Discussion in 'Pentax' started by noah_maier, Apr 21, 2009.

  1. Various sources at Pentaxforums.com and at Pentax have confirmed the new SLR will be named k7d. Just wanted to give everyone a heads up.
  2. stemked

    stemked Moderator

    I just want to know if it will do the laundry, ok?
  3. Hmmmm. Sounds kind of Canonistic. Must be a full frame.
  4. Could be, could be. All I really want is high ISO performance, fast autofocus, and more fps. Anything else is a nice bonus.
  5. Miserere's Prediction #1: It ain't full-frame.
    I'm willing to bet money on that.
  6. 1) I cannot say this enough, Pentax heads have said in interviews they have no intention to go full frame and don't believe this technology (APS-C) has reached it's end point (look at #4 for my more economic vs. technological take on this).
    2) Pentax does not have full frame lenses in production. We do not know the the FA 35mm is still made, we can assume the 31, 43, 50, and 77 are in production. However, go back in time to 2006 when these lenses plus a few DA Limiteds were in production along with the 50-200 and a few other zooms....constant crying that there were no lenses avail, no long lenses, no wides, nothing. Imagine Pentax goes down that road again? Trust me, right now everyone is saying, "no Justin, I won't cry a bit, there are millions of FF lenses available to tide me over." But sure as the sun will most likely rise tomorrow, there will be post after post criticizing Pentax for failing to have modern lenses avail for a FF camera that they shouldn't have produced.
    3) Pentax isn't going to produce a FF camera when it's back in the medium format game. If you want a bigger sensor there is an option, it's called the 645D. For Canon and Nikon who never had a medium format system, going FF was a no brainer. It's the ultimate that can be achieved with the 35mm system of lenses. However, pentax already has a legacy 67 and 645 system which has millions of lenses avail, and still has a production line of FA 645 lenses.
    4) Is just common sense. There is limited difference in FF and APS-C quality. So little that it's not really a debate that can be won by either side when you compare advantages, but going back to the Kodak 15MP MF back (which was a 1.5X MF back) vs. the Canon 1Ds FF 15MP the Kodak beat out the Canon (narrowly but again the sensor was only marginally bigger with the 1.5X crop). However, the Kodak was 2X the price of the Canon. Digital medium format is superior to digital 35mm FF in a much bigger way than digital 35mm FF is to APS-C. Pentax can continue to produce a line of compact cameras that are feature rich, and below FF cost while sensor cost for FF cameras remain high. They can do this for a few more years at least, rather than jump into quick sand trying to battle with the 5DII or D700. You have to remember that the cost of FF cameras is not solely the result of opportunity for Canon and Nikon to scam people, but also the actual increased cost of sensors, and the hardware that goes with the bigger files. Look at the price difference of the D300 vs. the D700. A lot of the features of these cameras are similar, but the D700 is 2x the price. I wonder if Nikon makes 2X the profit?
  7. My understanding based on the market share is that 5D Mk II class, D700 class cameras are 2% of the DSLR market! and that D40x class cameras are 70% or so.
    Maybe Pentax should try to be coming out with something better than the K-m for the entry-level so they can make more money. Going high with a 1.3X K7D or a 645D is going after a teeny tiny market.
  8. Exactly!!
    That is what people don't understand. For some reason people believe that if Pentax makes a full frame camera it's going to be the king of cameras, and the company will be rolling in money so it can lavish us in all these fancy lenses we have been dreaming of. You know like a 24mm f/1.4 T&S, or a 400mm f/4....
    Anyway, I think going medium format where they have a history and legacy of being competitive and producing a top notch product, rather than battling out for 0.3% of a 2% market share makes more sense. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they will only sell a few hundred to a few thousand (depending on price) 645Ds a year but at least they are competing where they have a base of photographers familar with their product. I'm very doubtful there are people shooting Nikon and Canon going, I really like Pentax, but they don't have a full frame camera so I'll just stick with my brand. Did it work for Sony? I mean has Sony DSLR division made a profit since the A900? I don't know but I doubt it. Basically Pentax isn't going to increase it's market share going FF so what is the point? IMO, the 645 will have a bigger impact in both advertising/prestige/buzz/cachet and sadly probably market share as well. Don't forget Pentax did sell a few 645s, 645N, 645NII, and 6x7, 67, 67II bodies and associated lenses over the years.
    I agree with the idea that they should produce a better K-m. I'm disappointed in that camera, and what is funny is that before I really read the specs, and the reviews I was excited about it. Unfortunately, it's much too stripped down for me. It has to have a cable release socket for me to consider it!!!
  9. The Nikon D5000 and EOS 500D really raise the bar for "entry level" cameras. Compared to them, the twice-warmed-over K-m looks absolutely pitiful. Well at least it's cheap..
  10. BTW there is some additional rumor information on dpreview:
    So it's more like a "K20D Super" (same sensor) but with a better screen (full VGA), HD Video, and better Live View.
    - Name: K7 (with or without "D")
    - Size: slightly smaller than K20D
    - Shape: peculiar, rectangular prism housing
    - Official announcement: during last 10 days of May
    - Delivery: end of June, beginning of July
    - Pricing: around 1,500 € (probably somewhat less)
    All of the above seems already to be pretty solid information. Much less solid, but perhaps already quite close to the truth, are the rumoured specs:
    - Same sensor as the K20D
    - Up to 6400 ISO with better noise treatment
    - 5 images/sec
    - 100 % viewfinder
    - Better weatherproofing
    - Mirror lockup
    - Liveview and HD Video
    - Better stabilizer .
    - Better DRE mode
    - 77 zones light metering
    - Much better AF system even with non-SDM lenses
    - 3 inches/ 920 000 pixels screen with in-body editing (crop...)
    - 1/8000 shutter with 1/250 sync
  11. And for a measly 1500Euro, there's no way it'll be FF. Looks like it'll be competing w/ the Canon XTi and D90. Hopefully they had time to rework the AF module so it'll have decent predictive AF. I honestly don't see how they can do ISO6400 with an APS-C sensor unless they came up w/ some new technology...physics dictate how many photons can be measured by the photosite size in the K20D sensor...
