[alman]

Excellent response jstevewhite ... very logical

[jstevewhite]

• You can use all M42 glass on Canon in Av mode, just like Pentax. No IS though.
• The D700 ($2369 at Amazon) is only double the K7's price ($1229-1299), not triple. Small price to pay for D3 performance.

Yeah, you can find an m42-to-anything adapter, just about. But what about K-mount glass?

I'm struck by your assertion that $1100 is a small price to pay for tiny differences in edge case performance. I get your comment about system - Nikon and Canon do have much 'deeper' systems - but what performance are you talking about on the D700?

[nostatic]

I don't fully understand how Nikon is a "fuller" system. I suppose there are some lenses at the extremes that Pentax doesn't have, but for most users the bases are covered, and there really aren't any current lenses with the build and vibe of the Pentax ltd primes. I don't see a 31/1.8 ltd equivalent in Nikon. Or the 40/2.8 pancake.

In part, I shoot Pentax because it isn't Canikon.

And they have an aesthetic. There is more to life than raw performance, at least for some people.

[jstevewhite]

I don't fully understand how Nikon is a "fuller" system. I suppose there are some lenses at the extremes that Pentax doesn't have, but for most users the bases are covered, and there really aren't any current lenses with the build and vibe of the Pentax ltd primes. I don't see a 31/1.8 ltd equivalent in Nikon. Or the 40/2.8 pancake.

In part, I shoot Pentax because it isn't Canikon.

And they have an aesthetic. There is more to life than raw performance, at least for some people.

I agree, I love the LTD primes and I don't think anyone has anything comparable. Nikon used to make a pancake, but gave it up. They have a 35mm F2 - 1/3 stop slower. *shrug* - I already agree nobody makes lenses like the LTDs!

But as to why they're a fuller line? Well, let's start with 9 current DSLRs. 53 lenses listed as current. 3 teleconverters. 7 Speedlights (ok, one is a remote control, so six).

I'm not a big fan, but that's a lot of choices, and Canon has more than that. I agree that Pentax covers most of the bases pretty well, but not like those two. Also, *every* third party lens will come in CaNikon mount.

I still choose Pentax, but the "deeper line", I feel, is a meaningful argument, as opposed to most others presented.

[Cosmo]

I disagree with your point and your unnecessary inflammatory language.

Oh dear.......I said the S-word

If price wasn't an object, I think most people would choose something like a Hasselblad or a Mamiya...not a top of the range Canon.

You're right, if price was no issue at all, I'd get a Hasselblad 500cm, a large format, Pentax 67II, Leica or D700, but that's not what I'm saying.

I have a buddy who has a 5D Mk. 11 Canon...very nice machine. But in comparing pictures of the things I photograph...animals, vintage cars...I don't see enough of a difference to justify trading in my K10D on the Canon.

You wouldn't be able to justify it, because it would cost alot, but we are talking about money not being an issue.

If money was truly no object...I'd be looking at a digital Hasselblad or a Mamiya.

Then, I believe I would see enough of a difference to trade in my K10D.

What I thought it was stupid that the OP was comparing a K7 to a 5DmkII, they are in completely different leagues

I wasn't saying out of all the cameras in the world, which would you get, I was saying out of those 2 choices, which would you get? If someone came up to me and offered to give me a K7 or a 5DmkII, I'd take the canon.

And assuming money was no issue, as was stated in the original post, I'd be able to afford all the Canon L glass.

[FullertonImages]

What I thought it was stupid that the OP was comparing a K7 to a 5DmkII, they are in completely different leagues

I wasn't saying out of all the cameras in the world, which would you get, I was saying out of those 2 choices, which would you get? If someone came up to me and offered to give me a K7 or a 5DmkII, I'd take the canon.

And assuming money was no issue, as was stated in the original post, I'd be able to afford all the Canon L glass.

I'd take the K-7. My friend has 2 5DMKII's, 24-70L, 70-200L, 50 1.2L and so on. I have a K10d and K20d, 16-50 DA*, 50-135 DA*, and so on. We were comparing shots the other day and he was blown away with the sharpness, contrast and color of my pictures. It all started be cause he was complaing because he never felt like his shots were razor sharp. So I showed him a few. I called him over to my computer and said check out this photo at 100%. He walked over, looked at it and said, ok zoom it in. I said, it is zoomed in, that's 100%. He was like, no way, so I zoomed back out to show him. He was totally blown away by the fact the the resolution and sharpness looked completely perfect at 100%. It looked like you could print a 100% crop with no problems. He told me that he never ever gets shots that sharp, and I said mine almost always looks like that, with either camera and any lens I own. He was actually kind of mad at his system. Somehow I doubt that he got two lemon cameras and 3 lemon lenses, and I also doubt that I got 2 exceptional cameras and 5 exceptional lenses.

