K-7 review

<p>Hi folks...Another K-7 review...Now I have not read through it yet, but in glancing through it, it seems to be a real winner...Take a look at the noise comparisons in particular...<br>

Share your thoughts.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K7/K7A.HTM">http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K7/K7A.HTM</a></p>

<p>I don't know, Javier, I'm liking those Nikons on the red fabric (The D700 sample is just amazing). I wonder if the K-7 would have shown more detail with NR set to low or off, instead of medium.</p>

<p>I liked the comparison of the Tungsten AWB with the K20D.</p>

<p>"Take a look" at the detail resolution. Gross visual difference (forget the reviewers "interpretations" for a moment, just LOOK at every example...shocking especially vs the Panasonic 4/3 point-and-shoot...I've been hearing the little Panasonic's good (uses K and FD lenses too) but these examples seem to underline that point.</p>

<p>AWB seems relevant mainly if someone doesn't have Lightroom or Aperture or is limited for whatever reason to JPG. Who needs a $1200 camera without proper software and a bunch of SD cards? </p>

<p>OK, K7's AWB/JPG might be better than K20D's pretty-good AWB for a high-volume snapper (eg kids' soccer teams or occasional weddings). But don't most of "us" care mostly about individual images and don't most of us shoot RAW?</p>

<p>And ...is noise even relevant to folks who don't even print their own?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Javier,<br />this is one very thourough review, actually the most complete I have read this far.<br />Thanks for the link!<br />I still am a bit astonished with the fact that it does mention of more noise at high ISO's compared with the K20D. I really thought this was being taken care of with the improved sensor. The Nikon samples seem to be much less "noisy". Of course, the D700 is twice (or more) the price of the K7.<br />I also mentions that one has "no control over shutter speed" ?? What is this?<br />JP</p>

<p><em>But don't most of "us" care mostly about individual images </em><br>

Yes.<br>

<em>and don't most of us shoot RAW?</em><br>

No. I spend enough time in front of a computer during work hours - the last thing I want is <em>more</em> computer work in my hobby.</p>

<p>"...<em>and don't most of us shoot RAW?<br />No. I spend enough time in front of a computer during work hours - the last thing I want is more computer work in my hobby."</em></p>

<p>Hmm. Maybe you're right...so... kicking back after work, just spacing out may be typical of today's Pentax shooters? That hadn't occurred to me. </p>

<p>I recall spending hours, late into evenings before digital. Sixties generation, iron men in wooden ships, huh?</p>

<p>Maybe K7 assumes far less photo passion than Pentax film shooters used to have.</p>

<p>If you're right that today's photographers lack that juice, the Hello Kitty Pentax will be a bigger hit than I imagined. </p>

<p>Maybe it's insignificant to such folks that the little Panasonic blows the K7 away in terms of detail in that review (the reviewer obviously thought so).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mis, That is why I pointed to the noise in particular. Perhaps I read it to fast and wrote too fast, But I too think the Nikons performed better and yet the writer seems to imply the opposite. The reds look all washed out in the K-7 but the others look ok.</p>

<p>JP, I will go back and read the review slowly, but I got to say...I still believe the K20D does handle noise better than the K-7 ...Of course many would disagree, but or are in denial, but I like the K20D for high ISO performance..</p>

<blockquote>Of course, the D700 is twice (or more) the price of the K7.</blockquote>

 

As long as you aren't upgrading from a K20, else you've probably paid more to end up finally with less. Here's an example why the often-repeated Pentax "value" proposition needs to be qualified (Pentax primes vs. Nikon pro zooms is another example, if your goal is dollars for millimeters) because if you're the sort that slowly hemorrhages money on photo equipment, then (a) you've come to the right web site and (b) pro Nikon gear, which at first glance seems more expensive than Pentax, may turn out in a subsequent accounting to have been cheaper. So the lesson is, get rich or buy less stuff. The advantage of buying less stuff is that's what Jesus would do and you didn't need it anyway.