    The amusing thing is the 645D uses a sensor that's the same size as FF (35mm) because it's a cropped MF camera...it's just that it's in a MF body. The other weird thing is Samsung isn't producing it (they claimed they could).
  12. Can we wait a whole month without exploding? Hmmmm.....
  13. If Orlandos specs are remotely accurate, I might be interested in this camera as an upgrade to my K10D.
    The screen upgrade is a big deal, not merely a few pixels but a VGA quality screen it seems. The 100% viewfinder is less important with live view but again a really nice upgrade, and too me hints at a better viewfinder overall.

    Now if the flash sync, fps, shutter speed, and AF hold true, this is ALMOST the camera I've been asking for (looks like plastic and I still want a metal body).
    As far as the 645D sensor, my understanding, and I might be wrong was that it was 1.25X, which is SIGNIFICANTLY bigger than 35mm since 1.5X is still slightly bigger as I noted with the Canon 1Ds vs. the Kodak Proback.
    Also the key advantage for Pentax and Pentax users is that it will use Pentax 645 and 67 lenses natively (67 with adapter). So people won't have to wait for lenses to come out. Secondly, as the ability to produce a true 645 sensor evolves cost effectively, it would seem logical that one will appear. Finally, the 645N body is not really that much bigger than a Nikon D1/2/3 series, and actually could be smaller than the D3 which I understand is the biggest of the Dx series cameras (I have a D1H, and I have held D2s, I have not held a D3). Bear in mind the 645N is not really any bigger than a K10D with grip (it is deeper though). Volume wise I bet a 645D is about the same size as a D3X despite the larger sensor.
  14. jtk


    Squared APS=current APS lenses...
    Square is far better format for professionals than 2X3 ...virtually all professional images are cropped by an art director or lab...2X3 is merely a habit of amateurs that's inconvenient for frames and albums.
    The LAST thing Pentax marketeers will want to do is revive disused MF lenses...they'd be nuts to miss the opportunity to sell more of the lenses they're manufacturing NOW. A new body is ONLY an opportunity to sell lenses.
    The FIRST thing they'd want would be to blow 5DII and D700 away with a K20D price-ranged camera that was Canon/Nikon's performance equal. IMO K20D already comes within a hair of equaling the old 5D so 5DII should be easy to whup with a square sensor.
    The ONLY people who want 2X3 are 35mm old-timers, and they're not logically Pentax's target demographic.
    IMO they should dump all models that lack prism finders...should emphasize quality.
  15. John,
    I'm going to disagree.
    2x3 was a format arrived at by sales. Back in the old days there were many film formats, and 2x3 came out on top. You can head the MF forum to look at the complaint about 645 vs. 6x6, this topic is covered in that thread. If the square format was so popular all the brands would have offered it. It seems only a few offered 6x6 cameras or backs.
    Square makes sense in that it makes the most use out of the image circle, but most of the other pros are also cons.
    Personally, I like square format, and often compose my shots with 4:5 in mind, and potentially 1:1 when I get it home.
    However, most people won't be using a final square image, and thus they will have to crop away pixels to get to a final image. Since most images are semi rectangular why not just start out with a semi rectangular image and go from there. This allows you to use as much of the image frame as possible from the start by cropping in the camera. Assuming you are going to end up with a semi rectangle then the only advantage to 1:1 ratio sensor is for those who can't decide on a crop before taking the shot.
    I'm not against a 1:1 sensor, I just don't think 2:3 is the format of amateurs or old timers.
  16. I'm not betting on a square sensor, I just don't see Pentax doing something that radical with this camera. Also, Pentax has been pretty adament against the FF sensor. Maybe a bigger sensor, but not full frame. Let's not go crazy with this camera, and remember that our gear still works just as well. It's tempting to start pointing out faults in our own gear now that these crazy rumors are all around. I would be happy with even minor improvements. And the 1500 Euro price is a speculative price. It should start less than that.
  17. jtk


    Justin, 2X3 wasn't the result of anybody's design or desire...it sprang as a convenience as "double frame" 35mm motion picture format: the original "full frame" was literally 35mm half-frame, like Oly's Pen F or the original Leica).
    2X3 was just a convenient way to use 35mm motion picture film, a new "double frame" format back then. Kodak always hated it because those sprocket holes meant waste.
    2X3 became a habit and was taught as a silly artistic virtue by non-artists: photo teachers. The future ain't some old 2X3 fillum format, just ask any contemporary high schooler or professional photographer (the latter are drifting toward video).
    645 made economic sense in disco-era for those wedding photographers who needed to save pennies with photolabs but that never made sense for people after the highest quality...which explains Hasselblad's 6X6 survival and everybody's ultimate abandonment of 645 (Hasselblad lives, /Bronica/Contax died).
    Cameras relying forever on square format included Hasselblad and Bronica (both 6X6 and "super-slide") as well as Mamiya and Rollei. 645 was introduced primarily for low budget wedding photographers who would have preferred to keep shooting their hobbiest 35s (Pentax :)....their labs absolutely HATED 35mm back then (called for too much dust spotting of prints as well as tricky cropping decisions...because 35m photogs framed more tightly than did Rollei/Hass photogs)...labs found it easier to deal with 120 and 220 and they liked it when the 645 photographers spared them the cropping decision they had to confront with 6X6. For wedding economics, 645 was perfect. Few couples get married these days, or want expensive photo coverage (vs video)...a rarely mentioned fact of life.
    "Most people"(meaning those that want enlargements) have never used the full 2X3 format, they've cropped to various conventionally oddball sizes such as 8X10, 11X14, 16X20. Hardly anybody, other than educated art poseurs, has ever used the full 2X3. 4X6 prints were an early omen for the death of photolabs.

