[TwoLegged]

@TwoLegged

It kinda seems like you expected something for nothing, realized it wasn't going to live up to your hype, and then started a new flame thread. When people are talking about the K-7 being a return to the days of the LX, I always assumed they were talking about how the LX compared to it's competitors, not how it compares to the digitals of today.

Vertex Ninja, I don't know what you have been reading that you consider to be a "flame thread", but it's not this one. I have not flamed the K7, merely pointed out that the prominent claim about it being lightweight don't seem to me to match up to the figures I have found, and look to me like hype.

And as to the suggestion that I have hyped the K7, I have no idea why you invented that one. I had absolutely no expectations at all of the K7, because I wasn't even aware of the K7's existence until today when I saw details of it on the Pentax UK website, where the K7 is described as having "a compact, lightweight body" ... and I set out to see whether that claim stood up to scrutiny, because for me the weight of the K20D is one its few serious downsides. (I accept that may not be an issue for others).

To me the K-7 is the perfect compromise, even more so than my beloved K10.

Good for you! And I'm sure that if I had a K7 I'd like it even more than my K20D.

But the fact that the K20D is the perfect compromise for you doesn't make it perfect for everyone, and the fact that it has lots of good features doesn't exclude the possibility that some of the marketing claims for it may be stretching a point.

You seem to be upset that someone might take a different view than you of whether on part of the compromise is as good as described, and I'm not sure why that is. But that doesn't justify accuse someone of flaming.

---

Last edited by TwoLegged; 05-25-2009 at 08:49 AM. Reason: clarify

[Peter Zack]

Too be fair, the K-7 isn't "lightweight". Small yes, it certainly is but the 2 are seperate. In it's class, it's a little lighter but not "Lightweight". Anyone coming from bridge or P&S cameras will consider it heavy. But all this is relative. It's lighter than most cameras and heavier than other non SLR cameras.

Overall a great feature packed small camera and this is just nit-picking over a poor choice of a marketing term. Has anyone seen really good marketing from Pentax?

Not an issue anyone needs to get upset about.

[Vertex Ninja]

Wow, defensive much?

I'm sorry I said "flame" when I meant to say "flame bait". What responses were you trying to elicit with a thread title like "K7 lightweight????? No, just hype"? I guess you get to decide what is considered hype. A bunch of people pointed out that when compared to the other cameras in it's class, that it is indeed very light and compact, as the K10D and K20D were before it. Comparing it to a camera that was already light and relatively compact, by comparison, proved what exactly? So then you changed your stance and said that it was heavy compared to your ME that takes better pictures in your opinion(more flame bait). People then pointed out that the two were not comparable because of the added features of digital. Just saying...

I said, to me that the K-7 is the perfect compromise, how is that different or worse than you starting a whole new thread to proclaim your opinion? I in no way said that everyone should think the K-7 is perfect, just that I think it's pretty decent.

Take a chill pill!

[dave9t5]

I never had a winder for my ME super. Never needed one, never wanted one, and have v rarely used the continuous mode on any digital camera. I'm not interested in action photos; I do landscapes, and that stuff is not much use for landscapes. Similarly, autofocus is not important, I prefer to compose a picture, focus it and shoot, and the time needed for a manual focus is trivial. YMMV if you do a difft style of photography.

So for my uses, the winder is a red herring: the actual weight of my ME Super body is 445g, plus film: say about 480 grams. The "lightweight" K7 is 50% heavier, at 750g (inc battery_SD card)

My ME Super is now getting on 30 years old, but it captures images as well as a newer film camera with the same lens, because it can take the latest film.

That doesn't apply to a dSLR, where the "film" is built-in, as a sensor; only the latest cameras gets the latest sensor. The sensor is a crude thing, with tolerance of a fairly limited dynamic range, so lots of tweaking is required is capture the full glory of the image. All the pushing and such tricks which I used to do in the darkroom can now be done on-camera, but I more-or-less have to them on camera because of the sensor's limitations.