Then we we were going over high ISO pics together. The MKII is good, but not as good as everyone hypes it out to be. Shots at 6400 are perfectly usable but far from clean. The 6400 shots, I would say, only looks slightly better than well exposed 3200 shots from a K20d as far as luminance noise goes, but it was much better on Chroma noise. But it sounds like they fixed that with the K-7. So I would say the 5DMKII only has about one stops worth of an edge against the K-7, while having lesser IQ.

[kmanlaker]

I'd take the K-7. My friend has 2 5DMKII's, 24-70L, 70-200L, 50 1.2L and so on. I have a K10d and K20d, 16-50 DA*, 50-135 DA*, and so on. We were comparing shots the other day and he was blown away with the sharpness, contrast and color of my pictures. It all started be cause he was complaing because he never felt like his shots were razor sharp. So I showed him a few. I called him over to my computer and said check out this photo at 100%. He walked over, looked at it and said, ok zoom it in. I said, it is zoomed in, that's 100%. He was like, no way, so I zoomed back out to show him. He was totally blown away by the fact the the resolution and sharpness looked completely perfect at 100%. It looked like you could print a 100% crop with no problems. He told me that he never ever gets shots that sharp, and I said mine almost always looks like that, with either camera and any lens I own. He was actually kind of mad at his system. Somehow I doubt that he got two lemon cameras and 3 lemon lenses, and I also doubt that I got 2 exceptional cameras and 5 exceptional lenses.

Then we we were going over high ISO pics together. The MKII is good, but not as good as everyone hypes it out to be. Shots at 6400 are perfectly usable but far from clean. The 6400 shots, I would say, only looks slightly better than well exposed 3200 shots from a K20d as far as luminance noise goes, but it was much better on Chroma noise. But it sounds like they fixed that with the K-7. So I would say the 5DMKII only has about one stops worth of an edge against the K-7, while having lesser IQ.

very interesting --- I used to own a Canon 5D before I switched back to Pentax and Nikon. When I looked at the first images I on my monitor from my k10 a couple years ago I was like --- so this is contrast, saturation, and sharpness right out of the camera. I almost always had to run unsharp mask on my 5D photos. Most of my k10 ( now my k7 ) images are good right out of the camera

kman

[GaryM]

I'd take the K-7. My friend has 2 5DMKII's, 24-70L, 70-200L, 50 1.2L and so on. I have a K10d and K20d, 16-50 DA*, 50-135 DA*, and so on. We were comparing shots the other day and he was blown away with the sharpness, contrast and color of my pictures. It all started be cause he was complaing because he never felt like his shots were razor sharp. So I showed him a few. I called him over to my computer and said check out this photo at 100%. He walked over, looked at it and said, ok zoom it in. I said, it is zoomed in, that's 100%. He was like, no way, so I zoomed back out to show him. He was totally blown away by the fact the the resolution and sharpness looked completely perfect at 100%. It looked like you could print a 100% crop with no problems. He told me that he never ever gets shots that sharp, and I said mine almost always looks like that, with either camera and any lens I own. He was actually kind of mad at his system. Somehow I doubt that he got two lemon cameras and 3 lemon lenses, and I also doubt that I got 2 exceptional cameras and 5 exceptional lenses.

Then we we were going over high ISO pics together. The MKII is good, but not as good as everyone hypes it out to be. Shots at 6400 are perfectly usable but far from clean. The 6400 shots, I would say, only looks slightly better than well exposed 3200 shots from a K20d as far as luminance noise goes, but it was much better on Chroma noise. But it sounds like they fixed that with the K-7. So I would say the 5DMKII only has about one stops worth of an edge against the K-7, while having lesser IQ.

Your friend has some really nice gear, and you do too. But all that this proves is that you're a much better photographer than he is. There is no reason that he should get less than sharp results from his 5DmkII's and the glass that he has. There are too many photographers these days with more money than skill!

