Nice review of the K-7

Samsungian · 03-21-2010, 05:26 AM

But... will he buy a K-7 now ???

>>>"

My Bottom Line Conclusion

My time with the Pentax K7 has come to an end and if you have not already noticed, I really liked it. No, I really really liked it. Honestly, the ONLY weakness I have found with this camera is that it’s high ISO is not up there with the equivalent Nikon and Canon DSLR’s. Even with that said, the ISO performance is not as bad as many make it out to be. Overall I feel that this is the BEST DSLR you can get for under $1000. PERIOD. It’s build, features, quality, video, and size/weight all add up to make this a bargain in the DSLR world. If you are looking to get into a DSLR system and are not yet committed to a particular brand AND do not want to spend a fortune then I highly doubt you would be disappointed in the Pentax K7. I may end up with one myself really soon or I may wait it out, who knows. But for those who want a camera NOW and have been on the fence then I can highly recommend the Pentax K7 and of course any of the FA or DA lenses.

Will I abandoned my M9 for one? NO WAY but I may buy one to add as a companion to my M9 for those times when I want macro, telephoto or video. It has what I have been looking for in a DSLR and that is SMALL size, SUPERB build and HIGH quality!

<<<"

Erik · 03-21-2010, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by Samsungian

But... will he buy a K-7 now ???

He may, or he may not. If you read between the lines it sounds to me like he's in the "gonna wait for the K-8 to see if it improves high-ISO" camp.

**volley** · 03-21-2010, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by Samsungian

But... will he buy a K-7 now ???"

Does it make any difference??

Truly a review which focusses on real world photography (... and not the "brick wall" test shots).

Andres · 03-21-2010, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by volley

Does it make any difference??

Truly a review which focusses on real world photography (... and not the "brick wall" test shots).

YES SIR! I'm quite tired with those silly test with walls, charts and so on... I want the camera for a lot of different kinds of photos, I'm not a "wall - Charts photographer"!!!!

fearview · 03-21-2010, 06:21 AM

Even the kit zoom looks great. Shot at F4, 1/60s, ISO 100, 26mm

..

yes sir. what we have is one of the sharpest kit lens available in the market today.

..

his review wipe my nightmare about what Ken Rock said about our 645D.

séamuis · 03-21-2010, 06:37 AM

its about time you see an honest review from someone who knows equipment, and more importantly, knows photography. even if he didnt like it, this is how it should be done.

I want his M9 somethin' bad.

MrApollinax · 03-21-2010, 06:54 AM

He also discusses the 31 and 77 on his blog.

Last edited by Peter Zack; 03-22-2010 at 01:27 PM. Reason: Threads merged

omega leader · 03-21-2010, 07:02 AM

Quite a good little review. Makes me wish I had the 31mm Ltd.

ogl · 03-21-2010, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by LeDave

In case you haven't seen this also, he even compared the FA 31 Limited to the Leica 35 f/1.4 Summilux. For a $4,500 lens vs a $1,000 lens, the results really show the cost differential.

M9 has 18 MP, K-7 - 14.6 MP.
Leica has no AA filter, K-7 has.

If it's JPEG, I can say that there is difference in JPEG defaults and JPEG engines too.
Anyway, FF LEICA without AA filter at all will be ALWAYS sharper than ANY APS-C camera.

I don't see that Leica is MUCH sharper. It's very-very good at f1.4. But at f1.8 both lenses are very close.

As for CA - FA31 has very low CA. What is he talking about?

Bokeh - I like FA31 more.

TourDeForce · 03-21-2010, 07:16 AM

I've studied the high ISO comparisons between Pentax and the other makers. Sure, noise is an issue in the pictures, but the value on low noise is misplaced. Check the comparisons for yourself; Pentax consistently has superior detail retention, hands down. DPreview.com has some nice side by side crops in their reviews for reference.

What the average user doesn't know, once that detail is washed out with noise reduction, you can't get it back. Don't know about you, but I'd rather have the detail and perform the remaining noise reduction in PP where I have full control and the algorithm to filter noise can be much more sophisticated (dependent upon software).