Similar with the dust exclusion and removal. All needed on a dSLR, but on a simple old film camera, there was much less need for this stuff, because the camera could be cleaned very easily with simple tools.

Some of the stuff built in to digital cameras is there only to cope with the inadequacy of the sensors, and some of the rest is feature-bloat. The cheaper dSLRs tend to of be flimsy construction, have poorer sensors, and lack the necessary control over the sensor to overcome its limitations. So to get good images out of a solidly made dSLR, you have to go higher upmarket and pay for all the stuff like histogram displays and movie mode and 5-squillion-zone metering which you may not want.

There's clearly a market for all these features, and I hope Pentax does well in satisfying that market, but sadly for those of us keen to keep things simple and light, there's nothing which follows the logic of the old recipe: strong, simple, and light.

Like most electronic gadgets, the current dSLRs will be archaeological relics in five or seven years time, sooner if you are a pro photographer. That wasn't the case with film, as much as I like the convenience of a dSLR, there are many ways in which we have taken a big leap backwards.

Anyway, thanks for discussing this. It reminds me that on those occasions when I don't want to lug the K20d around, I don't have to just stick with the slow and uncontrollable compact: I'll take the ME super in its handy leatherette case (something else dSLRs lost), and get better images than I do with digital.

I'm with KungPow's comments. Comparing the ME Super to the K-7 is an utterly pointless exercise.

1) Comparing any current dSLR to a ME Super is a "red herring" in every aspect. No dSLR's lack these power-hungry features: no playback LCD screen, no AF, no matrix meter, no viewfinder exposure display, no automatic 'frame-advance', etc.

If there theoretically existed a dSLR that only had a simple exposure meter and low-powered processor (to simulate hand-winding ~1FPS) then it would not only be lighter because of lack of physical components, but would also take a much lighter battery to power it. Batteries are one of the biggest herrings in your comparison:
* button-cell ~5g
* qty4 Lithium AA's ~60g
* qty4 NiMh 2200mAh ~118g
On a K-m (Pentax's lightest body), 4 NiMh's are 18% of the setup.

2) ME Super was a 'non-pro' body. A more apt comparison is to the K-m:

K-m
-> 590g w/Li batteries w/4GB card (232 raw files)
ME Super
-> 690g w/battery + 7 rolls of film (252 exposures)

Of course, ME Super with 7 rolls of film takes up as much volume in my bag as a K-m. If you can get as many usable shots out of 7 rolls of film as 4GB of card, then more power to you. I would probably need 10+ rolls of film to do it.

3) Summary: Weight/Volume advantage dSLR.

[dave9t5]

The hype and enthusiasm for the supposedly lightweight K7 seems to me to be misplaced. The following figures are all from Pentax UK's website:

• Weight of the K7 without battery or SD card: 670g
• Weight of the K20D without battery or SD card: 715g

So the difference is 45g. That means that the K7 body is a staggering ... umm ... well ... 6.29% lighter than the K20D body. Not so staggering, is it?

I really like my K20D, and I'm sure I'd like a K7 even more. But the hype is silly.

What "hype"? There is no hype about the absolute-weight of the K-7. There is hype about the size, but not the weight. Are you confusing volume with mass?

From Pentax USA press-release (Source):
"The PENTAX K-7 features a rugged, yet compact new body design,..."

" “The K-7 will appeal to many current PENTAX SLR photographers who have been asking for more advanced features, but in a smaller, solid, comfortable-to-hold body,...” "

"A compact, magnesium alloy body that is one of the smallest in the advanced photo enthusiast category to reduce bulk and allow users to travel light while maintaining durability and build quality (seven percent smaller than the K20D and up to 25 percent smaller than other cameras in the same class)."

Checking also the UK and Canada Pentax sites, the corporate message at those sites is consistent: Compact and "lightweight for it's construction and category".

