[Eaglerapids]

You know, I tried to read this thread through but gave up and skipped here to the end to ask "why is it still going?"

[distudio]

I don't know what the problem is with some posters on this thread, but there seems to be an amazing degree of emotional attachment to the latest Pentax product and a determination that it must not be criticised in any way.

Welcome to the Church of Pentax, pity is it's followers seem quite vocal in all Pentax related fora.

[creampuff]

OP should sell off his "heavy" K20D and get the Pentax K-m or perhaps even switch brands... last I heard many of their entry-level models have very light mostly plastic offerings...

[Vertex Ninja]

@TwoLegged

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but what is wrong with a K-M/K2000 if you're looking for a light weight landscape camera? You say it has unneeded features that just add clutter... but then again, they don't add weight. The K2000 is as equally well built as the K20d and the K10D before it. They all have stainless steel chassis with fiber-reinforced polycarbonate shells. If your shooting style is slow and deliberate, as I gather from you description, then what about the K2000 would hamper you? You sound like you don't need the speed you'd get from twin dials and I'm sure the K2000 has Manual, AV and TV modes. So what is it missing that your ME has...besides a pentaprism?

I had a Bronica RF645 that I considered(as do most others) extremely compact and lightweight for medium format camera, but by your standards, it was a monster. I also have a Chamonix 45n-1 field camera that is also considered a feather in it's class, it's carbon fiber, aluminum, and maple... it's 3.25-3.5 lbs without a lens. It's all relative!

I don't think people are being defensive fanboys, they're instead taking offense with your rationale. The people who have responded in defense of the K-7 read the marketing and formed logical opinions about what that camera was and would offer. As I said earlier and I mean no offense by it, you are the only one that has seemed to overhype it. It is just not logical to compare to a 30 year old film camera that doesn't offer the same level of sophistication or features. This is why I take offense to your thread title, OP, and logic. I have a feeling I'm not the only one.

Would I like it to be lighter... sure why not, but I think it's a pretty impressive feat that they have managed to make it so compact and dare I say, "Lightweight". I think you feel the same way, so why obsess over a simple marketing term? You might be an advertisers worst nightmare . I can't help but feel that had they said the new K-7 was compact and heavy instead, you'd have started a thread using your ME or K20D as a comparison to prove just how lightweight it actually is... Just kidding.

---

Last edited by Vertex Ninja; 05-30-2009 at 07:44 PM.

[Vertex Ninja]

You know, I tried to read this thread through but gave up and skipped here to the end to ask "why is it still going?"

LOL, I keep asking myself why I continue reading and posting in it.

Curse you smart phone! Why must you blink your green light every time there is an update to this thread!!!

[irchan]

If you accuse me of "whining" about a 200g difference, then i hate to think what unprintable language you would use about Pentax making such a big deal of shaving 45g.

ok, i just watched K7 introduction video by some guy from pentax imaging.. he said something like "lightweight for advance/enthusiast camera in market" and we all know thar today market is dslr, not 35film slr. so theres no hype bout the weight.

and do even think the lenses? think the whole system, not just the camera.. DA* lenses with weathershield is large and heavy.. why should even make less weight camera?

[TwoLegged]

OP should sell off his "heavy" K20D and get the Pentax K-m or perhaps even switch brands... last I heard many of their entry-level models have very light mostly plastic offerings...

a) I'm not a "he"
b) I dunno why you out scare quotes around "heavy". The K20D is 60% heavier than an ME Super. You might regard that weight as an unavoidable consequence of digital technology or as a good thing, but it's not a fiction
b) The other brands can't use my old lenses, and offer no weight advantage
c) The K-M has no weather-sealing, and since DSLRs don't work with a handy all-in-one case like a film SLR, I regard that as crucial, since electronics don't like water. (My assumption is that an unsealed old film SLR is more likely to survive a little water ingress than an unsealed dSLR).

To get weather-sealing, the lightest option was the K200D, which does have weather-sealing and dust-removal, but is still stuck with a small pentamirror rather than a pentaprism. Not so good for the low-light shots I like, and a step backwards from my ME Super.

