameras are pro cameras.

APS-C just can't compete, therefore they are semi-pro.

I'm sure that's a troll but i'll bite.... So until reasonably recently all the pros were shooting semi-pro cameras. Poor suckers, how did they cope.

I think that whole whole thing hinges on the fact that people (not pros) seem to believe that the latest tech will make their photos better. They think they are good photographers but their gear lets them down, so they buy pro cameras. And that is the genius of canikon marketing.

As someone on another forum wrote: photography is 50% photographer, 40% light and 10% camera.

mike

[magnum1]

Been away for a while. Just read the spec's and I'll stick with my K20D. I think Pentax just made an expensive toy for the younger crowd. Movie mode?....give me a break!

Dear Pentax,
Forget the gimicks!

[shuie]

I'm sure that's a troll but i'll bite.... So until reasonably recently all the pros were shooting semi-pro cameras. Poor suckers, how did they cope.

I think that whole whole thing hinges on the fact that people (not pros) seem to believe that the latest tech will make their photos better. They think they are good photographers but their gear lets them down, so they buy pro cameras. And that is the genius of canikon marketing.

As someone on another forum wrote: photography is 50% photographer, 40% light and 10% camera.

mike

I would think with the advances in technology we see today, the actual camera is becoming more important. I realize ultimatly it is the photographer who makes the photo what it is, but as cameras advance, the previous limitations become less of a problem. With my K10 I rarely if ever shoot higher than ISO 400, I would love to be able to use ISO 1600 or even ISO 800, but don't as I don't care for the results. With a K20 I would probably use ISO 800, with a K-7 I hope to find ISO 1600 is usable. I think due to the fact the DSLR is the actual recording device as opposed to something to hold the film, upgrading to higher/later models makes sense. In a way I kind of miss the old days where my PZ1p was all I had and my toughest choice was which film to feed it!

[Marc Langille]

I guess labels mean nothing to me... What matters are the specifications, image quality, etc.

In other words, how good of a tool for my work is it? Improved AF, FPS for starters. That carries much more interest...

Regards,
Marc

[shuie]

Marc I was hoping you'de reply, it seems if the promises for the K-7 are true (better AF, FPS, and High ISO performace) it will be a fantastic camera for you! If you get one, I can't wait to see your work with it.

Shuie

[schmik]

I would think with the advances in technology we see today, the actual camera is becoming more important. I realize ultimatly it is the photographer who makes the photo what it is, but as cameras advance, the previous limitations become less of a problem. With my K10 I rarely if ever shoot higher than ISO 400, I would love to be able to use ISO 1600 or even ISO 800, but don't as I don't care for the results. With a K20 I would probably use ISO 800, with a K-7 I hope to find ISO 1600 is usable. I think due to the fact the DSLR is the actual recording device as opposed to something to hold the film, upgrading to higher/later models makes sense. In a way I kind of miss the old days where my PZ1p was all I had and my toughest choice was which film to feed it!

Maybe..... my K100d is great in low light. ISO 800 is excellent and 1600 is ok. More tech in the k10d spoiled some iso performance. That's an example of latest and greats not making your photos better. I would even say that the fact that we are talking about this falls into the "50% photographer" category.

mike

[Marc Langille]

Marc I was hoping you'de reply, it seems if the promises for the K-7 are true (better AF, FPS, and High ISO performace) it will be a fantastic camera for you! If you get one, I can't wait to see your work with it.

Shuie

Thanks Shuie...

One thing I've said before and it's surprised a few folks: having a camera with some limitations only makes me a better photographer. It forces you to master the tools: you adapt, innovate and produce the results you need. I suspect that the K-7 is a welcome addition for my keeper rate.

Please believe me when I say that I am quite optimistic about the K-7, based on it's specs and first hand feedback. Just need a certain longer lens to partner up with the K-7 to complete the tool chest!!

Cheers,
Marc

[wolfier]

As someone on another forum wrote: photography is 50% photographer, 40% light and 10% camera.

mike

Just my experience. It's 40% photographer, 30% light, 20% post-processing and 10% camera.

[Cosmo]

That is roughly like saying MF is a pro format, therefore FF cannot compete. If your specific need does not require wide angle, but rather uses telephoto primarily, and if IQ is up to snuff APS-C would be a benefit, not a detraction.

FF can't compete with MF, that's why it gets used alot professionally.

I still draw the line of Pro camera at FF, it produces a professional level of IQ. What you're saying is that if you want to shoot telephoto/maximize it's length and IQ isn't that important, use a semi-pro camera.

[KungPOW]

The term "pro camera" is a marketing catagory, and it has NOTHING to do with who is using the camera.

The Olympus E-3 is marketed as a pro camera. Spec for spec the K-7 either matches, or beats it. The K-7 is only lacking with 1/800 x sync (vs 1/250), Viewfinder magnification, an built in viewfinder blind. Overall, not a great differance. Right now the price is almost the same. But the e-3 is about 1.5 years older. The E-3 is marketed by Olympus as a pro camera, but it is the same class as the K-7. But this is not where pro-camera is defined.

Then with the big two, they market their cameras with such power that they define the marketing catagories. If Canon and Nikon say "This is a pro camera", then there it is. To be a pro-camera in this market you need to meet Canon's and Nikon's specs of their top models. Nikon says you need 9FPS at FF, with 51 points colour traking predictive autofocus in a body with integrated grip. Canon says you need 21 mp FF that can shoot 5 fps, 63 zone meter, with 45 point predictive autofocus, again in a masive body with built in grip. Canon and Nikon define the market with their top products and their powerful marketing.

Additionally, the top two, have a masive pro-suport network. Lenses to rent, repair service etc. This is about catering to the specific market needs for the type of photographer that needs and demands the absolute best service and product money can buy.

A pro-camera is a market class. It has NOTHING to do with the user, or the resulting photo. It has everything to do with high specs, advertising, money, service chanels, and downstream market control. It's an ugly cage match being slugged out by the two with the greatest market share. Market wise, Pentax would have little to gain by jumping into that ring.

[vitalsax]

it had a double sd card and an integrated grip

[David]

I would like to the hear the argument for a clear distinction between a Pro and Amateur photographer. The former makes a living and the latter takes photos???

This says nothing about the quality of the images regardless of intent.

Pro photographers can get locked into a specific genre ie Weddings or sport and not show a glimmer of real creativity beyond the specific scenario, whereas amateurs can explore the medium for good or bad.

The gear amateurs use is largely based on cost rather than pure excellence and of course favours the Pro in terms of outright specifications.

However, Pentax have provided a means of bridging this gap over the decades ie, K1000, K20D to K-7 via LX and as a result have a dedicated band of adherents, I am one of them.

If the K-7 lives up to it's specifications it will be another landmark in the Pentax history of innovation and excellence and the individual, Pro or Amateur, is presented with a challenge to use the tool to it's greatest advantage.

Take Care,

David

[walro]

Interestingly enough, ran into a "professional" photographer recently who was using a Canon 20d--which I consider ancient. You might be surprised at the number of "pros" who are using "semi-pro" cameras, particularly in rural areas.