Realistically, any lighter weight would not be suitable for this body. My lightweight K-m is great with Ltd primes or other small lenses. But with any lens >400g, it's a bit front-heavy. The K-7 will be paired more often with pro DA* lenses and it's mass will allow it to remain suitably balanced.

[KungPOW]

I have no Idea why I return to this thread....

ME @ 445g
M 24-35 @ 290g
M 35-70 @ 470g
M 80-200 @ 615g
TOTAL @ 1820g

K-7 750g
da* 16-50 600g
da* 50-135 765g
total 2115g (+295g over the ME setup) - thats about the weight of a can of Coke.

But none of the M lenses are f2.8 so...

K-7 @ 750g
DA 18-55 @ 225g
DA 50-200 @ 260g
TOTAL @ 1235g (585g UNDER the ME setup)

Thats it from me.

[kenyee]

light != pro/solid

I prefer my cameras to feel solid, not plasticky. Pick up a Canon Rebel to see what I mean ;-)

[rparmar]

light != pro/solid

I prefer my cameras to feel solid, not plasticky. Pick up a Canon Rebel to see what I mean ;-)

Solid construction and weight have little to do with one another. One can certainly have a brick of a camera that is built like crap, or a lighter tightly made unit.

The whole idea of 35mm was portability compared with medium format. And the whole idea of cropped sensors is portability compared with 35mm. But then some want bigger cameras because they look more "professional". I am glad Pentax realises that is not the best way to go. And I look forward to them pushing the envelope in small and light bodies.

I have no Idea why I return to this thread....

I know what you mean. I am quite sure that between us we've said everything there is to be said.

[distudio]

Solid construction and weight have little to do with one another. One can certainly have a brick of a camera that is built like crap, or a lighter tightly made unit.

Indeed, I recall though the fanboys enthusiasm a couple of years back for the polycarbonate covered steel chassis citing how superior it was to mag alloy panelling or chassis. There are of course advantages to both, but I guess we'll see just how robust the new body covering in within the first few months at someone else's expense.

The whole idea of 35mm was portability compared with medium format. And the whole idea of cropped sensors is portability compared with 35mm. But then some want bigger cameras because they look more "professional". I am glad Pentax realises that is not the best way to go. And I look forward to them pushing the envelope in small and light bodies.

I tend to disagree, cropped sensor were a function of affordability, the first Pentax DSLR design was of course going to be full frame and was based on the MZ-S and was about the size of the MZ-S + grip first gen. There is nothing stopping Pentax from designing a FF camera the size of the previous film cameras except that they have made in body SR one of their major marketing tools. If Pentax used a similar mechanical topology to implement SR in a full frame camera the resultant body would be huge (probably as large as my Mamiya 7 ;-).

[TwoLegged]

What "hype"? There is no hype about the absolute-weight of the K-7. There is hype about the size, but not the weight. Are you confusing volume with mass?

No, I'm not

The main photography page on the Pentax UK website has a first para which begins with:

The K-7 combines a variety of advanced functions and user-friendly features to ensure outstanding reliability and capability within a compact, lightweight body.

Note that it doesn't say "compact, lightweight body for this class of camera". It just says compact and lightweight body, and doesn't qualify that statement.

[TwoLegged]

Wow, defensive much?

Sigh. You accused me of starting a flame thread, and I tried to set out why I thought you were wrong.

So now instead of addressing any of my substantive points, you have respond by personalising that as a "defensive" response, and changed tack accuse me of "flame bait" rater than "flaming".

When people start that sort of labelling of responses by making guesses about the intent of the poster, any reply can be dismissed in the same sort of terms as either "defensive", "flame" or "climbdown". If you wanted to discuss weights of camera, I'd be interested in continuing the discussion, but it's a pity that you seem to have chosen to criticise me personally rather to address anything of substance, other than as another personal attack.

So then you changed your stance and said that it was heavy compared to your ME that takes better pictures in your opinion(more flame bait).

This is what I mean about your assumption of bad faith. No, I didn't change my stance; I introduced a comparison with an earlier sort of camera, because it illustrates how cameras have gotten heavier.