Furthermore, I rarely require high ISO and the fact we have image stabilization in modern DSLRs further reduces the need to shoot high ISO. The most common situation where high ISO may be of great benefit - indoor sports photography. Even then I'd love to compare PP'd photos with users of any other brand of equipment. Make an interesting study...

ogl · 03-21-2010, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

My 31 Limited is sharper than my 77 Limited wide open. In fact, I have had three 77 Limiteds and the 31 is sharper than all of them. I've never seen a lens faster than F:4 that is sharper wide open than the 31 Limited.....
There are sample to sample variations in lenses. In addition, far too many use AF when testing lenses. Wide open this test the precision of the AF system, not necessarily lens quality...

FA31 has the same sharpness wide-opened as FA77. If he says that FA77 is sharp and FA31 is soft...

It means his copy of FA31 is not good...

MrApollinax · 03-21-2010, 09:21 AM

Looks like Ned has taken notice of Mr. Huff's post on the K-7:

NED BUNNELL: Steve Huff's Review of the K7

philbaum · 03-21-2010, 12:09 PM

Thanks for the link, pretty balanced i think.

I agree with the reviewer about the onboard HDR feature, but the exposure bracketing provided by the K7, either 3 or 5 images with up to 2. EV, is superior to several more expensive dslrs. It allows one to do HDR outside the camera with the ability to do better blending or HDR if one prefers.

Nice review comments about the K7 shutter:

Quote:

The shutter: Wow. This shutter reminds me so much of the old Olympus E1. NOT the E-P1 but the original 5 Megapixel E-1. It is quiet, smooth, and silky. No clunk-n-chunk like the Canons and Nikons. Why can’t every camera manufacturer make a shutter this nice sounding? When I hear it I think “silk”. Very smooth. Also, it is a 1/8000 shutter rated to 100,000 “fires”.

His comments are consistent with others about the K7 having better low ISO IQ, while the Kx has better high ISO IQ. Wonder what sensor Pentax will put in the K8 :-)

starbase218 · 03-21-2010, 01:03 PM

I'm starting to think everyone is saying the K-7 has bad high-ISO performance because they heard someone else saying it. And so misinformation is spread. DPreview mentioned only this:

# Measurably and visibly more noise than competition at high ISOs (JPEG)
# More RAW noise than predecessor (but in line with competition)

RAW noise performance in line with the competition, JPEG noise worse than the competition. In other words, we are talking about the built-in noise reduction system that is perhaps not quite so extensive as in competitive camera's. And that's not automatically a bad thing, considering the amount of detail the K-7 JPEGs contain compared to the competition.

Yes, the K20D's RAW high-ISO performance was better. It was also better than that of the Nikon D300 and the Canon EOS 50D. The K-7 beats the 50D and is about the same as the D300. If you want better high-ISO noise than the K-7 offers, get a K20D. Or get a K-x, if you don't mind having a budget camera. Other than that, stop saying K-7 has bad high-ISO. It's just not true.

K7er · 03-21-2010, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by starbase218

I'm starting to think everyone is saying the K-7 has bad high-ISO performance because they heard someone else saying it. And so misinformation is spread. DPreview mentioned only this:

I think everyone expected an **MAJOR** improvement from a successive DSLR release (Note that Nikon and Cannon have not released anything in a while because their other departments are already up there). So, the pentax users start mentioning in the groups, ISO is bad but only relative to their own expectations of a K20D successor, and then everybody just picks up on it -- there is no stopping a wild fire, is there?