<p>Got that, Javier.<br>

That would be nice to see some more comparisons of this noise issue. But, I am happy with the K20D, for the time being anyway. Let us know what else you may find on the subject.<br>

cheers.<br>

JP</p>

<p>As much as I have never been a pixel peeper, I am really tempted to do my own noise test once and for all between the K20D and K-7......Maybe I can talk Mis into doing it next week when he comes to L.A. to visit?</p>

<p>Not to stray off topic, but I couldn't help but notice how nice the Nikon D5000 samples were. If the new K-<em>x</em> has the same (or similar) sensor as the D5000 -- and I suspect that it might -- this would be very good news.</p>

<p>Javier, the K20D, and the K200D have a user NR control for higher ISO, which I have found to be effective and convenient. Does the K7 have a similar optional control? Fo testing, all should be left off, to eliminate differences in the control factor.</p>

<p>I have been using Imaging resource test shots for reference for some time now. I think they do a creditable job.</p>

<p>That would be great if you two could run a series of "real users' tests".</p>

 

<p>Michael, The K-7 and K20D are different. The K-7 took a different approach here. I found the default setting to work better in the K-7 while I have the K20D set on weak..When I adjust it on the K-7 it kills the detail real bad.</p>

<p>Leo,<br>

That was the plan: buy the K7; keep the K20D.<br>

I am not so sure about your comment(s) on Pentax vs. Nikon though, namely this part (quoted):<br>

<em>"So the lesson is, get rich or buy less stuff. The advantage of buying less stuff is that's what Jesus would do and you didn't need it anyway."</em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>that's what Jesus would do</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the record, you just implied that Jesus would buy Nikon equipment over Pentax.</p>

 

<p>The D700 comparison is unfair because of inherent advantages the FF sensor could afford with good engineering. I am careful lately to keep my NR control set at "off" when I don't really need NR. Same with SR if I do not need it. NR control does tend to smear detail to some degree or other if employed, even at lower ISO use.</p>

<p>I am going to throw some more coal on the fire here. When bringing up the above link, look to the left, and the list of categories to find "compare sample images". This will give you two columns to do your own testing. The K7 was listed, and these comparison shots were done, long before this review was undertaken, so they may be different shots than used in the K7 test review. I saw this K7 listing in "campare sample images" soon after the K7 was released. Perhaps no NR was activated here. </p>

<p>Bring up the Pentax K20D in the 1st column, and the K7 in the 2nd. As you pass the house poster when scrolling down the images, note the exposure difference between the K20D metering and the K7. Go to the still life fabrics at ISO 100 for both. Click on the images to bring up maximum blowup. You can also use your auto scroll to move slowly to the exact point you want in the image. Rather than just looking a one item like the red fabric, look at many. Check out the edge of the basket beind the fabrics. Look at various fabrics, bottles and labels. This will give a better idea of overall image quality.</p>

<p>You can do likewise with the house poster and other images. </p>

<blockquote>That was the plan: buy the K7; keep the K20D.</blockquote>

<p>Right, and if you paid for the K20 as much as I paid for the K20, just one year ago, it'd have cost roughly the same or even been cheaper to just buy a D700 in the first place. That's what I'm saying. A K20 + K7 ends up costing roughly the same or more than a D700 but neither is as good as a D700. So when you write,</p>

<blockquote>The Nikon samples seem to be much less "noisy". Of course, the D700 is twice (or more) the price of the K7.</blockquote>

<p>I say, OK, sure, $2700 > $1300. But if you looked at the D700 originally and bought the K20 instead because it seemed like the better value, and now you want to upgrade to a K7, well it should dawn upon you that maybe the D700 wasn't so expensive after all. The larger point is that Pentax's supposed good value is not very good, for people who spend a lot on equipment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Javier wrote: Maybe I can talk Mis into doing it next week when he comes to L.A. to visit?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, cos I'm gonna fly 2,500 miles just to test out your cameras' noise levels, Javier! LOL! :-p</p>

