[chiossif]

That 31 seems to mesh perfectly with it...

Yes it is...

Let me intrude here with a simple (and silly) question:
Is it a hood screwed on the silver one? If yes please tell me which... I'm looking forward to find a decent one for this great lens on a Pentax DSLR... Thanks.

[séamuis]

Seriously? I have auto-preview turned off, but I often manually bring up one out of every couple shots just to make sure exposure and sometimes DOF is what I expected.

With M lenses, I always do this - green button is nice, but I gotta be sure.

Isn't ignoring the back LCD completely giving up one of the advantages digital has over film?


.

maybe so, but using film enough I have confidence in my photos. plus a split screen in the viewfinder im always sure I have the shot. I dont do fast photography, and Ive gotten a lot of practice at street photography. I simply dont need it. plus I use my digital very much like I do my film cameras. I tend to use a lightmeter and make on the fly adjustments for changing light. I also only use a small selection of shutter speeds. usually between 1/30 and 1/1000. oddly enough just like a film camera. it takes practice I guess, but this is just how I work best. I dont really look at digital or the digital SLR as an advantage over film, just a different medium. so I use it the way I am used to using a film camera.

[Bart]

...If I get hold of a K-7 down the road, I might even use that feature but I wouldn't go out of my way for it.

If there was an alternative, I would get out of my way to get that.

[creampuff]

Having video capability doesn't make the K-7 any less of a camera...
its photographic capability and quality has not been compromised in any way imo.

But seriously, why this almost rabid disdain for this new feature?
It's just a built-in feature, no different from say the choice of metering modes or autoexposure modes or Live View; how you want to use it, or if you want to use it is really up to the user but it is silly to reject it outright without even giving it a try or at least be open to new creative possibilities that the new feature can bring.

OK I won't say more because it seems like even bringing up something like this will elicit a verbal barrage from a certain number of Pentax users.

[séamuis]

Having video capability doesn't make the K-7 any less of a camera...
its photographic capability and quality has not been compromised in any way imo.

But seriously, why this almost rabid disdain for this new feature?
It's just a built-in feature, no different from say the choice of metering modes or autoexposure modes or Live View; how you want to use it, or if you want to use it is really up to the user but it is silly to reject it outright without even giving it a try or at least be open to new creative possibilities that the new feature can bring.

OK I won't say more because it seems like even bringing up something like this will elicit a verbal barrage from a certain number of Pentax users.

well the obvious reasons for disdain, is that for those who really dont want it, it might make the camera look or feel less 'professional' because it has a 'gimmick' feature that has nothing to do with photography. there is also the fact that more features, more things to go wrong or break and need servicing. beyond that I would have said the price is higher because of such features that are not needed, but looking at the launch price of the K-7 if im not mistaken is only marginally higher that the K20's.

[Daveinozbikes]

Speaking of that special grip for the K10D/K20D, does anyone know if that grip is still available from Pentax?

Google it first..I feel there might be some bargains out there !!

[séamuis]

Google it first..I feel there might be some bargains out there !!

no bargains to be had. the replacement grip was a factory installed option that cannot be bought and installed by the end user. it requires disassembly of the camera and can only be done by Pentax.

[creampuff]

well the obvious reasons for disdain, is that for those who really dont want it, it might make the camera look or feel less 'professional' because it has a 'gimmick' feature that has nothing to do with photography. there is also the fact that more features, more things to go wrong or break and need servicing. beyond that I would have said the price is higher because of such features that are not needed, but looking at the launch price of the K-7 if im not mistaken is only marginally higher that the K20's.

Good points but based on my almost four decades of shooting, I've got to say at what point does a new feature no longer becomes a "gimmick" but an integral, standard requirement?