[pcarfan]

1. For Canon and Nikon loyalists and for the new comers who are not Pentax loyalists I aks those who already have the Pentax K-7 why should we go for the K-7 instead of Nikons or Canons or even the Lumix GH1?
2. The New Canon rebel for example alows auto focus in video mode by pressing the exposure lock button. It works but slow. The nikon does not have it at all. For those who have the K-7, how easy or difficult is it to do the video focusing compared to the Canons or Nikons.
3. Finally if money is not an issue, would you still keep the Pentax k-7 or go for the DX3 or 5DMKII or even the GH1 as a new true all rounder?

Even if money is not a real issue, I would still have to get Pentax. (I think with a 20k budget Nikon and canon may be better, if size is not an issue). Why ?, because of the lenses.

You seems to be interested in the video capabilities, but my response is based on no weight given to the video feature at all...so, if this is so important then ignore it.

All the Pentax lenses have VR/OS thanks to in body stabilization. Pentax prime IQ is out of this world. How can you replace the following VR/OS lens in Canikon (I'll be missing a lot here)

DA15/4, (FA20/2.8), DA21/3.2, (FA24/2), (F/FA 28/2.8), FA31/1.8, DA 35/2.8, DA 40/2.8, FA43/1.9, FA 50/1.4, FA 55/1.4, DA 70/2.4, FA 77/1.8, (FA 85/1.4), a bunch of 135's, DA 200/2.8, DA 300/F4, DA 16-50/2.8, DA 50-135 2.8, DA 50-250. F4. Lenses within () are out of production but can still be bought.

All these lenses have at least 9/10 IQ...Canikon cannot match this.

[slrl0ver]

I tried very hard to stay out of this thread, but I wanted to add my $.02 .

Your friend might need to use the microfocus adjustment of the 5D.mkII to get the sharpness out of his lens, or his 24-105 L might be out of alignment. That combination is perfectly capable of capturing sharp, clean images. Also comparing out of camera JPEGs (if that is what you did) is misleading since every camera has "curves" used to adjust contrast, saturation, brightness, etc. You'd have to start from RAW and put them through a similar flow. Almost all RAW output needs sharpening because the image capture process (of any camera) removes some high-frequency details. JPEGs usually have this sharpening applied to them.

I've spent the past few weeks (months?) tortuously comparing cameras trying to decide between K7, D700 or 5D (mkI). The ONLY reason I booted the K7 out is the chroma noise. I sound like a broken record, but it really irks me. Everyone talks about the "detail" the Pentax captures, but that's due to the weak anti-aliasing filter!

Proof? Check out some of the DPReview line-resolution shots of a K20D. You see moire patterns start to develop which is evidence of a weak AA filter. Nikon decided to go with a stronger AA filter (D3, D700, D300), and in the DPReview line resolution shots you will see no moire. Canon also went with a weak AA filter (5D, 5D.mk2), and you can start to see some moire creep in. A stronger AA filter attenuates the high-frequency information to prevent aliasing, which manifests itself as moire patterns in the digital imaging world. The high-frequency information is your detail or "sharpness". If you want to see a moire monster, look at the old Kodak 14 MP EOS mount camera in DPReview. That has NO AA filter and you can clearly see the trend. And, for the record, I prefer the weaker AA filter, even if it introduces some small moire. An aside, a big debate is 5D.mK I vs D700 and the the consensus is extra detail of the 5D.mkI is attributed to the weaker AA filter.

If you take a 5D.mkI shot (one that is very sharp and clear) and add some film-like grain to the picture and compare it to a K20D or K7 image, you'll find they look very close. I actually did this with a few studio A/B shots and after the process I couldn't tell the difference between the two -- our eyes (and ears) actually "crave" that kind of random noise. High-end audio systems actually ADD random white noise as part of the Sigma-Delta "shaping" process(this is a simplified explanation). The grain-like noise of the Pentax cameras is VERY pleasing to me, but the chroma pushes me away.

Everyone will jump on my case and talk to me about the "plastic" images from other cameras, but the truth is, at low ISOs, RAW, NONE of those cameras engage any noise reduction. Yes you can post-process your pictures with noise reduction software, but for every critical shot that is ANOTHER step in the process.

So, to get back to topic, in my opinion the chroma issue is probably the ONLY reason not to get a Pentax/K7 over the competition. I really like the feel of the K20D, the controls are pretty intuitive and easy to operate, and I found the camera plenty fast. The improved AF in the K7 is very welcomed (and even has more capabilities than a 5D) and frankly the fact its weather sealed is very very major plus. Pentax glass is world-class, so you're not losing out there.

Pentax has 90% of a "pro" equation here. With the many K7 improvements, you'd be hard to fault the camera for AF (single or servo), metering or any of the other "major issues". I say all of this after handling and using a D700 for sometime. If Pentax addresses their inherent sensor noise issue, there's NO reason why you'd go for any other brand.