    "most images" are NOT "semi-rectangular" and in print publication they're virtually always cropped to the taste of the designer...meaning that a horizontal 2X3 is often cropped brutally and without a moment's hesitation to a vertical format, dismissing half of the film area. Art directors have always preferred 6X6, which is the main reason commercial photographers used Hasselblad rather than 645.
  18. I like 2:3 for horizontal shots and 4:5 for verticals. I guess I'm only a semi-amateur, then :)
    I don't think Pentax will go square, or 4:5 or 3:4. I'll even be surprised if they go APS-H with 2:3 format. I'm hoping that they're keeping the 14.6MP CMOS from the K20D and used their money to improve all other aspects of the camera (and improve the sensor's capabilities through firmware, of course).
  19. I gotta disagree again. When I look at the photo credits in many landscape books, they were shot on 645 (and Pentax at that). Also, if you pop a Outdoor Photographer Magazine to this day many of the full page featured shots are 645 (and Pentax at that). And while I don't read Nat Geo a lot, I seem to remember quite a few photos being from the Pentax 645. Since Pentax didn't make a square back we'd have to assume those shots were taken on rectangular format and the photographer preffered that format rather than square.
    I'm not under the belief any sensor or format is for "hobbyist" afterall there are many hobbyist shooting 4x5 and 8x10 cameras, there are hobbyist shooting 5Ds and D3s, as well as MF digital. Generally I have found, the more money a person has to invest in the hobby, the more they will invest. The format you shoot really doesn't automatically group you into a subset of photographer.
    Formats are the result of a need, usually a compromise of portability to IQ, or perhaps a compromise of frames per roll. Nevertheless the compromise are often a result of necessity.
    Wedding photogs most likely (not having shot any but observed a few) do not have a lot of time to reload cameras. So 645 wth it's 16-33 frame capacity and interchangable inserts and backs was a nice compromise.
    Many landscapers bracket the hell out of a sure fire image including focus and exposure. Some even do in camera simultaneous duplicates, rather than pay for dupes, or risk losing a slide that is sent out for duplication after the fact. This is another reason MF was popular for landscapers.
  20. jtk


    Justin, present company excepted, I wouldn't ordinarily consider landscapers to be professionals any more than I'd consider an occasional wedding photographer to be a professional..a professional is somebody who pays his rent/mortgage with photography, not somebody who occasionally makes a $ with a camera...IMO.
    Many wedding photogs used 220 when they could afford the best equipment...and of course they carried multiple backs, didn't have any problem reloading.
  21. Justin,
    I don't buy your assertions that 3x2 won out in the marketplace either. It just happened to be there, and people used it. Kind of like Windows. If you were correct, then most albums, frames and mats would also be 3x2, which is not the case. Most people end up cropping, except for 4x6. There's a reason view cameras are 8x10 and 4x5. I think if 35mm cameras had been a 4x5 ratio from the beginning, no one would be saying "why haven't they made a wider format?"
  22. Another pic.
  23. Huh, are you trying to put this back on topic?
  24. The entry-level models that look pitiful to me are the Nikons that have crippled AF lens use. But I agree with Justin that the KM/2000 is too stripped down for me as well. But at least it takes all the lenses, even old ones, and still has the SR to enhance their use.
    1/250 sec flash sync and 5 fps, with a "much better" AF system? Sounds like the camera you have been waiting for, Justin!! I wondered about why it is not simply the K30D. But the more I look at these specs, I think I see why. It rather makes sense. The KM/2000 is the basic entry model. The 3-number models, K100, 110, and 200 have been entry level but also built well or very well with weather sealing, top LCD and full-featured, for the serious advanced user who wants a compact design and backup. The 2-number models, K10, 20 have been for serious advanced and professional users who want a full-size model, built very well, with weather sealing and advanced controls. To go to a level above that would require at least near 100% VF, a higher standard flash sync at least 1/200 sec or more, higher fps shooting rate, advanced AF, a refined live view, advanced LDC display, more sophisticated in-camera imaging and processing controls, and a yet higher build quality. So this new level gets a 1-number model name: K7.
    Up to ISO 6400 with "better noise treatment"? I wonder if this means by user's choice control, or if Canikon methods will be adopted of taking this matter out of user control, for auto processing of NR, which smooths over noise but also smears detail. I like what my K20D has been doing for me, and my K200D as well.
    I wonder if the new model will provide the crisp images right out of camera, like Javier, myself, and others have been enjoying wth the K20D and K200D- or will it be one of those models needing to have images finessed by post-processing??
    Only time, testing, and reviews will provide answers to actual performance characteristics. Meanwhile, I can take all the time I need with my K20D and K200D models giving me such fine results. I believe Javier, who said the K20D can do over 4 fps with the battery grip, though I have yet to need even that.
  25. That long snooty prism looks like it could also house an EVF. But that would be rather of a change of direction for Pentax.
  26. Huh, are you trying to put this back on topic?​
    Damn, you caught me :)
  27. I thought it was a noble goal Miserere
  28. IMHO: EVF=Trash
    That's why I left the Lumix series behind.
    However, it could be room for a 2nd sensor that allows mirror down live view - that might be groovy.
    PLEASE make that finder/flash removable! Justin and I beg you!
  29. There are some rumors floating around that Pentax is experimenting with an EVF overlay on a traditional optical viewfinder, or other "heads up display" enhancements, which could account for the long pentaprism housing.
    Of course one could also argue that the oversized pentaprism housing is necessary to accomodate a sensor that is larger in the vertical axis, e.g. a squarish sensor. :)
    I think that Pentax would be more inclined to pursue the former rather than the latter. The square sensor doesn't make sense to me as an advanced amateur format, while the addition a digital overlay to a traditional optical viewfinder is much more keeping in Pentax's long tradition of being a leader in viewfinder technology. After all, Pentax was the first to really commercialize the pentaprism finder and the built-in viewable meter.
  30. The HUD would be a good thing.
    Nikon already has grid overlays but that along with more VF coverage with overlayed shooting info that can be turned off with the press of a button (or lack of press) would be a good thing.