I had a Bronica RF645 that I considered(as do most others) extremely compact and lightweight for medium format camera, but by your standards, it was a monster. I also have a Chamonix 45n-1 field camera that is also considered a feather in it's class, it's carbon fiber, aluminum, and maple... it's 3.25-3.5 lbs without a lens. It's all relative!

Indeed, a bigger format requires a bigger body, which means a weight gain. But I see you have chosen some of the lightest available for those image formats. I'm comparing cameras with similar image formats, though difft technologies.

I don't think people are being defensive fanboys, they're instead taking offense with your rationale.

That's the thing which surprised me. I'm not at all surprised that people some people disagree, but I have been astonished by the "taking offense" and searches for some ulterior motive (such as accusations of flame bait), and by the sheer aggressive personal rudeness of some replies.

I haven't insulted anyone's mother, criticised their photographic style or abilities, or suggested that they are using a camera which doesn't do the job. So why all the "taking offense", as you put it?

The people who have responded in defense of the K-7 read the marketing and formed logical opinions about what that camera was and would offer. As I said earlier and I mean no offense by it, you are the only one that has seemed to overhype it.

There you go again. They read it one way, I read it another. Maybe both views are right (depending on priorities or perspective), maybe one or other view is wrong, but you describe your view as "logical" and mine as "overhype" ... which is a very mischievous way of characterising someone who questions whether an advertising claims stands up to scrutiny.

It is just not logical to compare to a 30 year old film camera that doesn't offer the same level of sophistication or features.

There you go yet again: anyone who disagrees with you is "just not logical". Apart from being rude and condescending, it suggests that you haven't bothered looking at whether a different logic to yours can be applied.

First, my primary comparator in starting this thread was not a 30-year camera, but the three-year-old K20D, with very similar level of technologies. Both are digital SLRs with weather-sealing, image stabilisation, dust removal, pentaprism, rear screen, same size sensor using the same technology, and a raft of control buttons. Most of the differences are in the electronics and software, which may add a little weight, but can reasonably be expected to be at least partially offset by the constantly improving performance of modern electronics (see Moore's Law) -- my current low-end dual-core laptop is about the same weight as its predecessors over the last 17 years, but has several hundred times the processing power of the 16-bit, 12MHz model I had in 1992 -- so I don't assume that improved image-processing means more weight in my camera when it doesn't do that on my laptop. The non-electronic things which may affect weight are minor: a screen with 25% greater area but a much higher-resolution, one extra button (I think it's only one), an AF illumination lamp, and that's about it (apart from the video mode, and we'll have to wait and see whether that feature is more successful than on the Nikon D90).

So there's a perfectly good case for expecting that a new camera can offer a lot more digital wizardry than a 3yo old one, without any weight gain. There may be some particular quirks of digital imaging systems which make that assumption problematic wrt cameras, but it does seem to be broadly applicable to the history of these devices.

Secondly, it's not at all illogical to compare devices using different technologies, as I did later on. The K7 and the ME Supper are both devices for taking pictures, and can use the same lenses. Digital offers some advantages, and it may be that the a weight trade-off is one of the prices to be paid; but it's an odd sort of logic to say, as you seem to be doing, that a weight comparison is off-limits when comparing two devices which capture the light as a still image.

This is why I take offense to your thread title, OP, and logic. I have a feeling I'm not the only one.

As above, I'm curious as to why you choose to" take offense" rather than to simply disagree. I am inclined to wonder if distudio's comment above about the "Church of Pentax" may have something to it, because the taking of offence here has really taken me by surprise. It seems like something more akin to the reaction I'd expect from insulting a deity or a family member than to taking a different view about the merits of (and reasons for) weight differences in inanimate hand-held imaging devices.

[Vertex Ninja]

To get weather-sealing, the lightest option was the K200D, which does have weather-sealing and dust-removal, but is still stuck with a small pentamirror rather than a pentaprism. Not so good for the low-light shots I like, and a step backwards from my ME Super.

Why not continue to shoot your ME? Film is not dead. Get a nice scanner rather than spending $ on a new body.

That's the thing which surprised me. I'm not at all surprised that people some people disagree, but I have been astonished by the "taking offense" ...

