K-7 First impressions... wow!

Peter Zack · 06-08-2009, 08:59 AM

Ah well that clears that up. I was thinking colour. So allow me to retract my use of the word 'silly' which was well err... silly.

Peter Zack · 06-08-2009, 09:02 AM

Btw I mentioned "approaching the daynamic range of film" not that it's there yet. There are days when I miss the old Kodachrome 25, my favourite. It was challenging film but very rewarding. Today's digital sensors are darn good but that old slide film just had something special to the look.

séamuis · 06-08-2009, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

Ah well that clears that up. I was thinking colour. So allow me to retract my use of the word 'silly' which was well err... silly.

I shoot nearly everything in digital with an eye for B&W. I try to envision the shot in B&W. I use B&W film. my method of photography is perfectly fine for this. im no ansel adams. but then who is?

my passion in photography leans heavily toward the journalistic side. if I could go back about ten years I would have gotten started in highschool and hopefully gone to college to pursue it. I approach photography from a jornalistic point of view. and as such the attention to detail in regards to colour and exposure arent nearly as important as they are to say a wedding photographer.

séamuis · 06-08-2009, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

Btw I mentioned "approaching the daynamic range of film" not that it's there yet. There are days when I miss the old Kodachrome 25, my favourite. It was challenging film but very rewarding. Today's digital sensors are darn good but that old slide film just had something special to the look.

im too young to have any real first hand experience with kodachrome, but seeing many slides, I know what you are talking about.

CheddarGav · 06-08-2009, 09:25 AM

Will no one be happy until I put an order in??? Seriously, this is a nightmare - I can't afford this yet!!!

Being serious, great photos, I'm starting to realise just how compact the K-7 is, it is quite amazing that they've packed so much punch into something so small.

Seems like my return to Pentax was beautifully timed I'd say :0)

séamuis · 06-08-2009, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Being serious, great photos, I'm starting to realise just how compact the K-7 is, it is quite amazing that they've packed so much punch into something so small.

why is this amazing exactly? Pentax has been known for this almost since day one. just look back at Pentax film cameras, they are always generally smaller than the competitors. this isn't new even for digital. look at the *ist series, and of course the K-m. most people don't realize, but the istD is incredibly compact. it makes the k10/20 look very 'overweight'. I will say though I am impressed with its size. and is a big part of the reason I will be purchasing a K-7 when the price comes down a bit.

Bart · 06-08-2009, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by séamuis

...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...

That just about covers it.
For me the reason is exactly the fact that a feature that has nothing to do with photography is forced upon me. Indeed introducing more things to go wrong.
I'm not really interested how it makes the camera look or feel. That can simply be cured by not using this 'feature' for those that might care about looks.

It is obvious this will become another yes/no thing just like RAW/JPG and some others.

I believe I have expressed my dissatisfaction with this evolution more than enough and will (try to) keep quit about it from now on.

séamuis · 06-08-2009, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Bart

That just about covers it.
For me the reason is exactly the fact that a feature that has nothing to do with photography is forced upon me. Indeed introducing more things to go wrong.
I'm not really interested how it makes the camera look or feel. That can simply be cured by not using this 'feature' for those that might care about looks.

It is obvious this will become another yes/no thing just like RAW/JPG and some others.

I believe I have expressed my dissatisfaction with this evolution more than enough and will (try to) keep quit about it from now on.

I cant really argue your opinion. I still (for the most part) feel the same way about the video.

I wonder if this is how photographers felt when cameras started having built in meters... they must have been really put off by AE. the brilliant simplicity of my SV is beyond words.

GeneV · 06-08-2009, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

Btw I mentioned "approaching the daynamic range of film" not that it's there yet. There are days when I miss the old Kodachrome 25, my favourite. It was challenging film but very rewarding. Today's digital sensors are darn good but that old slide film just had something special to the look.

Sigh. I feel the same way about K25. I became very good friends with every form of tripod and stable surface of any kind as a result of a long love affair with K25. (Never had much use for K64, though).

losecontrol · 06-08-2009, 12:18 PM

it looks awsome!
I will love to try it out

schmik · 06-08-2009, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by séamuis

silly, is just an opinion. I work differently from you.

