[Lowell Goudge]

forget all the marketing BS and performance

pentax is better because of in body shake reduction

where else can you hand hold a 500mm lens at 1/40th

SMC 300mm F4 and SMC-F 1.7x AF TC

[Wheatfield]

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 ...

The K-7 is the highest performance camera that takes K-mount lenses without feature robbing adapters.
Since it takes K-mount lenses, it is the better camera of the ones mentioned.

[*isteve]

The K-7 is the highest performance camera that takes K-mount lenses without feature robbing adapters.
Since it takes K-mount lenses, it is the better camera of the ones mentioned.

QED

I have often mused on the conversion to Nikon or Canon primarily because of availability of accessories, but if you like primes its actually quite hard to come up with a lens list of comparable quality at all, let alone for the same cost, especially at the wide to normal end.

There are some exceptions of course. The Canon 85 F1.2 is good but the 1.8 is pretty OK too. However a lot of the wide-angle to normal primes for N and C are old designs and average at best. Their performance is often not as good as zooms that cover the same range. Pentax OTOH have an incredible selection of SH and new digital dedicated primes covering 14 to 300 mm though with gaps.

With zooms, I would give the edge to Canon at tele and Nikon at wide, clearly this is where all the effort goes, but the cost and weight of the good Nikon stuff is prohibitive. Some Pentax zooms are good optically (50-135 and 60-250) but they are no longer cheap or fast-focusing enough to be competitive.

[CWyatt]

K-7 vs K-x, 500D, D5000, D90 - Why is the K-7 a better camera?

What's the point of comparing cameras of completely different classes? Only the D90 is in a similar category, but the K-7 is much more comparable to the D300/D300S.

Of course the K-7 is going to be better than those cameras in things like continuous shooting and build.

[distudio]

With zooms, I would give the edge to Canon at tele and Nikon at wide, clearly this is where all the effort goes, but the cost and weight of the good Nikon stuff is prohibitive. Some Pentax zooms are good optically (50-135 and 60-250) but they are no longer cheap or fast-focusing enough to be competitive.

Huge though it is that new Nikon 14-24/2.8 on a 700D would effectively replace more than its worth in my Pentax glass (covering the same speed/AOV) and most likely outperform it too. Each system has its merits.

[boesgaard]

I think for a meaningfull comparison you must remove the money-parameter, and put extra weight on the intended usage-parameter.

The camera is a tool, and for a specific job we use the tool that gives us the best result.

For me, the size of the K-7 along with the Limiteds makes a really great and robust travel-camera.

One weird thing about the K-7 is that it seems to be marketed for extreme outdoor adventures in cold and wet weather. But handling the camera with big warm and weatherproof gloves or mitts is actually not very easy.

Kind regards

Thomas

[*isteve]

Huge though it is that new Nikon 14-24/2.8 on a 700D would effectively replace more than its worth in my Pentax glass (covering the same speed/AOV) and most likely outperform it too. Each system has its merits.

Indeed the 14-24 is probably the best performing rectilinear wide angle lens on the market. Pentax does not have anything close to that wide (would need to be 9-16mm anyway) and the Sigma 12-24 is nowhere close in optical terms and nor is the Canon 16-35 F2.8. However, its not a lens I would choose to use daily or for travel. Its big, heavy and very vulnerable and I just dont use anything that wide.

I would argue that the Pentax 12-24 is probably as good in real terms as the 14, 15 and 21 mm lenses and the 16-50 is pretty close to the 21, 35, and 40 at least when stopped down a bit. But the point is, Pentax HAS a 15mm prime and the Canon and Nikon FF equivalents are pretty pants.


Also, if I was going full frame, 12MP would not cut it for me. I would go the Canon route with the 5Dmk2 right now unless Nikon decide to update the D700 with the D3x sensor. Also, Nikon have no equivalent to the 70-200 F4 IS which is a nice, light general purpose lens. The 70-200 F2.8 is very good but I would never take one on holiday.

[Rondec]

I think the beauty of Pentax is that because they have fewer model lines, they don't find it necessary to 'protect' their upper end models. What this means is that it is hard to know what camera to compare the K7 to. It is like the D50 in many respects, but has video. You could compare it to the 7D, but it is quite a bit cheaper there. Same way with Nikon offerings. Seems to me like the K7 falls somewhere between the D90 and the D300s, making it hard to compare cameras directly. To me, the biggest question is what is important to you? For some, Pentax may be the perfect answer, but for others Canon/Nikon/Sony may be a better solution.

[mawz]

@*isteve:

Canon and Nikon users can both use the Zeiss 21mm Distagon as a FF equivalent to the DA 15 Limited, or if size is an issue, the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 20mm f3.5. The latter lens is comparable in performance to the DA 15 Limited, the Zeiss is far superior (and is in fact the best prime available in a SLR mount for that Field of View range). If you're comparing at that FL, Nikon and Canon's current 14's are as good, if much larger (it's the DA 14 which has a performance advantage over the FF 14's on APS-C, of course it also outperforms the DA 15 Limited).

Pentax's selection of excellent primes gives them an advantage when compared to other APS-C and smaller crop systems, it does not do so against FF, especially Nikon, where there simply is a far larger available system of primes. And as good as the DA Limiteds are, they are not up to the performance of the best FF primes of similar FoV (the latter group includes the FA Limiteds IMHO).