    Alternatively, a on demand EVF could be a good thing as well. Something that allowed both a mirror and an EVF. The advtantage would be you could raise the mirror and use the EVF or lower the mirror and use the optical. This would be the best of both worlds. EVF for full time MLU and critical focus or low light focus, mirror for general shooting and using filters.
    I have no issues with a square sensor, I just don't think it's ground breaking, I'd rather see them invest in other aspects of the camera.
  31. You can go broke and crazy trying to keep up with the latest and greatest digital toys. I am going to suffer with a K20 until the wished for weather sealed DLX appears. The 'new' camera is going to have a high street price due to the exchange rates. 1500 Euros is almost $2000.
  32. "IMO K20D already comes within a hair of equaling the old 5D so 5DII should be easy to whup with a square sensor"
    In high ISO performance? FF gives you roughly 1.7stops better performance (D300 vs D700 comparison) over APS-C because of photosite size.
    "As far as the 645D sensor, my understanding, and I might be wrong was that it was 1.25X"
    Someone on Pentaxforums calculated it as the same size as 35mm film (1.5x crop). I did a quick survey of medium format digital sensors and the crops ranged from 1x (only the horridly expensive PhaseOne backs) to 1.3x to 1.5x. All the low end MF sensors (reasonably priced under $10K) were 1.5x IIRC.
  33. I'm not gonna lie... That prism housing is just plain ugly...
    Also, judging in relation to size of what I'm assuming is the DA 35, the prism housing actually looks smaller than the one on my K10D.
  34. Ugly becomes beautiful with superior functions, features, and feel. Maybe the flash pops up far enough from the hot shoe to allow dual-flash with a flash unit?? So many talk of having a really great VF- maybe this will be it!
    I hope the new model will be a compact bombshell, super-tough mostly metal build, with super AF speed and accuracy, extremely accurate exposure metering, super-sharp images, and with low noise at high ISO, advanced imaging control, and other performance that kick butt!!
  35. Michael, your optimism is contagious :)
  36. almost $2000​
    When products are released in europe they don't come to the US at the same price.
    E1500 is like $1250 US. Maybe $1500 if they really want to start it high.
  37. I find this link the quite complete with the spec
    I am as thrilled as anyone on K7D, I actually don't want anything fancy that makes my tele lens shorter. I am most interested in the AF improvement that will go a long way from Pentax uping the AF speed that is long due.
  38. It sounds pretty good actually. Shame I just bought into another system so I will have to pass on this one. Too little to late.
  39. It sounds pretty good actually. Shame I just bought into another system so I will have to pass on this one.​
    Did you finally get that D700 you were craving for? Is the viewfinder smaller and darker than you thought it would be?
  40. Another photo I found on Hin's link here . This time it's the whole camera, although I'm not sure whether the bottom part is photoshopped in or not. In fact, it might all be a Photoshop job. There's no name on it, and I cannot see the AF switch on the camera's left side, next to the mount, and the strap lugs are the same type as on the other Pentax DSLRs. Apart from the prism, it looks about the same size as a K200D to me (based on the mount). This could very well be a photo of an early mock-up.
  41. Mis, I did end up buying myself that D700. So far I have only taken it out once. Love the view finder. That was the main reason I bought it. I have only one lens right now. The 70-200VR F/2.8 that is too big and a tad to long. It behaves more like a 50-135 lens. Full frame. I also have no intentions on leaving or selling my Pentax gear..It will still be my wildlife and long lens kit. For the nikon, I really only want one lens. the nikkor 12-24 F/4 and that be it. Maybe something in the 28-75 range as well....
    In truth had I known about the K7D, I still would not have bought it. The view finder to me was crucial in my decision. When i use the K20D, much of the time I am not sure what I shoot, until I see it on the computer. I tried glasses, no go....I tried contacts, same, can't stand them. I have went for lasic eye surgery, but I chickened out.
    But I also did buy me a Pentax 31ltd..What an amazing lens. Perfect for street shooting...I am starting to dislike zooms... ;-)
  42. Javier, I completely get the better viewfinder thing and buying the D700 to get it, I've considered it myself. Last September I spent a week at a pro photo school and got to shoot with the D3, 1D and play with the just released Sony A900. These all have wonderful build quality, better FPS, bla, bla ect... but it was the view finders that made me go wow, this is worth the upgrade. Our k20d / k10d are among the better view finders in APSC, but the pro camera were clearly a significant step up in to my 42 year old eyeglass wearing eyes.

    I really don't care much about FPS boosts, 3fps or so is enough for most anything I do. And the physical size of the sensor it totally irrelavant in my book, though I would like a bit less noise at higher ISO. I won't shoot my k20 over ISO 800 unless I absolutely have to. While my 5D and 1D friends will regularly shoot events / location portraits at 1600. And yes there are times where faster AF would be nice to have, especially action tracking. But those are few and far apart as my subjects are typically static and I usually lock on the center point, spot meter and recompose for most shots. But if Pentax can get the viewfinder on an APSC camera to match the 1d, d3, and a900 and assuming a reasonable price point; I'll be upgrading just for the view finder and unlike the other nice to have features that is an improvement i'll appreciate every time I pick up the camera. And if they give us an electronic shutter so the flash sync for manual strobes can be pretty much unlimted I will be a very, very happy Pentax customer for several more years.
  43. but it was the view finders that made me go wow, this is worth the upgrade.​
    I think it sucks that you have to pay thousands of dollars more than a K20D costs (or a Canon 50D or a Nikon D90, or a...) just so you can get something as basic as a large viewfinder. I use the term 'basic' because Photography is a visual art, so you would think that one of the basic things you'd be able to do with a camera is see what you're shooting.
    Like Roger, I don't care too much about FPS or AF speed, but I'd LOVE to have a 1.5 magnification viewfinder on an APS-C Pentax DSLR.