My old Nikon F was all manual and had no meter.
My Nikon F2AS and Minolta XK Motor had built-in meters and motor drives...
Aperture priority was introduced... the Pentax ME with auto-exposure outsells the all manual MX.
Shutter priority was introduced... Canon sells the AE-1 like hotcakes
Programmed auto exposure... another Canon success story in the A-1
Matrix metering... Nikon FA
Auto focus... Minolta 7000
Eye-start... Minolta 700si
Built-in flash...
TTL flash metering...
digital...
video...
etc.

Technology doesn't stand still. Photo/videography is here whether we like it or not. I take the view that we either adapt/embrace it or we remain set in our ways and get left behind.
Cameras today have more exposure modes, metering modes and a host of features that their flagship film predecessors never even had or dream about. Frankly I don't subscribe into the "more things to go wrong or break and need servicing" argument because DSLRs today are more electronic than mechanical. Sure electronics can and do fail but I don't believe they fail because of added features per se. As to the added cost argument, again that's not entirely true as these functionality are built-in within the circuitry.

Fact is just about every digital PnS camera today have more in common with video cameras than traditional film cameras because they essentially capture a single frame of a continuous image. Many generations and iterations of digital PnS cameras have video, it is natural for manufacturers and those who are stepping up from digital point and shoots to expect this feature in the current crop of DSLRs.

Price wise, I think the K-7 is plenty bang for the buck. Lots of "pro" features within a magnesium body. Anyway cameras today are designed for every ability and cater to differing requirements so it will be a cinch to set-up the K-7 to each individual user's needs.

[Samsungian]

Identical down to the Cent

1-23-08 K20D launched. Do we have a launch date set in stone for K-7?

Both were/are $1299.99 to start

Its amazing what you can get for same money some 17 months later.

Thanks for your hands on K-7 review Creampuff.

well the obvious reasons for disdain, is that for those who really dont want it, it might make the camera look or feel less 'professional' because it has a 'gimmick' feature that has nothing to do with photography. there is also the fact that more features, more things to go wrong or break and need servicing. beyond that I would have said the price is higher because of such features that are not needed, but looking at the launch price of the K-7 if im not mistaken is only marginally higher that the K20's.

[Peter Zack]

Yeah consider me a convert. I hated the idea of video in the camera. I really thought I had no need for the video aspect of a DSLR. Then other night was at my kids school year end variety show. I had the K20D and my wife the video camera. She thought the battery was fully charged and the camera died just before he was to come on and sing. Had I been shooting the K-7. we'd have the video. After thinking about it, unless the recording was long, this would save dragging around extra crap to events and make the camera even more fun to use.

Maybe they should incorperate a hi speed hard drive that attaches to the camera with a cable and you can put the drive in your pocket. Then shoot an hour or 2 of video if you want it. With a decent mic, this would make the seperate video cam redundant.
So put me down as one who doesn't mind the convergence of technologies as long as the photo part of the camera isn't a compromise or the video controls don't get in the way of the camera's primary function.

[Peter Zack]

Seriously? I have auto-preview turned off, but I often manually bring up one out of every couple shots just to make sure exposure and sometimes DOF is what I expected.

With M lenses, I always do this - green button is nice, but I gotta be sure.

Isn't ignoring the back LCD completely giving up one of the advantages digital has over film?


.

Agreed. I have the lcd at 3 seconds I think. Although I only preview the occasional shot. But when shooting a wedding or other paid work, the Histogram is an indespensable tool and I want that information right there, right now without extra button pressing. Paid work is a battle of speed and getting the shot. You often have no time to fool around or you'll miss many opportunities. Weddings in particular offer some of the toughest lighting situations ever. White dress, black suit, bright sun. Yeah I did it with film and did a decent job but the histogram has made the process easier with better shots.

Ignoring all the additional benifits of what a DSLR has is just silly. With the K-7 we are now approaching film's dynamic range and there's not much reason to shoot film unless it's a particular B&W you like or larger formats.

[eyou]

Having video capability doesn't make the K-7 any less of a camera...
its photographic capability and quality has not been compromised in any way imo.