"Taking offense" is mearly a figure of speech, quit trolling. You started a thread that suggested everyone has had the wool pulled over their eyes, everyone but you that is. I've asked it 2 or 3 times already but what exactly was your intent with this thread? Why the title? Did you expect to be showered with praise for discovering the secret that pentax has hyped a product they are trying to sell. OOOOh the horror!

There you go again. They read it one way, I read it another. Maybe both views are right (depending on priorities or perspective), maybe one or other view is wrong, but you describe your view as "logical" and mine as "overhype" ... which is a very mischievous way of characterising someone who questions whether an advertising claims stands up to scrutiny.

I don't believe I said right or wrong. I said your conclusion lacked logic. It's just an opinion, but maybe you're the only one that can have one. I could hang on to your use of the word "mischievous" and go into a long rebuttle too, but I'll save the readers.

There you go yet again: anyone who disagrees with you is "just not logical". Apart from being rude and condescending, it suggests that you haven't bothered looking at whether a different logic to yours can be applied.

Now I'm rude and condescending? Riiiight. Just an opinion(see above).

To get weather-sealing, the lightest option was the K200D, which does have weather-sealing and dust-removal, but is still stuck with a small pentamirror rather than a pentaprism. Not so good for the low-light shots I like, and a step backwards from my ME Super.

Then why not continue to shoot the ME. Who is forcing you to buy a K-7, or any camera for that matter. It's a choice. We make thousands of them in our lifetime.

First, my primary comparator in starting this thread was not a 30-year camera, but the three-year-old K20D, with very similar level of technologies....

The non-electronic things which may affect weight are minor: a screen with 25% greater area but a much higher-resolution, one extra button ...

So there's a perfectly good case for expecting that a new camera can offer a lot more digital wizardry than a 3yo old one, without any weight gain.

I'm confused... is the K-7 heavier? Where would you say your k20D compares to the competition, is it on the heavy side or the lightweight side? So then where would that put the K-7?

Secondly, it's not at all illogical to compare devices using different technologies, as I did later on. The K7 and the ME Supper are both devices for taking pictures, and can use the same lenses... but it's an odd sort of logic to say, as you seem to be doing, that a weight comparison is off-limits when comparing two devices which capture the light as a still image.

The Hubble telescope takes pictures too, as do spy cameras. Perfectly logical comparisons right! I don't think it's illogical of me to assume the people at (enter camera brand name here) would think comparing to a ME Super is illogical. It's just a word, is my use of it offensive to you?

As above, I'm curious as to why you choose to" take offense" rather than to simply disagree.

See above... figure of speech.


I'm curious why you choose to only respond to people when they voice an opinion that challenges your own. Why not respond to me when I ask about the K2000, you know... the whole first half of my last post. Instead you choose to hang on to the little things... Wait, now I kinda see how this thread got started.

[TwoLegged]

Why not continue to shoot your ME? Film is not dead. Get a nice scanner rather than spending $ on a new body.

It's horses for courses. Digital produces quicker results (by skipping the darkroom phase), so for some uses it's a better technology.

I do still shoot film, but I also shoot digital.

"Taking offense" is mearly a figure of speech, quit trolling.

There you go yet again. You choose to say that you are "offended", but when challenged on why my view offends you, you claim I'm "trolling". There's a very simple solution: own your own words. If you meant "take offence", stick to it, and if you didn't mean "take offence", then withdraw the phrase.

You started a thread that suggested everyone has had the wool pulled over their eyes, everyone but you that is. I've asked it 2 or 3 times already but what exactly was your intent with this thread? Why the title? Did you expect to be showered with praise for discovering the secret that pentax has hyped a product they are trying to sell. OOOOh the horror!

I expected to be able to have a discussion which looked calmly at weight differences between dSLRs, and which tried to assess whether I was right in my analysis of the claims.

Pentax is trying to sell its product, so it'll describe in a way it thinks most likely to boost sales. Nothing unusual there, that's standard marketing practice. I thought that potential purchasers would be interested in assessing whether those claims stand up to scrutiny.