<p>OK, maybe we can do it while we eat those awesome tacos you promised. It'll be quicker if we take the photos at the same time with both cameras, and use exactly the same lens. I'll be taking the 31 Ltd, but I'm not sure you have one. I can also take the Tamron 17-35mm, which I know you have.</p>

<p>I've read in a number of places that K20D noise is better than K-7, but I'm pretty sure all tests used pre-release K-7 bodies. I'd like to see what standard K-7 with the latest firmware can do.</p>

<p>So, you two are going to take pictures of tacos in low light and compare noise levels? </p>

<p>Oh, and not that it really matters but, like a few others here, I never shoot RAW. I've been shooting for probably 38 years, but never did my own processing, as I mostly shot transparencies not b/w. To me, digital is pretty much like shooting slides, except that I view the images on a monitor instead of a projection screen.</p>

<p>Javier, you buy me the ticket from San Francisco, San Jose or Oakland with whatever ticket that won't crash landing, I will join you. Or PM me the date and see if I can drive down -- I hate long driving. Anything over 4 hours freak me up. Oh wait, I can stop in between in Santa Barbara to have the beach shots like yours on the with weekend pier fishing. I bring my <a href="http://www.techtheman.com/2009/09/pentax-645n-product-shots-with-pentax.html">Lol645D </a> , <a href="http://www.techtheman.com/2009/09/design-compact-dslr-for-2-million.html">SuperManProgram</a> along with my <a href="http://www.techtheman.com/2008/12/pentax-k20d-in-high-iso.html">Nikon D300 knock-out</a> for comparison. </p>

<p>I want that free Taco from Mis. Or perhaps, I give my Taco to Ms and we shoot for testing while Mis has all the three tacos. Tacos on me, as much as you want. I want to hug Javier in person to thank him for his free ticket or my safe driving trip, and his generosity to me all my Pentax life, which is still short since 2006 and sweet as ever as in honeymoon. </p>

<p>Thanks for imagingresources link!</p>

<p>Javier, if I ever made it to LA to spend some valuable time with you. I bring my Pc from Apple Farm, a mac, to your humble mansion to fix up your <a href="http://jgredline.blogspot.com/">Street Vision blog</a> to enable comments. I love your work in Street Vision and you owe it to your fans, me in particular, to allow comments. You are KILLING me in not having comment enabled in your blog.</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Leo, this business of comparing the K7 and K20D to a D700 is a bit like comparing an apple to an orange. Sure, they sometimes overlap in use, but although the D700 presents an advantage, as it should, for lower noise low-light and wide angle shooting, the advantage goes to the aps sensor for mid and longer telephoto use. The cropped aps setting for the D700 is what- not equal to the resolution of the K20D or K7. The idea for having both models is to have a backup of very high caliber, or a partnership of one full size model and one of compact dimensions when that is needed, without sacrificing quality, build, or features. If one waits and buys towards the end of model run, just look at the price now of the K20D. At the price I paid for my K20D, even if I bought a K7 now as a compact partner, my total would be about $1,950. If I wait some months, it will likely be even less.</p>

<p>The better comparison for the 2 Pentax models would be a D300, a fine camera. Javier has intimate knowlege of this model. So with Nikon, if you want to mimic the same idea of having the 2 Pentax models, it would be the new D300s for the larger one, and the D90 for the compact. But then there really is no comparison. The D90 does not measure up to the K7 in terms of build or features. </p>

<p>If you examine those image comparisons at Imaging Resource, you can see the Nikon approach is just as dpreview mentioned in its test of the D90- a tendency to slightly over expose to reduce noise. As the dpreview test revealed, this comes at the expense of sometimes blown out highlights. The Pentax approach is the opposite. Slight underexposure ( less so with the K7) to protect highlights, and then if needed you can run your image through noise ninja. </p>