And again, in response to my point about film, you don't ask "why do you say that" or say "lots of people disagree". I can cite plenty of sources which agree with my view that digital offers many sorts of great convenience (which is why I use it so much!) but at a cost in ultimate image quality, and I'm sure you can find plenty of grounds for disagreeing, which could make an interesting discussion. But instead, you prefer to label my reply as "flame bait".

Take a chill pill!

I'm quite chilled already, thank you.

[Marc Sabatella]

Note that it doesn't say "compact, lightweight body for this class of camera". It just says compact and lightweight body, and doesn't qualify that statement.

Well, you'Ve got to compare to *something*. It's compact and lightweight compared to the space shuttle. It's compact and lightweight compared to an elephant. It's compact and lightweight compared to a redwood tree. Oh, these are silly comparisons, and I should be comparing to other cameras? Well, of course - that's understood. And then, why not compare against *similar* cameras while we're at it?

[Vertex Ninja]

@TwoLegged

You might not have read all my posts, I did discuss weight.

I didn't want your thread to turn into a digital vs film debate, which is why i didn't further that conversation. To be honest, I'm surprised you would want to go down that road. It leads nowhere and is pointless.

When I said flame bait I was just trying to say that you were potentially inviting heated responses with your thread title. Same thing when you bring up film vs digital. Reading over it I realize it probably read rude, but that was not my intention. It was every bit as much flame bait as your thread title/OP. I apologize.

When I said "something for nothing" I was referring to the desire to have our cake and eat it too. The K-7 has many convenience features compared to your ME so to me it would logically be heavier. You have to take the good with the bad, in this case, bad being a tad more weight. Besides, it's all relative. I could say I expected it to be lighter than my shoebox pinhole I made in 5th grade, then everyone would tell me how silly it was to make such assumptions.

I was not trying to attack you personally. Hype is a completely subjective thing. Your hype is different than mine or the next guys. You expected it to be as light as your ME. I read/understood the marketing speak as saying it was one of the lightest in it's class, which it is. This is why I referred to "your hype".

I'm sorry I said you changed your stance. After rereading, you did not. Anyway there is nothing more for me to say that hasn't been said by others.

[rparmar]

I tend to disagree, cropped sensor were a function of affordability, the first Pentax DSLR design was of course going to be full frame and was based on the MZ-S and was about the size of the MZ-S + grip first gen. There is nothing stopping Pentax from designing a FF camera the size of the previous film cameras except that they have made in body SR one of their major marketing tools. If Pentax used a similar mechanical topology to implement SR in a full frame camera the resultant body would be huge (probably as large as my Mamiya 7 ;-).

You're right also about the affordability when it comes to crop sensor. But I don't think that was the main reason 35mm was introduced since even photogs who could afford anything at all bought them for portability above all else (the alternative being a rangefinder).

Mamiya 7... nice. If I had anywhere within 4 hours I could trust to do film affordably I'd get maybe the Mamiya 6 with the collapsible lens thing. Or, no, probably I'd get a Pentax 645. Or a TLR. Or... so many choices! But I don't live in a major city, so no film for me.

[dave9t5]

No, I'm not

The main photography page on the Pentax UK website has a first para which begins with:

The K-7 combines a variety of advanced functions and user-friendly features to ensure outstanding reliability and capability within a compact, lightweight body.

Note that it doesn't say "compact, lightweight body for this class of camera". It just says compact and lightweight body, and doesn't qualify that statement.

1. That is not hype (nor hype!!!!!!).

2. By that same flawed reasoning, it is neither "compact", nor "top-quality", nor "user-friendly", etc., all of which are unqualified adjectives used on that page.

3. And they do say "for this class of camera", just read the sentence that follows!:
"The K-7 combines a variety of advanced functions and user-friendly features to ensure outstanding reliability and capability within a compact, lightweight body. The features and performance of this product places PENTAX in the advanced /semi-professional area of the market."