[GLXLR]

Usually I love their reviews, but when I just read the K-7 review, I almost wanted to laugh at how hard he was trying to downplay the Pentax. For example, he says that the SR works with "nearly" all lenses, even though it literally is ALL lenses. His image tests were also incredibly ridiculous, using mediocre lenses when for his Canon ones he ALWAYS uses L lenses. Did anyone else read this?

It only supports up to 1000mm and Pentax has made a 1200mm and 2000mm mirror lens.

I guess that's for starters.

[GLXLR]

Oh, I had no idea that SR wasn't useful on every lens. That's what I was always told. Anyways, he compares it to models that are entirely out of the range of the K-7 as well. The 7D is NOT a comparison, the Canon 50D would be a much better one (although it lacks video), and the D300s comparison is almost laughable. Either way I really don't take his reviews with as much appreciation now that I've read that review, in the past I've always thought he was never partial to anything.

Why wouldn't the 7D be a comparison? It only features faster shooting rates, 4+MP, and better AF... The 1080p and 1024p is barely any different and most people view on 3:2 on their TVs anyway.

Why wouldn't the D300s be a comparison? Offers also only faster shooting rates and better AF.

Pentax still offers full weather sealing, smaller body, and it's much cheaper than either (with similar feature set)

You are confusing me. Are the D300s and 7D magically better b/c they are more expensive?

[GLXLR]

That review is an embarassment for the site. Stating that the camera has "too many buttons" clearly shows the reviewer doesn't grasp the concept of an advanced camera and should stick to compacts. A person that lost among the information shouldn't be allowed to have a review site.



IMHO the 7D is the rip off here. Sony somehow manages to sell a full frame camera for $200 more than the 7D. And when you get the 7D you buy into a system designed for full frame cameras. Take the 28-70 f/2.8 L lens - LOSE WIDE ANGLE. Or the 70-200 - focal lenght not so useful for twice the cost of Pentax equivalent for aps-c 50-135. Canon L lenses cripple anyone left with a aps-c camera. It's just a really dumb move to buy a 7D and pay through the nose for FF lenses IMHO. Also dumb to buy a 7D and use it with ordinary EF-S lenses. A dumb move any way. And a lot of people are buying it it seems. Says something of the human race.

Is saying that there are a lot of buttons on the back a bad thing? I think he wants to point it out for the people reading his review... It is a review for his viewers right? Surely there are noobies looking at his reviews and don't want a dSLR with too many manual controls (too cluttered). Have you ever thought about anyone other than yourself (no offense intended)?

And the Song A850 and the 7D are at very different markets. 70-200mm doesn't magically become "not useful" on a crop body, it becomes a 105-300mm lens. Doesn't Sigma make a 100-300mm f/4 for FF?

Why is it dumb to buy FF lens for the 7D? I don't see a EF-S 400mm f/4 or anything longer than 250 for EF-S. What if the person wants to buy a 1Ds mark iii later in his life?

[Pentaxor]

DXO seems to think the noise difference is much smaller than a single stop between the 5D2 and the A900. The overall sensor scores are a tie.

Compare cameras

You have to take into account that when printing the camera with more pixels has its noise averaged out. It's only an issue if you're printing extremely large.

I mantain that the 7D is a total rip off compared to the A900. The Sony system as a whole sucks though, I'd never buy that camera unless all I were to use were MF Carl Zeiss primes. And also that when buying the 7D + L lenses same quality shots can be had by a lot less money using other brands (Pentax for one, and even Nikon)

really? well they don't look like it basing from the images that the A900 produced. anyway, you already mentioned that it depends on the print size which was my point of determining why the A900 isn't any good. that is exactly the use of having a 24 MP resolution. otherwise pointless if it's not good. besides, if the A900 was as good as the 5DMK II, how come it doesn't sell well considering that it's at the same price bracket? you might argue that it's marketing, which is in part is true. the other part of it, is that it's a waste of 24MP on large prints.