[pentaxmz]

I disagree with your point and your unnecessary inflammatory language.

If price wasn't an object, I think most people would choose something like a Hasselblad or a Mamiya...not a top of the range Canon.

I have a buddy who has a 5D Mk. 11 Canon...very nice machine. But in comparing pictures of the things I photograph...animals, vintage cars...I don't see enough of a difference to justify trading in my K10D on the Canon.

If money was truly no object...I'd be looking at a digital Hasselblad or a Mamiya.

Then, I believe I would see enough of a difference to trade in my K10D.

At the risk of also sounding inflammatory

This entire thread is pretty nonsensical. Let's get real here....

In the above quote, you are comparing apples to oranges. A K7, 5D MK II, Hasselblad, Mamiya? All of these have very different purposes! It's not about choosing one or the other, if money were no object.

The K7 is a prosumer camera and if you go to a pro model photo shoot, it would be pretty ridiculous to show up with a K7. You are better served by bringing the Canon (if you have to ask why, you have probably never worked as a professional). If you are doing still work... large billboards, etc. It would be quite silly to show up with the Canon. You are better served by the medium format camera.

If one person takes exception to my K7 comment... I swear, I'm gonna give you a hurt'n!

[filorp]

:If one person takes exception to my K7 comment... I swear, I'm gonna give you a hurt'n!

you've done this already

[FullertonImages]

Your friend has some really nice gear, and you do too. But all that this proves is that you're a much better photographer than he is. There is no reason that he should get less than sharp results from his 5DmkII's and the glass that he has. There are too many photographers these days with more money than skill!

I meant to say this, in my original post but, my friend is actually an excellent photographer. I've been professionally pursuing photography for a little over a year, and he been professional for 3 years. I have a lot of respect for him and have full confidence in his abilities. If I knew him a year and a half ago, he would have shot my wedding.

[FullertonImages]

I tried very hard to stay out of this thread, but I wanted to add my $.02 .

Your friend might need to use the microfocus adjustment of the 5D.mkII to get the sharpness out of his lens, or his 24-105 L might be out of alignment. That combination is perfectly capable of capturing sharp, clean images. Also comparing out of camera JPEGs (if that is what you did) is misleading since every camera has "curves" used to adjust contrast, saturation, brightness, etc. You'd have to start from RAW and put them through a similar flow. Almost all RAW output needs sharpening because the image capture process (of any camera) removes some high-frequency details. JPEGs usually have this sharpening applied to them.

I should have mentioned that as well. The whole reason this started is because he was micro-adjusting all his lenses and still wasn't happy with the sharpness. We were looking at hte focus test charts (which were done correctly) and the target zone was the most in focus for sure, but still wasn't as sharp as you wouldn't expect. We were comparing straight out of the camera RAW files with no processing. And I'm not talking like, oh mine look kind of sharper. He was like, Holy crap, I've never seen 100% crops that sharp.

[Pentaxor]

At the risk of also sounding inflammatory

This entire thread is pretty nonsensical. Let's get real here....

In the above quote, you are comparing apples to oranges. A K7, 5D MK II, Hasselblad, Mamiya? All of these have very different purposes! It's not about choosing one or the other, if money were no object.

The K7 is a prosumer camera and if you go to a pro model photo shoot, it would be pretty ridiculous to show up with a K7. You are better served by bringing the Canon (if you have to ask why, you have probably never worked as a professional). If you are doing still work... large billboards, etc. It would be quite silly to show up with the Canon. You are better served by the medium format camera.

If one person takes exception to my K7 comment... I swear, I'm gonna give you a hurt'n!

this is getting pretty redundant and you don't even own a K-7. pretty ridiculous making that assessment honestly speaking. I'm just wondering why one would look ridiculous by shooting a K-7 during a pro-model photo shoot. or has brand anything to do with shooting a particular subject. may I ask why not Nikon? the obvious truth why Canon is ideal for pro-model photo shoot is because most photographers prefer shooting a Canon and not because it is a superior camera. nor does it tell that the K-7 is an inferior camera and not being able to do the job. call it prosumer, the camera is more than enough of a match or atleast at par with Canikon FF cameras (setting aside noise and FOV). so where do you put the APS-C 40D and D300s' being used in pro-model photo shoots? I'm sure that the K-7 is above water compared to those two. not to bad for a so-called prosumer dslr, eh?