  44. Roger, you nailed it!. As I said in another thread. The only reason I bought the D700 was the view finder. I love being able to see what I shoot. It is the coolest thing. I feel like I am shooting my ME SUPER.... The extra FPS, AUTOFOCUS SPEED, NOISE CONTROL, while all that is cool, I never had an issue with my K20D. In fact I am quite happy in that regard with my K20D. I only wish I could see through the view finder and I would be happy as a clam...
    By the way, in comparing the Jpegs from the D700 and the K20D, I see NO difference bwteen them. In fact the K20D puts out more pleasing colors. This of course could also be because I have not tweaked any settings on the Nikon. But still the image quality is about even.
  45. Lindy, Thanks for the article. The lens choice at the bottom is what captured my attention the most.
  46. Oh, Also the price I could not pass on $2200.00 after a $300.00 rebate.
  47. That beat my admission price by $119 Javier.
    Yours is not all time record for D700. I know a guy who bought his for $1854 from a military base exchange and one time discount using a new credit card.
    Anyways the idea one must pay thousands of dollars more for a full frame over aps-c is flawed. You paid full price for one K20D once so D700 was $900 more 14 months later. My handy calculator tells me 1500 euros at 1.34 per euro is $2,010. Your D700 may have been a simple $190 premium for biggie viewfinder in D700 versus K7D. When I bought my 5D for $1750 the K20D was still stuck at $1299. So I spent $451 more for biggie viewfinder.
    Me, I tend to think 1500 euros means $1,500 launch in usa. K20D was $1299. K10D was $919. The idea that K7D will cost less than K20D did 1-23-08 doesn't seem right to me. The wild card here is Nikon D400. Long rumoured with specs and pix, its launch price is said to be $1,999. So they'll be one company trying to get $2,000 for aps-c dslr in later 2009. Pentax could be company #2 at $2,000. Seems reasonable to me. Well not reasonable to buy in at 2k but it wouldn't surprise me.
  48. The lens choice at the bottom is what captured my attention the most.​
    Personally, if I were you, I'd look at the superb 17-35 to go with the 70-200 and a 50mm to cover the gap. Just three lenses but they compromise nothing compared to a collection of primes and unless you're into macro or wildlife you may never have to buy another lens again.
    The zooms are big though. For street you might look at the 35 f2 AF-D which is cheap but wonderful.
  49. Lindy, I paid around $675 for my K10D new. Looking around online all I see is the D700 for $3,000 - $300 instant rebate. That makes it $2,025 more than what I paid for my K10D. No esoteric, hypothetical math, just plain numbers.
    I cannot pay 2 grand extra for a slightly larger viewfinder and about 1.5 stops of high-ISO improvement (I don't care about the other "improvements"). Not to mention the much more expensive lenses.
    That's just my 4-months-away-from-not-having-a-job reasoning. The moment Photography starts cutting me 4-figure cheques I will reconsider my position. Or maybe Pentax could introduce a camera with a 1.5x viewfinder and spare me the trouble.
  50. Put the D700 in your B&H shopping cart:
    whats it say?
    $2,399 & free delivery
    & its been there for a couple months. It used to be $2,319, like when I bought mine on jan 14th 2009 from.... B&H
  51. Photography is just a casual hobby for me, so I prefer cheap, entry-level cameras. Actually, the cheaper the better... :) Well, for my needs, they're still perfectly useable... And having just paid 350€ for a decent little DSLR (complete with lens...), the idea of paying 1,500€ for an APS-C camera sounds distinctly unappealing.
  52. There is still a lot of speculation and very little in the way of fact. A few interesting things I do know are:
    • Back in December, my local Pentax dealer told me that a K200D replacement was due out soon - he wasn't anticipating a K20D replacement at that time.
    • After selling out of his K200D stock he hasn't been able to order any replacements with Pentax Canada - they no longer have K200D models in stock but will have an alternative/replacement soon. My local dealer reaffirmed this again just a few days ago.
    While everyone seems keen on a K20D replacement, I'd be very happy to see a K100DS-sized weather-sealed K200D replacement with improved AF performance the K20D sensor and two e-dials. Maybe whatever is coming out isn't a replacement for the K20D after all....
  53. Duane,
    You may be spot on. If I did not have a K20 I would be interested in the new camera.
  54. Well, the K7 may possibly be compact, but a standard flash sync of 1/250 sec, shutter speed of 1/8000 sec, a 100% coverage VF, 5 fps, with advanced metering and AF systems plus more, to me seems to be very high-end!!!
    Could the plan be to continue having just two APS DSLR models- now just the stripped-down KM/2000 and this new $1,500-$1,800 K7 top model of compact design ?? Nothing of better quality than the KM in between? That would be a horrible idea. If that is what comes, hang on to your nice, compact, inexpensive K100D and K200D for sure!! These are fine quality compact backup cameras too.
  55. The "KPS" or even O-ME 53 viewfinder magnifiers can give a taste of full-frame viewfinder on APS-C DSLR's..
  56. So future generations of Pentax historians know what Kindy was talking about, this is the post .
    Duane, the new camera will be the highest model at time of release (because who knows if there's a K30D in the works for the end of the year?).
  57. Yvon Bourque's Blog would be a good place to check on the latest "real" news. According to Yvon, only Pentax-approved stuff can be published and I trust this is where we will find non - Hocus Pocus news.
    Speking of "Hocus-Pocus", anyone has any "guess" on what sort of glass will be compatible with that K7D? I am hoping that Pentax will continue with retro-fit capabilities, including the newer DA and DA* lenses.
  58. Please excuse my ignorance, but why can't pentax come up with a view finder that will look like what I have on the D700? I spent the entire day getting to know my new toy and boY do I love that view finder...I can't in all honesty say that it makes better pictures than the Pentax cameras I have, but that view finder...WOW!!!
  59. Javier, Pentax would need to build a 1.5x viewfinder, which means the focusing screen would have to be as large as the one in your D700...and it would also have to be a lot further away from the mirror, i.e., the camera would be very tall. I'll throw an approximate number out there if you promise not to repeat it (because I haven't done the math): 35% taller.