I understand what you are saying why you consider the 7D a rip-off by basing it on price difference. but remember that without Pentax and Nikon's slight cheap price but still pricey high-end lenses, you wouldn't consider them as a rip-off. just hope that Pentax would no longer increase their lens prices again in the future because the recent price increase half a year ago already made it difficult and unaffordable for people to buy some particular Pentax glass. if Pentax didn't increase their prices last March, basing from the purchases and money that I spent this year, I could had 3-4 more additional glasses. 3-4 glasses? now that is huge.

anyway, that is not the real argument or discussion of rip-off. it is rather the question of whether the next camera successor for one particular camera brand would be better than it's predecessor? or would it be a simple rebadge of the old model? like 40D versus 50D versus 7D. for Nikon, D80 versus D90 or D300 versus D300s. that's what I was trying to point out.

---

Last edited by Pentaxor; 10-01-2009 at 06:16 PM.

[Aristophanes]

That review is an embarassment for the site. Stating that the camera has "too many buttons" clearly shows the reviewer doesn't grasp the concept of an advanced camera and should stick to compacts. A person that lost among the information shouldn't be allowed to have a review site.

His quotes:

The Pentax K-7 isn't just an excellent midrange digital SLR -- it's also an incredible value.

I could spend about five more paragraphs talking about all the features on the K-7, so I'll have to restrain myself. In short, the K-7 has the kitchen sink, and then some.

Despite a few flaws -- most of them being easy to work-around -- the Pentax K-7 is an excellent digital SLR, offering features normally found on cameras two or three times its price. Heck, some of the K-7's features won't be found on any other camera. While I doubt that folks with a lot of money invested in other D-SLR systems will be jumping ship for the K-7, owners of Pentax cameras or those just starting out will be lining up to get their hands on this camera, and well they should. The K-7 is a great camera for enthusiasts, and it easily earns my recommendation.

From a critic's voice, you get no better than that. No other DSLR model of any brand he has reviewed has received such praise.

[mithrandir]

This is like an auto reviewer saying the Chevy Corvette is really nice. Its not as nice as a Ferrari that cost 3 times as much, but if you want real bang for your buck go with the Corvette even though it has more plastic panels. LOL!

[lithos]

Why wouldn't the 7D be a comparison? It only features faster shooting rates, 4+MP, and better AF... The 1080p and 1024p is barely any different and most people view on 3:2 on their TVs anyway.

Why wouldn't the D300s be a comparison? Offers also only faster shooting rates and better AF.

Pentax still offers full weather sealing, smaller body, and it's much cheaper than either (with similar feature set)

You are confusing me. Are the D300s and 7D magically better b/c they are more expensive?

'Zackly. I think it's quite fair to say it's in the same league as the D300s and 7D. Maybe not for the same reasons - of course, these three cameras aren't identical - but it's up there in terms of build and features, when you take price into account. I'm glad when reviewers mention the price/performance (bang-for-buck) ratio. Because price is very, very important to consumers.

It is, of course, not up there in terms of vibe, fashion, or cachet. That mythical Pentax brick wall: a Pentax cannot be as good a one of the pro cameras from Canon or Nikon, supposedly. Male bovine excrement, I say.

As Pentax often does, it comes out with "bastard" cameras that don't fit in the neat little boxes most reviewers have for sorting cameras. It hovers somewhere between, and that price does probably work against it (that's something that is, sadly, as stupid as it's true.) "Twelve hundred US? What's wrong with it?"

Jeff Keller's done a good job, in my opinion, in reviewing. Of course reviews are subjective. Reviewers and critics are only human, after all. But he's done his research, and actually used the bloody thing, rather than sat at his desk and fiddled with it for two hours before writing. Or some guy who has only used P&S cameras ("what's with all these dials?") Nor has he fallen back on painfully anal measurements, and tests that have no real impact on photos.

Good review, in my opinion.