You seem to understand the fact that everyone works in a different way so why not understand that a camera must please many people and the different ways in which they work. Pentax are hardly going to build the camera to YOUR specs and the way YOU work. Now that would be silly!

mike

séamuis · 06-08-2009, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by schmik

You seem to understand the fact that everyone works in a different way so why not understand that a camera must please many people and the different ways in which they work. Pentax are hardly going to build the camera to YOUR specs and the way YOU work. Now that would be silly!

mike

how did you come to the conclusion that I was getting at that? you might want to reread what I posted. I ignore certain functions, but at what point did I complain about them being there? in fact I made it clear that if the histogram was of use I would use it. at no point did I even insinuate that I want a camera built just the way I want it. would be nice, but I am realistic. I didn't complain about features, I said I don't use them. big difference.

Im quite happy with how my Pentax cameras work. both digital and film. if I wasn't I wouldn't use them.

schmik · 06-08-2009, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by séamuis

personally I do in fact find the back LCD useless.

...I trust my abilities and knowledge of the basics of photography. there is nothing the LCD will tell me that I wont already know...

You do seem to rant about the LCD a fair bit. I agree, you did not say that there shouldn't be one but you do imply it.

Your rant is silly because IMO the LCD is one of the most useful features of DLSRs.

mike

séamuis · 06-08-2009, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by schmik

You do seem to rant about the LCD a fair bit. I agree, you did not say that there shouldn't be one but you do imply it.

Your rant is silly because IMO the LCD is one of the most useful features of DLSRs.

mike

no. first of all it wasn't a rant, I only defended my view when peter Zack said.. well the same exact thing you just said. and im not going around this ride again. reread the conversation between me and peter zack.....

useful to you, not to me. are you really complaining about what I said and then saying the exact same thing peter said? im serious, im not going over this again.

jesus, nobody reads properly anymore....

schmik · 06-08-2009, 04:19 PM

Effective communication is not about what message you think you are sending it is about what understanding people actually get from that message. I re-read the posts. The message I get from your posts is that you feel llike LCDs and movie mode (or any feature that you don't use) is useless and a waste of money. Sorry but that is the way you come across.

mike

06-08-2009, 09:25 AM	#65
CheddarGav Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: UK Posts: 53	Oh come on!! Will no one be happy until I put an order in??? Seriously, this is a nightmare - I can't afford this yet!!! Being serious, great photos, I'm starting to realise just how compact the K-7 is, it is quite amazing that they've packed so much punch into something so small. Seems like my return to Pentax was beautifully timed I'd say :0)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-5... Wow wow wow wow wow!! Hugely impressive.	65535	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	85	11-08-2010 08:45 PM
WOW!!!!	whbroker	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	09-27-2010 12:36 PM
wow...	Yassarian	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	1	09-19-2010 05:25 PM
WOW	wandat	Welcomes and Introductions	0	06-06-2007 04:12 AM

06-08-2009, 08:59 AM	#61
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Ah well that clears that up. I was thinking colour. So allow me to retract my use of the word 'silly' which was well err... silly.

06-08-2009, 09:02 AM	#62
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Btw I mentioned "approaching the daynamic range of film" not that it's there yet. There are days when I miss the old Kodachrome 25, my favourite. It was challenging film but very rewarding. Today's digital sensors are darn good but that old slide film just had something special to the look.

06-08-2009, 09:06 AM	#63
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by Peter Zack Ah well that clears that up. I was thinking colour. So allow me to retract my use of the word 'silly' which was well err... silly. I shoot nearly everything in digital with an eye for B&W. I try to envision the shot in B&W. I use B&W film. my method of photography is perfectly fine for this. im no ansel adams. but then who is? my passion in photography leans heavily toward the journalistic side. if I could go back about ten years I would have gotten started in highschool and hopefully gone to college to pursue it. I approach photography from a jornalistic point of view. and as such the attention to detail in regards to colour and exposure arent nearly as important as they are to say a wedding photographer.

06-08-2009, 09:08 AM	#64
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by Peter Zack Btw I mentioned "approaching the daynamic range of film" not that it's there yet. There are days when I miss the old Kodachrome 25, my favourite. It was challenging film but very rewarding. Today's digital sensors are darn good but that old slide film just had something special to the look. im too young to have any real first hand experience with kodachrome, but seeing many slides, I know what you are talking about.

06-08-2009, 09:35 AM	#66
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Quote: Being serious, great photos, I'm starting to realise just how compact the K-7 is, it is quite amazing that they've packed so much punch into something so small. why is this amazing exactly? Pentax has been known for this almost since day one. just look back at Pentax film cameras, they are always generally smaller than the competitors. this isn't new even for digital. look at the *ist series, and of course the K-m. most people don't realize, but the istD is incredibly compact. it makes the k10/20 look very 'overweight'. I will say though I am impressed with its size. and is a big part of the reason I will be purchasing a K-7 when the price comes down a bit.

