[hcc]

There have been many threads about the K-x versus K-7 at Pentaxforums.com, and K-x/K-7 versus the Canikons D5000, 500D, D90 at DPreview.com for example. So why so many unnecessary 'bashing'? I propose to start this thread for all K-7 users to share their most valuable features of K-7. Is the K-7 the better camera ? YES and this is why ...

The K-7 is a powerful dSLR with advanced features. These arguments were debated before, but I believe that the best features of the K-7 are:
* the weather resistance,
* the view finder,
* the continuous shooting capabilities (frame rate & buffer size),
* the onboard post-processing options,
* the small size and relatively light weight of the camera.

The K-7 is not an entry dSLR like the K-x. It is a semi-professional camera. One "must" feature for serious photographers is the weather resistance and the K-7 is leading the pack. Anyone who shoots outdoor will recommend the K-7 ahead of all similarly priced Canikons; in fact, the K-7 is regarded by most oudoor professionals as the best outdoor camera (ahead of the Canikons) in terms of its price, small size, light weight and weather resistance quality.

I tried the K-7, K-x, D90, D5000, and 500D. The K-7 and D90 have the best viewfinders, but the D90 is so bulky and heavy for tracking and bushwalking.

The continuous shooting is another important feature of the K-7. I love the 5 fps rate and the good buffer size. Combined with the weather-resistance, I have taken some superb water features of splash and spray, in really harsh conditions for most cameras.


I love the K-7. And you ... why is the K-7 a better camera ?

[dandog]

i personally love my k-7.
my sister has a k-x which i have used,great camera for a noobie
but feels like a cheap piece of poo compared to my k-7.
i have not used a nikon or canon ever!but to be honest im sure they are just as good.
people really shouldnt get caught up in the bashing of brands because in the end
all it really does is take a fking picture.
and i cant really ever see a massive difference in picture quality anyway.
spend a bit of time learning the art of photography, not what is the best camera!!
its the user of the camera in the end anyway.

[Nass]

i personally love my k-7.
my sister has a k-x which i have used,great camera for a noobie
but feels like a cheap piece of poo compared to my k-7.
i have not used a nikon or canon ever!but to be honest im sure they are just as good.
people really shouldnt get caught up in the bashing of brands because in the end
all it really does is take a fking picture.
and i cant really ever see a massive difference in picture quality anyway.
spend a bit of time learning the art of photography, not what is the best camera!!
its the user of the camera in the end anyway.

yeah - great comment

[flash1100]

No wonder the K7 is your best camera, you are ranking it against inferior DSLR.

The K7 is marketed as a semi pro camera, none of those you mentioned are marketed as such. Infact the D90 is a relic, is was direct competiton to the K20D.

If you want to test the relative merits of the K7, compare it to the D300/s, and 50D. They are the competition for Pentax.

Why do I like the K7

1. because the $,000's in lenses I own work on it
2. It was a logical upgrade from the K10D
3. It is the best Pentax DSLR in terms of AF performance
4. great ergonomics

Balancing that out:

1. It is still no competiton for Canikon in AF speed and focus tracking
2. higher ISO is noisy - compare it to the K10D, it is a step backward
3. OEM and 3rd party lens selection is average at best (excluding those awesome primes)

[RubyT]

I don't have one, but I have noticed Outdoor Photographer is all over this camera.

[filorp]

i personally love my k-7.
my sister has a k-x which i have used,great camera for a noobie
but feels like a cheap piece of poo compared to my k-7.
i have not used a nikon or canon ever!but to be honest im sure they are just as good.
people really shouldnt get caught up in the bashing of brands because in the end
all it really does is take a fking picture.
and i cant really ever see a massive difference in picture quality anyway.
spend a bit of time learning the art of photography, not what is the best camera!!
its the user of the camera in the end anyway.

.... and this is cracking me up - much easier is to become a ''forum wise guy'' regarding equipment, much harder ist to become good photographer....

[Rondec]

No wonder the K7 is your best camera, you are ranking it against inferior DSLR.

The K7 is marketed as a semi pro camera, none of those you mentioned are marketed as such. Infact the D90 is a relic, is was direct competiton to the K20D.

If you want to test the relative merits of the K7, compare it to the D300/s, and 50D. They are the competition for Pentax.

Why do I like the K7

1. because the $,000's in lenses I own work on it
2. It was a logical upgrade from the K10D
3. It is the best Pentax DSLR in terms of AF performance
4. great ergonomics

Balancing that out:

1. It is still no competiton for Canikon in AF speed and focus tracking
2. higher ISO is noisy - compare it to the K10D, it is a step backward
3. OEM and 3rd party lens selection is average at best (excluding those awesome primes)

Have to argue with the high iso compared to the K10. If you had said low iso, I might not, but my K10 is very noisy at high iso -- hardly useable at iso 800. Usually try to keep it under iso 400.

[PentaxPoke]

Why do I like the K7

1. because the $,000's in lenses I own work on it
2. It was a logical upgrade from the K10D
3. It is the best Pentax DSLR in terms of AF performance
4. great ergonomics

Balancing that out:

1. It is still no competiton for Canikon in AF speed and focus tracking
2. higher ISO is noisy - compare it to the K10D, it is a step backward
3. OEM and 3rd party lens selection is average at best (excluding those awesome primes)

I agree with all 7 of these points. I don't know about "step backwards" with respect to k10d, but certainly not a big improvement in noise. Mainly chroma noise is improved I would say. Luminance seems to be not much better at all.