Nikon's equivalent to the 70-200 f4L is the 70-300VR, which is of comparable performance through the same focal length range (It's head and shoulders above any other 70-300 on the market except Sony's 70-300G)

[Eetu]

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 ...

I am glad this topic has been brought up... you mentioned the Canon 500D. If I might slightly expand that to the Canon 550D. I have an old Pentax MZ-5n... So NOT it is time for me to enter the digital world. I am very, very seriously thinking about buying a Pentax K-7 in March or April... I thought I would get on this forum and learn how others like the K-7, and what it can do.

Having said that, my eye is turned to the CANON 550D that is due out on the markets soon... it would cost about 200 euros less... I know it does not do all things the Pentax K-7 does, but on the other hand, it does have 18 MP, improved video, etc.

Again, I have always used Pentax... but I am being objective, which this thread seems to be aiming at... I am not asking anyone here to think for me and tell me what to do... I don't know how many "What camera should I buy" threads that I have read... What I buy is really my responsibility and decision... but I sure would like to know (comparing these two cameras) what objective advice you might have for me.

One thing I keep hearing, never ever got an answer from others... I hear that the Pentax K-7 often takes underexposed pictures. One other issue, what about firmware, I heard of a couple of horror stories, like the camera doesn't work... Yikes (say it aint so).

Anyway, I hope this post of mine is along the lines of this this discussion, I think it is as I am considering buying one... but I just don't want to buy something and realize that I could have bought a better product.

Thanks.

Ned
Jyväskyä, Finland

[Eetu]

One weird thing about the K-7 is that it seems to be marketed for extreme outdoor adventures in cold and wet weather. But handling the camera with big warm and weatherproof gloves or mitts is actually not very easy.

Kind regards

Thomas

Thomas! Hello neighbour... I read what you said about "extreme outdoor adventures in cold and wet weather"... Have you ever been to Finland? We are having a cold spell here in central Finland... This Bermuda-born-California-now-living-in-Finland could only handle 10 minutes outside last night... and I refuse to go outside today... Anyhow... I think the Pentax K-7 could or would be a wise choice, perhaps, over the upcoming Canon 550D for this reason... though not the only reason.

Don't mind my sense of humour... All the best there in Denmark.

Ned
Jyväskylä, Finland

[Eetu]

What's the point of comparing cameras of completely different classes? Only the D90 is in a similar category, but the K-7 is much more comparable to the D300/D300S.

Good point! By the way, love your gallery... great shots, especially Mystic Forest! Well done!

All the best.

Ned

[Eetu]

pentax is better because of in body shake reduction

Ah, great point! Important, too. I would rather have shake reduction in the camera, not the lense... but that is my opinion.

Nice picture!

Ned

[Rondec]

I don't know about the Canon 550/T2i, but in general, I have been unimpressed with the Rebel line of cameras. Canon seems to cripple them somewhat in order to push pros and semi pros to the upper levels 50D and 7D. From what I have seen, the 7D is a significant step above the K7 in high iso performance and also does better video. I doubt that the 550 will show that much difference.

As to K7s arriving with problems, there have been some, but in general most with it seem satisfied. Not sure about the under exposed picture thing. The K7 if anything seems to tend toward over exposure (unlike the K10/20), but that is something that is very easy to fix to your preference with Ev compensation anyway.

[Canada_Rockies]

I don't know about the Canon 550/T2i, but in general, I have been unimpressed with the Rebel line of cameras. Canon seems to cripple them somewhat in order to push pros and semi pros to the upper levels 50D and 7D. From what I have seen, the 7D is a significant step above the K7 in high iso performance and also does better video. I doubt that the 550 will show that much difference.

As to K7s arriving with problems, there have been some, but in general most with it seem satisfied. Not sure about the under exposed picture thing. The K7 if anything seems to tend toward over exposure (unlike the K10/20), but that is something that is very easy to fix to your preference with Ev compensation anyway.

The exposures with Pentax seem to be aimed at 0.5 stops under Canon and Nikon in the same situation. Pentax metering has always been that way. It was great for slide film - particularly "tight" film such as Velvia and Kodachrome - and is great for digital "film" which reacts much like slide film in my world of photography. You can never get back a blown highlight. I like Pentax metering, based on my limited exposure: (ME, KX (film), SF-1, MZ-S and K10D).

Tests of exposure across multiple brands when the PZ-1 was new resulted in Pentax being panned against, among others, Canon for a consistent 1/2 stop underexposure. The Canon exposure log was randomly wandering between 1/2 under and 1/2 over - that's a full stop difference between two adjacent slides based on the subject type. The Pentax was a flat line - 1/2 stop all the way, except for bright subject on black background that none of the cameras' metering systems could handle back then.

The Canons I have seen lately tend meter differently depending on the subject much more than Nikon. In my limited exposure, Nikon's metering is the best on the planet right now. Whatever they are doing with their metering is nearly always spot on. I am familiar enough with Pentax exposure metering to know when it will be incorrect, and compensate, but the metering is not as good as Nikon's. It is better than Canon's less expensive cameras, particularly up here in snowy conditions. I have not done side by side comparisons with anyone who owns a top of the line Canon, but in the same price range as the K-7, only Nikon meters more accurately.