06-08-2009, 10:40 AM	#67
Bart Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: WW community of Pentax users Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,646	Originally posted by séamuis ...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... That just about covers it. For me the reason is exactly the fact that a feature that has nothing to do with photography is forced upon me. Indeed introducing more things to go wrong. I'm not really interested how it makes the camera look or feel. That can simply be cured by not using this 'feature' for those that might care about looks. It is obvious this will become another yes/no thing just like RAW/JPG and some others. I believe I have expressed my dissatisfaction with this evolution more than enough and will (try to) keep quit about it from now on.

06-08-2009, 10:47 AM	#68
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by Bart That just about covers it. For me the reason is exactly the fact that a feature that has nothing to do with photography is forced upon me. Indeed introducing more things to go wrong. I'm not really interested how it makes the camera look or feel. That can simply be cured by not using this 'feature' for those that might care about looks. It is obvious this will become another yes/no thing just like RAW/JPG and some others. I believe I have expressed my dissatisfaction with this evolution more than enough and will (try to) keep quit about it from now on. I cant really argue your opinion. I still (for the most part) feel the same way about the video. I wonder if this is how photographers felt when cameras started having built in meters... they must have been really put off by AE. the brilliant simplicity of my SV is beyond words.

06-08-2009, 12:14 PM	#69
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Peter Zack Btw I mentioned "approaching the daynamic range of film" not that it's there yet. There are days when I miss the old Kodachrome 25, my favourite. It was challenging film but very rewarding. Today's digital sensors are darn good but that old slide film just had something special to the look. Sigh. I feel the same way about K25. I became very good friends with every form of tripod and stable surface of any kind as a result of a long love affair with K25. (Never had much use for K64, though).

06-08-2009, 12:18 PM	#70
losecontrol Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Gnesta, Sweden Posts: 373	it looks awsome! I will love to try it out

06-08-2009, 03:22 PM	#71
schmik Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sydney Aus Photos: Gallery Posts: 527	Originally posted by séamuis silly, is just an opinion. I work differently from you. You seem to understand the fact that everyone works in a different way so why not understand that a camera must please many people and the different ways in which they work. Pentax are hardly going to build the camera to YOUR specs and the way YOU work. Now that would be silly! mike

06-08-2009, 03:34 PM	#72
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by schmik You seem to understand the fact that everyone works in a different way so why not understand that a camera must please many people and the different ways in which they work. Pentax are hardly going to build the camera to YOUR specs and the way YOU work. Now that would be silly! mike how did you come to the conclusion that I was getting at that? you might want to reread what I posted. I ignore certain functions, but at what point did I complain about them being there? in fact I made it clear that if the histogram was of use I would use it. at no point did I even insinuate that I want a camera built just the way I want it. would be nice, but I am realistic. I didn't complain about features, I said I don't use them. big difference. Im quite happy with how my Pentax cameras work. both digital and film. if I wasn't I wouldn't use them.

06-08-2009, 03:50 PM	#73
schmik Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sydney Aus Photos: Gallery Posts: 527	Originally posted by séamuis personally I do in fact find the back LCD useless. ...I trust my abilities and knowledge of the basics of photography. there is nothing the LCD will tell me that I wont already know... You do seem to rant about the LCD a fair bit. I agree, you did not say that there shouldn't be one but you do imply it. Your rant is silly because IMO the LCD is one of the most useful features of DLSRs. mike

06-08-2009, 03:57 PM	#74
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by schmik You do seem to rant about the LCD a fair bit. I agree, you did not say that there shouldn't be one but you do imply it. Your rant is silly because IMO the LCD is one of the most useful features of DLSRs. mike no. first of all it wasn't a rant, I only defended my view when peter Zack said.. well the same exact thing you just said. and im not going around this ride again. reread the conversation between me and peter zack..... useful to you, not to me. are you really complaining about what I said and then saying the exact same thing peter said? im serious, im not going over this again. jesus, nobody reads properly anymore....

06-08-2009, 04:19 PM	#75
schmik Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sydney Aus Photos: Gallery Posts: 527	Effective communication is not about what message you think you are sending it is about what understanding people actually get from that message. I re-read the posts. The message I get from your posts is that you feel llike LCDs and movie mode (or any feature that you don't use) is useless and a waste of money. Sorry but that is the way you come across. mike