03-21-2010, 05:26 AM	#16
Samsungian Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Colorado USA Posts: 1,337	But... will he buy a K-7 now ??? But... will he buy a K-7 now ??? >>>" My Bottom Line Conclusion My time with the Pentax K7 has come to an end and if you have not already noticed, I really liked it. No, I really really liked it. Honestly, the ONLY weakness I have found with this camera is that it’s high ISO is not up there with the equivalent Nikon and Canon DSLR’s. Even with that said, the ISO performance is not as bad as many make it out to be. Overall I feel that this is the BEST DSLR you can get for under $1000. PERIOD. It’s build, features, quality, video, and size/weight all add up to make this a bargain in the DSLR world. If you are looking to get into a DSLR system and are not yet committed to a particular brand AND do not want to spend a fortune then I highly doubt you would be disappointed in the Pentax K7. I may end up with one myself really soon or I may wait it out, who knows. But for those who want a camera NOW and have been on the fence then I can highly recommend the Pentax K7 and of course any of the FA or DA lenses. Will I abandoned my M9 for one? NO WAY but I may buy one to add as a companion to my M9 for those times when I want macro, telephoto or video. It has what I have been looking for in a DSLR and that is SMALL size, SUPERB build and HIGH quality! <<<"

03-21-2010, 07:04 AM	#24
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by LeDave In case you haven't seen this also, he even compared the FA 31 Limited to the Leica 35 f/1.4 Summilux. For a $4,500 lens vs a $1,000 lens, the results really show the cost differential. M9 has 18 MP, K-7 - 14.6 MP. Leica has no AA filter, K-7 has. If it's JPEG, I can say that there is difference in JPEG defaults and JPEG engines too. Anyway, FF LEICA without AA filter at all will be ALWAYS sharper than ANY APS-C camera. I don't see that Leica is MUCH sharper. It's very-very good at f1.4. But at f1.8 both lenses are very close. As for CA - FA31 has very low CA. What is he talking about? Bokeh - I like FA31 more. Last edited by ogl; 03-21-2010 at 07:25 AM.

03-21-2010, 07:16 AM	#25
TourDeForce Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 514	I've studied the high ISO comparisons between Pentax and the other makers. Sure, noise is an issue in the pictures, but the value on low noise is misplaced. Check the comparisons for yourself; Pentax consistently has superior detail retention, hands down. DPreview.com has some nice side by side crops in their reviews for reference. What the average user doesn't know, once that detail is washed out with noise reduction, you can't get it back. Don't know about you, but I'd rather have the detail and perform the remaining noise reduction in PP where I have full control and the algorithm to filter noise can be much more sophisticated (dependent upon software). Furthermore, I rarely require high ISO and the fact we have image stabilization in modern DSLRs further reduces the need to shoot high ISO. The most common situation where high ISO may be of great benefit - indoor sports photography. Even then I'd love to compare PP'd photos with users of any other brand of equipment. Make an interesting study... Last edited by TourDeForce; 03-21-2010 at 07:19 AM. Reason: sources

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
nice K-r review on ephotozine	312m	Pentax News and Rumors	1	11-04-2010 09:52 AM
Landscape nice house... nice boat....	dcmsox2004	Post Your Photos!	7	08-18-2010 02:49 PM
Nice little review of K-x on "Toms Guide"	NaClH2O	Pentax News and Rumors	10	06-01-2010 04:05 AM
Nice K20D Review	benjikan	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	11-16-2008 04:22 AM
Nice review of the DA 50-200 on Photo.net	macdaddy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	08-20-2007 08:59 AM

03-21-2010, 05:28 AM	#17
Erik Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Umeå, Sweden Posts: 755	Originally posted by Samsungian But... will he buy a K-7 now ??? He may, or he may not. If you read between the lines it sounds to me like he's in the "gonna wait for the K-8 to see if it improves high-ISO" camp.

03-21-2010, 05:57 AM	#18
volley Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Springe Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,693	Originally posted by Samsungian But... will he buy a K-7 now ???" Does it make any difference?? Truly a review which focusses on real world photography (... and not the "brick wall" test shots).

03-21-2010, 06:05 AM	#19
Andres Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Buenos Aires Photos: Albums Posts: 240	Originally posted by volley Does it make any difference?? Truly a review which focusses on real world photography (... and not the "brick wall" test shots). YES SIR! I'm quite tired with those silly test with walls, charts and so on... I want the camera for a lot of different kinds of photos, I'm not a "wall - Charts photographer"!!!!