    Or maybe they could insert some kind of optics between the mirror and the focussing screen to magnify the image, but that would probably distort it.
    It's not easy, mate!
  60. Thanks Mis. I imagine that the 1.5 Crop sensor is the culprit, but still...There has to be a way to get it done. How is it that my film bodies that are ancient have better view finders? I don't get it...
  61. Olympus pulled off the biggie viewfinder in E3:
    "• High Eye Point Optical Viewfinder
    The large, easy-to-see optical viewfinder delivers the precise compositional accuracy demanded by the most discriminating photographer. With 1.15x magnification and 100 percent accuracy, photographers can rely on the E-3 to capture exactly what they compose through the optical viewfinder, so what you see is what you get when viewing images back at the computer. This optical viewfinder also reduces eyestrain and makes manual focusing easier."
    Versus K20D viewfinder:
    "Bright Pentaprism Viewfinder
    The viewfinder in the K20D provides a 95 percent field of view and 0.95X magnification so you can see as much of the image as possible before capture. The viewfinder also provides all the important image information in a concise manner including a focus point indicated in red, in-focus indicator, focus mode stats, shutter speed, aperture, exposure compensation, number of images remaining, Shake Reduction status, and with a press of the OK button on the back of the camera, the current ISO setting. Additionally, the focusing screen is interchangeable so you can use an optional grid screen or scale screen for more precise image framing.
    Versus D700 viewfinder:
    "The camera's bright viewfinder provides virtually 100 percent coverage for accurate framing, while an ultra-high definition, 920,000-dot VGA LCD screen on the rear of the camera displays images with vivid color and clarity. The 170-degree wide viewing angle makes composing shots using the LCD screen in LiveView mode easy, and the camera also features a unique Virtual Horizon digital level sensor that indicates the camera's alignment relative to the true horizon on the rear LCD screen or in the viewfinder."
  62. Lindy, since we're talking view finders and you have them both what is you take on the difference between the 5D mk1 and D700 viewfinder? I ask because I have not played with a D700. But as I mentioned before did get to work with a 1d, D3 and briefly the Sony A900 and have used the 5d mk1 in the past. Of those full frame cameras I was most impressed with the view finder on the Sony (though I did not directly compare it to the 1d and d3) and least impressed with the 5d mk1. So I'm curious as to how you think the D700 and 5d mk1 compare.
  63. Roger, D700&5D are pretty much identical. Neither is 100%. Using my circular fisheye 8mm 2.8 on D700 clips off the very top and bottom in the viewfinder. But images are full size, full circles since the sensor is virtually full frame. Its like 23.9mmx36mm instead of 5D size 24mmx36mm and the projected circle from the fisheye is 23mm, so theres plenty of room. I was led to believe 8mm 2.8 nikon too would adapt to 5D but theres a rear element protector that I do not want to cut off the lens. At the moment its the priciest lens I own so cutting on it is out of the question. I'm real happy I got D700 first as I always thought 8mm would adapt to eos. wrong. I would have be bummed out had I got the rare fisheye first.
    That Sony a900 you handled is different as its 100% not the typical 97% view. I've never handled one but spec wise its the best value. Once they get the high iso way up and fairly noise free like nikon has it will be stellar. Many of its specs mirror the Nikon D3x and its @$2699 versus $7399: thesedays.
    That bigger prism on Leaky K7 images tells me Pentax might be at 100% viewfinder or better yet pull an olympus and be at 115%. As Pentax enthusuiasts grow into middle age we all can appreciate the bigger viewfinder. Olympus proved they can make bigger than 100% viewfinder on E3 so I'd guess it wouldn't be that hard to reverse engineer?
  64. Lindy wrote: As Pentax enthusuiasts grow into middle age we all can appreciate the bigger viewfinder. Olympus proved they can make bigger than 100% viewfinder on E3 so I'd guess it wouldn't be that hard to reverse engineer?​
    Exactly right!
  65. Regarding this 100% thing, we may be getting VF magnification confused with VF coverage. I believe the spec given for the new Pentax probably refers to coverage, but maybe both! Only the top pro-style camera models, the best of the best, provide 100% coverage. The 95% or so we have been getting is still rated as excellent. This means the forthcoming Pentax model will join the top category for VF.
    The old Pentax MF ME Super provided 92 % coverage- still very good, but a whopping .95 when it comes to magnification. Great for MF. .80 would be very high! It is bright too. With a fast lens like the 50mmf/1.4, there is virtually no light loss compared to reality. But there is such a thing as "too much" magnification, because it can cause people with eye glasses to require angling around to see the border info in the VF.
    With pentamirror VF design, some magnification has to be given up to preserve adequate brightness. Pentax has done an outstanding job with theirs, being brighter than most competitors, yet still having a very good .85 magnification, hence the high rating for their VFs.
    Not fair to compare a FF VF to a APS size VF. A FF .70 magnification is at least as big as .95 on an APS DSLR. My inexpensive compact film bodies having pentamirror VFs of say .70 are as big as that on my pentaprism K20D with a rating of .95! I just looked through both, as a matter of fact , comparing with my inexpensive little ZX-L.
    While comparing, I also found the AF with the ZX-L and inexpensive but nice FA 28-70mm f/4 to AF just a little bit quicker and more sure than any lens I tried on the K20D, whether or not having SDM. The AF was also MUCH faster in low lighting than the K20D, which slowed down quite a bit. Both were set on center-only AF. Where the K20D AF proved superior, however, is when just horizontal lines were present, as its sensor is of a cross type.
  66. By "more sure" AF, I was referring to quick/sure. The K20D did indeed achieve accurate focus.
  67. Lindy wrote: As Pentax enthusuiasts grow into middle age we all can appreciate the bigger viewfinder​
    I'm not middle-aged and I appreciate a bigger VF just as much as you old geezers. Wait, does the fact that I appreciate a large VF make me middle-aged...? Oh no!!!! :-o
  68. Further to what Michael K. said, I would give up coverage for magnification. I'd much rather get a 1.15x magnification with 95% coverage than 100% coverage with 0.95x magnification.