I think the only reason people compare the k-x and k-7 at all, is entirely the high-ISO noise issue. Doggone it, the entry level camera should not have less noise than the flagship, when they were only released within a few months of each other!

High-ISO performance is important to a lot of people. It is to me because I take a lot of indoor shots in poor lighting conditions.

[drewx2]

No wonder the K7 is your best camera, you are ranking it against inferior DSLR.

The K7 is marketed as a semi pro camera, none of those you mentioned are marketed as such. Infact the D90 is a relic, is was direct competiton to the K20D.

If you want to test the relative merits of the K7, compare it to the D300/s, and 50D. They are the competition for Pentax.

Why do I like the K7

1. because the $,000's in lenses I own work on it
2. It was a logical upgrade from the K10D
3. It is the best Pentax DSLR in terms of AF performance
4. great ergonomics

Balancing that out:

1. It is still no competiton for Canikon in AF speed and focus tracking
2. higher ISO is noisy - compare it to the K10D, it is a step backward
3. OEM and 3rd party lens selection is average at best (excluding those awesome primes)

The D90 is only rivaled by the K-7's build quality. D90 iso performance is even slightly better than the old D300. It also has greater DR and jpegs out of the camera are better.

And the point because you spent a lot already on lenses is moot for newcomers to Pentax. First thing I realized is that owning a Pentax system is quite costly. Yeah the camera may be cheaper, but its the lenses that get you. I know its hard to believe, but sometimes people dont want to buy these "amazing" lenses. They may just want a lens that is "pretty good," affordable, fast, and has autofocus. ie. Nikon 35/1.8 = $200, 50/1.8 = $125, 85/1.8 = $400.

I have owned a D90 and currently own a D700 and K-7. I also do not believe in brand loyalty. I could care less as long as it works for my needs.

[hcc]

Thank you everyone for your comments.

It would be good however to have some further inputs including from new Pentax owners.

I noted that the weather resistance was not mentioned as a key feature by any other respondants. Is it that Pentax owners take it for granted? Pentax is the only brand offering a good quality WR in reasonably priced dSLRs.

Similarly continuous shooting does not seem to attract much interest. Am I wrong?

Anyway thank you for the feedback and inputs. Look forward for more comments ...

[Rondec]

It is because all K7 threads eventually degenerate into discussions of dynamic range and high iso performance -- some of them a lot faster than others.

[drewx2]

It is because all K7 threads eventually degenerate into discussions of dynamic range and high iso performance -- some of them a lot faster than others.

It probably happens fast because the truth hurts. However, it does not have to be a limiting factor. Cameras should be looked as a whole package basis and not little features here and there. I know the DR and ISO performance isn't that great, but I bought a K-7 for the lightweight small size, weather-sealing, and gimmicky jpeg options. Unless you really pixel peep or need an extremely large print, you will never be able to tell the difference between many cameras.

However, I disagree reading about people always comparing to other brands and saying Canikon "sucks." It gets old. Unless someone concurrently owns two or more systems and uses on a regularly basis, I don't believe that person can really give a fair comparison.

[drewx2]

I noted that the weather resistance was not mentioned as a key feature by any other respondants. Is it that Pentax owners take it for granted? Pentax is the only brand offering a good quality WR in reasonably priced dSLRs.
...

I lump in WR with build quality. If we are comparing "semi-pro" bodies then WR is a given. Until the $999 price on B&H, the D300s wasn't really that more expensive ($1499). $300-400 isnt really much a difference for bodies because the cost of glass will definitely make or break a system.

[filmamigo]

I know its hard to believe, but sometimes people dont want to buy these "amazing" lenses. They may just want a lens that is "pretty good," affordable, fast, and has autofocus. ie. Nikon 35/1.8 = $200, 50/1.8 = $125, 85/1.8 = $400.

Sorry to go OT, but this comment resonated for me.

It's very true. Ironically, one of the many reasons I went to Pentax was the availability of good reasonably priced primes (the FA series.) The FA 28, 35 and 50 were very reasonably priced until -what- a year ago? When they were cancelled or repriced (50/1.4) and became "collector items". I don't understand why Pentax would drop basic bread-and-butter lenses like this. The Limiteds have gone from being the exotic top-end lenses for Pentax, to Pentax's primary offering.

[krtwood]

WR isn't important to me. I had my K100D out in light rain and dropped it in the snow with no ill effects, and none of my lenses are sealed anyway. I'm just not out in conditions where it would make a difference. Similarly most of the external controls like metering and AF selection are things I never change. But the quiet shutter I love, the ISO button I love (and never use the front dial either because of it). It just runs circles around the K100D, it's more fun to use.

I just got a tamron 70-200/2.8, and while Canon and Nikon owners seem to complain about it being slow focusing, on Pentax it uses the screw drive and the K-7 has such a stong motor the AF is as good as any of my other lenses. The system is no doubt still not as good as a D300 with nikkor 70-200, but the Tamron optically can keep up with it and the AF is good enough on the K-7, and it costs $1250 less, $1500 less than the new VR II. I harp on the lack of affordable primes for Pentax but that one lens can make up for a lot.