But seriously, why this almost rabid disdain for this new feature?
It's just a built-in feature, no different from say the choice of metering modes or autoexposure modes or Live View; how you want to use it, or if you want to use it is really up to the user but it is silly to reject it outright without even giving it a try or at least be open to new creative possibilities that the new feature can bring.

OK I won't say more because it seems like even bringing up something like this will elicit a verbal barrage from a certain number of Pentax users.

i think the reason most people would be against this is because had this feature not been included, the money that was spent for its research could have been invested in something else (ie. >1/180 x-sync)

personally, i think video is a great idea . why does my gf have video in her p&s and i dont?! in no way am i going to be able to produce nice digital shorts (hell i cant even produce nice digital stills yet ), but some people will for sure. i just want it for memories.

[séamuis]

Agreed. I have the lcd at 3 seconds I think. Although I only preview the occasional shot. But when shooting a wedding or other paid work, the Histogram is an indespensable tool and I want that information right there, right now without extra button pressing. Paid work is a battle of speed and getting the shot. You often have no time to fool around or you'll miss many opportunities. Weddings in particular offer some of the toughest lighting situations ever. White dress, black suit, bright sun. Yeah I did it with film and did a decent job but the histogram has made the process easier with better shots.

Ignoring all the additional benifits of what a DSLR has is just silly. With the K-7 we are now approaching film's dynamic range and there's not much reason to shoot film unless it's a particular B&W you like or larger formats.

silly, is just an opinion. I work differently from you. and 'need' has nothing to do with why I use film. also being as this is a hobby and I don't do weddings or any paid event I have no need for on the spot 'checking'. again I don't really consider digital as an advantage over film just a different medium. and that's how I use my digital. obviously I have less requirements from my camera than you do. you might want to keep in mind that everyone uses their equipment in different ways. and the amount of dynamic range from a sensor being close to film is highly debatable, at least for the current crop of sensors inside pentax bodies. fuji is certainly closing the gap, but we dont have a fuji sensor. and almost all of my film is B&W, consequently most of my digital work is converted to B&W.

white balance is a non issue
I use a light meter
I have a split-image focusing screen

I trust my light meter and I trust my abilities and knowledge of the basics of photography. there is nothing the LCD will tell me that I wont already know or be able to possibly fix in lightroom when I get home.

[Peter Zack]

I understand that everyone's needs and uses are different. But the benifits of now having a histogram is pretty big for anyone. No different than having a light meter or any other tool to improve your shots.

As for white balance being a non issue, I find that odd. AWB does a great job much of the time but under mixed lighting conditions, say window light with flourecent and incandecent light all mixed, you can't always get it perfect in Lightroom or any other software all the time. Being able to make some adjustments in camera is a great feature. Photographers for years when shooting film did the same thing using filters.

If the tools are there, why not use them. A histogram is just another version of the lightmeter with a bit more detail and channel information.

[séamuis]

I understand that everyone's needs and uses are different. But the benifits of now having a histogram is pretty big for anyone. No different than having a light meter or any other tool to improve your shots.

As for white balance being a non issue, I find that odd. AWB does a great job much of the time but under mixed lighting conditions, say window light with flourecent and incandecent light all mixed, you can't always get it perfect in Lightroom or any other software all the time. Being able to make some adjustments in camera is a great feature. Photographers for years when shooting film did the same thing using filters.

If the tools are there, why not use them. A histogram is just another version of the lightmeter with a bit more detail and channel information.

if the photo will be converted to B&W and 99% of mine are, then white balance is a non issue. just because its there and useful for others doesn't mean it is for everyone. if I found it that useful I would use it. I dont find that any of my photos are so off on exposure that I cant make small changes to the RAW file in lightroom to achieve the look I want. most of the time my exposure is spot on. (thank you sekonic) so why should I check the histogram after every shot? I dont argue that it can be useful, but to say its silly for me to ignore it is.. well, quite silly.