    Javier, one of the reasons your ME Super has a brighter VF is also the fact that more of the light from the lens is getting to your eye. An AF camera will need light for its AF sensor, and that's light that's "stolen" from your eye, so to speak. Both cameras will also steal some light for the lightmeter.
  69. Lindy wrote: As Pentax enthusuiasts grow into middle age we all can appreciate the bigger viewfinder.
    Ha! If I "grow into middle age," I'll wave as I pass you folks headed in the other direction ;~)
  70. Ahh, view finder is really irrelevant. I never look through it anyway other than to frame.
    Top LCD, and zone/hyper focus for 85% of my shots. Since I like to get low to the ground I often use a right angle finder anyway. The other 10% are AF, in which case I don't really care since the camera is doing the focus, I'm just lining up the dot, and the final 5% are critical focus shots where an LCD is actually far better than any optical viewfinder anyway! When I use the K20D, for all critical focus shots, I zoom in to 4X and focus based on contrast on the LCD screen. Now the LCD is grainy at 4 and 8X in live view, but finding focus is quite accurate as the contrast on the pixels is crisp (that is it's in focus when it looks clearly pixelated) I am going to guarantee to anyone who wants to have a focus dual with LCD vs. D700 optical that I will have a sharper image! Now, I'll concede off the bat that this applies obviously to tripod mounted shots, but then I shoot off a tripod most of the time when critical focus is needed.
    As far as film vs. (Pentax prism) digital, I still don't find the view finder that much worse than my AF film SLRs. Actually I think it's on par with them.

    That is to say, when I am shooting them side by side, I don't go "holy crap, is something wrong with my camera/eyes because this viewfinder is hard to see through". There is definitely some minor variation. Of course maybe my film finders are getting old and dirty and that is throwing my observations off!
    Of course if you want a really big clear viewfinder, 645 is the only way to go. You can focus in room light no problems!
  71. Javier, you may have already moved on in your quest for Nikkors but I believe that the 12-24/4 is a DX-only lens. The 14-24/2.8 is supposedly awesome but bear in mind this is uber-wide on full-frame, like a 9-16 would be on APS-C! If you're going fast zoom kit, 17-35/2.8 + 35-70/2.8 + your 70-200 would be pretty good. There's also a 18-35/3.5-4.5 that weighs only half what the 17-35/2.8 does and costs only 35%.
  72. Andrew, I have not purchased any new lenses for the Nikon yet. Right now I am just using the 70-200 F/2.8 VR lens that my wife bought some many months ago.
    Since I just bought the 31ltd for my K20D, any new lenses and frankly any new camera equipment will have to wait. Not a bad thing really. That 70-200 behaves similarly to my DA*50-135 so I am cool for now. Gives me more time to do some research.
  73. By the way, many of the nikon people are not nearly as nice as most Pentax folks...Hate to say that, but that seems to be the case so far.
  74. Javier if anyone was to get a D700 it had to be you. I mean, you had a 70-200mm 2.8 VR sitting in your closet. If having the combo doesn't give you joy you'd probably brake even selling both used on fredmiranda or here. That VR went up several hundred bucks on feb1st along with alot of nikon's better glass.
    At least you get to check out whats up with biggie viewfinder, 6 frames per second, and other bells & whistles you may at somepoint care about. For me, I really enjoy the ultrawide perspective and their 14-24mm 2.8 is the Reigning King so I kinda had to add it once the price increases were announced. I could have adapted it for $250 instead but I've always been curious about nikon cameras. I gotta say the build quality on D700 is exceptional compared to my 5D.
    I'm quite content owning D700, 5D & K20D. I don't know if I'll streamline my system after next 2 &1/2 years have passed once all outstanding factory warranties have expired on the cameras.
  75. Lindy, ''YOU'' where the reason behind the purchase. What you said about the lens made sense to me. Of note..Something else Pentax needs to figure out what to do is the quiet shutter...It is really nice...Also the high ISO performance is amazing to me though I know this is a full frame deal.. Normally I call it a day when it gets to about 7:00pm or so, but with the D700 i was getting crystal clear images at ISO800 as if they where ISO 200 or so. This meant I was able to shoot for an extra hour and a half.
  76. <geek_alert>
    This meant I was able to shoot for an extra hour and a half.​
    That's like 1 extra stop of shooting time! :-D
  77. Allrighty then:
    Welcome to the Darkside ;^)
    High ISO is pretty sweet too huh? I love the feel of the body, but since I shoot alot of verticals with 14mm or so I picked up the grip and second battery too.
    Way back when I handled D700 big brother: D3, the nikon rep told me the FBI among other gov't agencies were buying up hundreds of D3 for night time surveilance/color photography. They found it SUPERIOR to their much more expensive and dedicated nighttime black & white systems. D3 & D700 use exact same sensor so be bold and shoot that 70-200mm 2.8 VR at 12,800iso & 25,600iso at night, in darkness. Nikon has my canon 5D beat at insanely high iso too. But I still dig my eos system and like you I'm lov'n the K20D.
    Enjoy the Ride & incase you haven't seen D700 brochure its available for download here:
  78. people have differing needs when it comes to a VF. My better AF film model VFs are superior to even that on my K20D, but the VF on my K200D is still very good, and goog enough for my use. VF brightness and clarity are important for me, however, because I don't usually want to take the time, or have time to resort to using the LCD for selective focus needs. That is the way I am, and yet for me, I have found the Pentax DSLR VFs to be good enough.
    The K7D apparently promises to feature an improved VF.