I didn't expect people to respond as if they had been personally insulted.

I don't believe I said right or wrong. I said your conclusion lacked logic. It's just an opinion, but maybe you're the only one that can have one.

If I thought I was the only one who could have an opinion I wouldn't bother posting on a forum; but accusing someone else of being illogical is a way of dismissing their view as unworthy of consideration, and that's why I object to your accusation of illogic. As with most things in life, there's more than one logical way of approaching a subject like this.

Then why not continue to shoot the ME. Who is forcing you to buy a K-7, or any camera for that matter. It's a choice. We make thousands of them in our lifetime.

I do continue to shoot my ME, just as I continue to shoot my compact IXUS and my K20D. I also try to evaluate other tools. What's wrong with that?

It's quite true that nobody is forcing me to buy a K7 ... and similarly nobody is forcing you not to buy a K7.

The Hubble telescope takes pictures too, as do spy cameras.

Ah, the reductio-ad-absurdam technique. The Hubble cannot be carried around on foot, and the spy camera has little or no user control of exposure, no interchangeable lens. They aren't tools which can be used for he same job as user-controlled portable camera.

I'm curious why you choose to only respond to people when they voice an opinion that challenges your own.

Because if someone agrees, then a reply is going to be just "me too" which adds nothing for the reader.

Why not respond to me when I ask about the K2000, you know... the whole first half of my last post.

Try reading my post. I replied to two posts in one reply, and I had covered my own views on the K-m/K2000 in the post you are complaining about. Did you miss that? Here a link to it

Instead you choose to hang on to the little things... Wait, now I kinda see how this thread got started.

You either didn't read what I wrote or chose to ignore it. And because of that you accuse me of bad faith?

[Vertex Ninja]

I did read your post about the K200d, but that's not the K-M. If weather sealing is so important to you, do you use only WR lenses? Did you shoot your ME in the rain or bad weather? Weren't you afraid of ruining the meter or growing fungus or haze in your lenses? Don't think I'm trying to push a K-M on you, I'm not. I've never even held or shot one. I was just curious why you thought it wouldn't work for you in situations were your ME does.

There you go yet again. You choose to say that you are "offended", but when challenged on why my view offends you, you claim I'm "trolling". There's a very simple solution: own your own words. If you meant "take offence", stick to it, and if you didn't mean "take offence", then withdraw the phrase.

I do own my words. I don't remember retracting my statement only clarifying. But here, let's play a game... You give me a list of acceptable vocabulary, you know, words that won't cause you to get your panties in a wad, and then I'll try and form sentiences with them... it'll be grand, just like having a conversation with yourself.

Replace with "disagree" if you like, would it really make a difference? I'm not offended in the strictest form of the definition, surely you've heard of exaggerations?

I think you are trolling because you have spent more time responding to people who "respond as if they had been personally insulted" than "calmly discussing" Pentax's marketing terms. You could take your own advice and ignore these responses and continue your calm higher level discussion. Instead those responses by people who "respond as if they had been personally insulted" are what you cling to, which leads me to believe that those are the responses you actually wanted all along. You don't have to agree with me, that's just how I see it. But I'm sure you'll respond to this with something about "faith" and me being rude, mischievous, and condescending, but that's cool, you're entitled to your opinion.

I expected to be able to have a discussion which looked calmly at weight differences between dSLRs, and which tried to assess whether I was right in my analysis of the claims.

Why "right" or wrong I thought we were just giving opinions?

I didn't expect people to respond as if they had been personally insulted.

Who got insulted? Maybe you're just being too sensitive(I said "being", not are, don't want you to think I'm calling you names )

It's quite true that nobody is forcing me to buy a K7 ... and similarly nobody is forcing you not to buy a K7.

I don't recall saying I had plans to buy a K-7, I have plenty of cameras to take pictures with. I'm not a fanboy, it could have been an Olympus you were talking about for all I care, my argument still applies.

I apologize to those that read my nonsense, I wish I could give you your time back.

@ Twolegged

I'm sorry to derail your thread into a petty argument. I realize it takes two to tango, so I'll stop replying. Enjoy your thread.