03-21-2010, 06:21 AM	#20
fearview Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Jakarta Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,067	Even the kit zoom looks great. Shot at F4, 1/60s, ISO 100, 26mm .. yes sir. what we have is one of the sharpest kit lens available in the market today. .. his review wipe my nightmare about what Ken Rock said about our 645D.

03-21-2010, 06:37 AM	#21
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	its about time you see an honest review from someone who knows equipment, and more importantly, knows photography. even if he didnt like it, this is how it should be done. I want his M9 somethin' bad.

03-21-2010, 06:54 AM	#22
MrApollinax Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,529 Original Poster	He also discusses the 31 and 77 on his blog. Last edited by Peter Zack; 03-22-2010 at 01:27 PM. Reason: Threads merged

03-21-2010, 07:02 AM	#23
omega leader Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Niagara Region, Ontario Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 417	Quite a good little review. Makes me wish I had the 31mm Ltd.

03-21-2010, 07:22 AM	#26
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Pål Jensen My 31 Limited is sharper than my 77 Limited wide open. In fact, I have had three 77 Limiteds and the 31 is sharper than all of them. I've never seen a lens faster than F:4 that is sharper wide open than the 31 Limited..... There are sample to sample variations in lenses. In addition, far too many use AF when testing lenses. Wide open this test the precision of the AF system, not necessarily lens quality... FA31 has the same sharpness wide-opened as FA77. If he says that FA77 is sharp and FA31 is soft... It means his copy of FA31 is not good...

03-21-2010, 09:21 AM	#27
MrApollinax Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,529 Original Poster	Looks like Ned has taken notice of Mr. Huff's post on the K-7: NED BUNNELL: Steve Huff's Review of the K7

03-21-2010, 12:09 PM	#28
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Thanks for the link, pretty balanced i think. I agree with the reviewer about the onboard HDR feature, but the exposure bracketing provided by the K7, either 3 or 5 images with up to 2. EV, is superior to several more expensive dslrs. It allows one to do HDR outside the camera with the ability to do better blending or HDR if one prefers. Nice review comments about the K7 shutter: Quote: The shutter: Wow. This shutter reminds me so much of the old Olympus E1. NOT the E-P1 but the original 5 Megapixel E-1. It is quiet, smooth, and silky. No clunk-n-chunk like the Canons and Nikons. Why can’t every camera manufacturer make a shutter this nice sounding? When I hear it I think “silk”. Very smooth. Also, it is a 1/8000 shutter rated to 100,000 “fires”. His comments are consistent with others about the K7 having better low ISO IQ, while the Kx has better high ISO IQ. Wonder what sensor Pentax will put in the K8 :-)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-21-2010, 01:03 PM	#29
starbase218 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe Posts: 1,119	I'm starting to think everyone is saying the K-7 has bad high-ISO performance because they heard someone else saying it. And so misinformation is spread. DPreview mentioned only this: # Measurably and visibly more noise than competition at high ISOs (JPEG) # More RAW noise than predecessor (but in line with competition) RAW noise performance in line with the competition, JPEG noise worse than the competition. In other words, we are talking about the built-in noise reduction system that is perhaps not quite so extensive as in competitive camera's. And that's not automatically a bad thing, considering the amount of detail the K-7 JPEGs contain compared to the competition. Yes, the K20D's RAW high-ISO performance was better. It was also better than that of the Nikon D300 and the Canon EOS 50D. The K-7 beats the 50D and is about the same as the D300. If you want better high-ISO noise than the K-7 offers, get a K20D. Or get a K-x, if you don't mind having a budget camera. Other than that, stop saying K-7 has bad high-ISO. It's just not true.

03-21-2010, 01:09 PM	#30
K7er Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 58	Originally posted by starbase218 I'm starting to think everyone is saying the K-7 has bad high-ISO performance because they heard someone else saying it. And so misinformation is spread. DPreview mentioned only this: I think everyone expected an MAJOR improvement from a successive DSLR release (Note that Nikon and Cannon have not released anything in a while because their other departments are already up there). So, the pentax users start mentioning in the groups, ISO is bad but only relative to their own expectations of a K20D successor, and then everybody just picks up on it -- there is no stopping a wild fire, is there?