    The native amount of noise a 12mp FF camera must deal with is approximately the same as that of a 6mp APS DSLR. Further difference depends on in-camera processing. Smoothing out noise in-camera has thus far always compromised sharpness of detail to some extent. The in-camera optional NR of the K200D and K20D have been quite effective in dealing with moderate noise when set on "Weak" with hardly any loss of detail, because it is not overly agressive. I hope the K7D continues, and improves, this user-control philosophy.
    But there is little doubt that a good software program can control noise best.
    I have concluded that each format brings an advantage to the table. FF, or MF for that matter, has the greatest advantage in normal to wide angle. APS digital shines best in the tele range. As the writer of the recent article in Pop Photo put it, if you shoot a 200mm shot with FF, then crop it down to match what you'd get with the APS shot using the same lens or FL, you'd wind up with around 5mp. So you'd be better off taking that 200mm lens on a 6mp APS body, where you get the same degree of noise and yet more pixels. This is assuming there is not overly agressive NR in the circuit to gum up those pixels! The only other way is to put a substantially longer lens on the FF model, far heavier and more expensive. But then you could also put that longer lens on the APS body.
    The 14-24mm f/2.8 should be great on the D700, and the 70-200mm provides the versatility FF is capable of, but better yet on the D300!!
  79. That 70-200mm f/2.8 VR should be great also on a D80 body, or even a 6mp D40 for usng a compact body. Those two compact models have a reputation for good JPEGs.
  80. "This could very well be a photo of an early mock-up."​
    No. It is a fake badly made in Photoshop and it has nothing to do with the K7.
    (this is about the last image in this thread)
  81. Lindy, From what I understand the D700 goes to 8fps with the grip. Have you found this to be so?
  82. Javier, I do not think mine does 8fps. I think I have to buy the more expensive batteries to get the 8fps. I haven't tried but I kinda recall reading the batteries I own are not spec'd for 8fps. Instead of $40 ish per nikon battery I think I need the $100+ nikon ones. I'm not sure if my charger charges the expensive ones. The D3 comes with the pricey batteries, pricey charger, built in grip. But for me I slid into D700 due to price and I couldn't make sense out of buying at the time $4099 D3.
    I'll look into it and let you know what I find out. As it is I haven't needed 6fps so I'm not up on this (yet) I really got the grip just for eazy-breezy verticals.
  83. In truth, I can't see any reason why I even need faster than the 4fps i get with the K20D and Grip, but I will be buying the Grip for the D700 and I was curious.
  84. Javier, I could be wrong about the 6fps vs 8 fps grip speed with my cheaper nikon batteries. I didn't get a chance to look it up but heres a detailed link that helped sell me on adding a D700 to my cameras kit:
  85. Hmmmm.... So is this pic real...?
  86. It may be... As these are the same too....
  87. And another....
  88. Yet another....
  89. Bummer, It does not look like K-7 has articulated viewscreen. I figured with video coming in all dslrs and success of G1 screen they'd include the swivel screen.
    Have you guys got a credible K-7 launch price yet? or is it still in a range? Heck i haven't seen a credible launch price for 60-250mm SDM. Wasn't that supposed to be launched a few days ago?
  90. Maybe if we stitch all these photos together we'll get a complete camera LOL!
    Thanks for the aditions, Duane.
  91. Thanks Hin, that's a cool collage.
    I found this shot on Yvon's blog :
    If that's an AF assist lamp next to the shutter release, I'm going to jump for joy :)
    Other than that, I just want to say that it's pretty ballsy of Pentax to write enjoy waiting on the photo. Did they finally create a marketing department?
  92. Not that anybody's checking this thread anymore, but...
  93. Mis, is that the K7 with grip?
  94. Javier, I don't think it is, because the buttons are in different places and the left side is too big. The flash also seems to stick out too much. Is it one of the *ist D series of cameras?
  95. That lens looks good!
  96. Miserere...you're wrong when you say...
    "Not that anybody's checking this thread anymore, but..."
    I do...... and several times every day.... can't simply stop looking...
  97. Kari: good! :-D
  98. Well, obviously we can't be sure of anything at this stage, given the lack of any official specs thus far...
    But OK, one thing that occurred to me whilst looking at those spy shots was that maybe the large metal ring on the front is some kind of mechanical system for attaching lenses...?
  99. I think that shot with the silver FA power zoom is almost certainly an *ist D ; it's the only model that has top buttons and a row of icons below the top LCD like that...also the only of the *ist D series with an OEM portrait grip available. The ridges on the popup flash look right too.
  100. Thanks, Andrew! It would also not make sense to show the K-7 with an FA* lens (thinks me).
  101. Also, it seems likely that one of those other shots posted earlier is a fake, identified by someone else as probably a crappily photoshopped Contax NX. Why people bother doing this is beyond me.
    (image courtesy of photographyreview.com )​
  102. I agree Andrew. Have you seeing that crazy thread at PF? The rumors section there is going nutz!
  103. This one is for Kari :)
    Note the DA* 55mm mounted on it. Also note it does not have a metal body. Why anyone would think this was an option is beyond me, but I know some people were dreaming of it. On the plus side, I think we can now confirm it does have an AF assist lamp, although it's frickin small!
    Click on the image for a HUGE version. (Courtesy of PF forums.)
  104. And for what it's worth:
  105. Did you draw that Miserere?​
    Nope, and I doubt RH did either! ;-) (I mean to say that he PS'd it, not actually "drew" it.)
    But like I said: For what it's worth...
  106. I clicked and got a smaller image. It looks to be authentic, but maybe a prototype. No way to tell whether a metal body or not from a photo.
  107. By the way the info is shaping up, the K7D may possibly turn out to be the best compact DSLR of them all!! Yeah, a swivel screen would be nice- but would add some extra bulk, and streamlined compactness with advanced features seems to be the emphasis. I hope nothing we now have has been ditched!
  108. Now I really want one - especially if the AF is faster and the viewfinder has the new Pentax patented technology!
  109. I clicked and got a smaller image.​
    That's strange, cos the image is 1928x759 pixels. I just tried it now and it still works.
  110. My Dell computer is apparently strange in many ways.

Share This Page