[lpfonseca]

I think you might be in the minority describing the k20D as "very heavy".

Minority maybe but not alone.
My only complain on my K10D is the weight.
And the K20D weights some 5g more.

Just wish the K-7 was even lighter.

Best,
Luis

[jah3]

Whats the price range in UK and in the Euro region to be like?

[Mister Guy]

I didn't expect people to respond as if they had been personally insulted.

People started reacting that way because your argument doesn't make any sense to them, and then you started being being, in many of our impressions, very snide and dismissive about our claims while supporting a viewpoint that made no sense at all.

If the other board members will indulge me in putting words in their mouths, this is how I (and I believe others) read your statements:

Post 1
People say the K-7 is lightweight, but it weighs similarly to the current best camera, you shouldn't be happy and excited they added features without adding weight.

Most people reacted pretty lightheartedly at this point and mostly pointed out new features and other advantages, with only a few comments that the premise that of the K20D being heavy wasn't well accepted.

Post 2 and Post 3
The K-7 is good, but compared to a film camera, it's just ginormous! Therefore, anyone being happy about the size of the K-7 is wrong and silly. Saying it's small just by comparing it against every other digital camera available is wrong, because you should compare it against my own arbitrary standard of awesomeness, one of the best and smallest film cameras of its kind.

This is when you got people's dander up, because the comparison doesn't make sense. Everything past that was an attempt by you to claim BOTH that the features of the DSLR made it a superior choice, but the fact that those features add weight is unacceptable. The entire time you made this argument, you STILL insisted on overlooking the simple fact that the total weight of the K-7 is less than the weight of your arbitrary comparison camera with an equivalent amount of film. You took umbrage with Pentax's description of the camera as lightweight because they didn't clearly state assumptions that they were comparing against other digital DSLR, and then ignored or rebutted any attempts by forums members to make your standard of the Pentax Super ME more reasonably by adding in equivalent features, like the film, the automatic winder, range finders, light meters, a video camera, etc. In fact, the closest you came to addressing those points is by acknowledging that they were true, but that they didn't matter because you personally don't take a lot of rolls of film with you on nature walks (Here and here).

The point everyone is trying to make is simple: DSLR have features that film cameras do not; adding even more features while reducing weight and making a more comfortable and ergonomic form factor is exciting news. The K-7 is extremely lightweight by current standards for the features it provides.

It's perfectly fine for you to wish you could have all those features in an even smaller package, and you probably will get closer to your wish in the next upgrade of the K-m. The K-m which you rejected for not having a feature your film camera also doesn't have, which users of other brands have been remedying for decades with almost weightless plastic bags.

Basically, people are reacting badly because you're using a camera that wasn't designed for your needs, and giving the impression that it's a flaw with the camera and not a flaw with your choice.

[Ratmagiclady]

It's also.... Pretty silly to complain about the weight difference between, say, a K20d and K200d, then complain the K200d only has a pentamirror, when in fact, the glass prism you want *is a solid piece of glass and probably the single heaviest component involved.*

I don't know about you, but for any given camera, I'd gladly carry that piece of glass around.

I think, Two-Legged, a lot of us have lost some patience for people coming on here simply to slag on Pentax, especially if it creeps out of the 'News and Rumors' forum. The K20 is lighter and more compact than any competitors with the same amount of controls: the images are comparable to real pricey beasts like D300s and 5ds: and, yes, the K20d has a lot more capability than the starter-level cameras from other brands that people try to compare on size. The K-7 is even lighter and smaller than *that.*

I frankly can't see what you even *want,* ...your demands seem a bit contradictory for the state of the tech. Really, a lot of folks want a serious camera to feel solid, and that takes some weight, anyway. Frankly, when shooters of other brands handle my K20d, they always remark on the good feel. That's kind of an old slogan Pentax could bring back, 'Just hold a Pentax' or some such.

I just can't see the cause for fuss, or why you single out Pentax.

[Peter Zack]

Well this seems to have gone on long enough and I think the thread has beaten it self to death. Before it gets any more heated or people get pissed at each other, I'm going to close the thread. If anyone objects, send me a PM and make a convincing argument to reopen this.