K-7 or Sony A700

[john_donnella]

<p>Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I did not know where else to. I currently shoot a Nikon D60. I've found that it's just a little too limiting. So I've decided that I wanted to move up to something a little more serious. The K-7 on one hand has many features that I'm interested in, especially the HDR program built into the camera, while being more expensive. $1300 for the body. The A700 however is still a pretty decent contender for my money. I can get the body, 18-70mm and an 18-250mm for around $1350. I'm torn in between the two to be completely honest. Help me out a bit?</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>John, without knowing your shooting requirements it is tough to recommend anything. What subjects do you shoot? How is the D60 too limiting? Are you primarily a RAW or jpeg shooter? Will you be using flash and how much? Will you be growing a system beyond the two lenses from Sony you referred to? Is weight a concern? How important is printing vs. on-screen viewing? Do you process images in software seriously or what?</p>

<p>That sort of stuff. Thanks,</p>

<p>ME</p>

[jgredline]

<p>For the money, you will not beat a K20D!</p>

[john_donnella]

<p>Right, my apologies. I shoot a very wide range, but I'm trying to focus on Landscapes, Portraiture, Wildlife and many others. Those being the top three though. The D60 is limiting in its lack of AF points, the colors seem to be too dull at times, and overall image quality. Not to say it's not a good camera, because it does have many good qualities and I will always love it as it was my first DSLR. I shoot raw. Probably not going to be using a flash much. Weight is no concern. I do process my image in Photoshop CS4, but mostly just basic things. I am planning to start doing more complex things the post process.</p>

[elnoralouisa]

<p>K20D in vivid is going to give you some very beautiful colors.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>That won't make any difference to RAW images. Good to learn some photoshop skills if you're shooting RAW. I don't like actually editing the objects of the image too much, but after over a year of CS3 am still learning all the possibilities of contrast, curves, sharpening controls etc.</p>

<p>Depending on how much money you have to spend, the K20D would be a very good choice too. To get the best results (depending on your preferences), landscapes might require wide, high IQ lenses, portraits maybe fast zooms or primes, and wildlife maybe fast long telephoto zooms or primes.</p>

<p>I don't see the point in spending a heap of money on a top-of-the-line body and getting slow, lower IQ lenses. Be better to get a 2nd generation body and invest in lenses. Upgrading bodies but using lower-end lenses won't give you a big improvement in image quality.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>And if you have CS4 I don't think it's worth paying extra to have in-camera HDR creating. Especially if you;re shooting RAW.</p>

[john_donnella]

<p>I see what you're saying. I did some more shopping around and actually got a better deal going with the K20D. Along with a 55-300mm, 10-17mm fish eye to super wide, and a 16-45mm all for around$1800.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>John,<br /> Thanks for the update. You asked about the K-7, I've only handled one for a very short time--it has only been available for weeks--so my experience is from owning a K20D and a K10D. The K-7 is very similar to the K20D, but smaller, faster in AF and faster in frame rate. It does HD video too. As the good folks above have noted, the K20D is a flaming bargain right now. If budget is an issue to you jump on it while it is still available.</p>

<p>For landscape and portrait the Pentax system is excellent. I would also think that the Sony is excellent too. I'm surprised that your colors with the D60 are dull--in RAW, colors are pretty malleable to me. In practice, I find that lenses can determine color as much as anything.</p>

<p>For landscape and portrait I think you should consider single focal length lenses over say a superzoom. Pentax zooms are very good, but in general primes rule (except in my opinion the DA 12-24mm). Pentax distinguishes itself in the marketplace with the DA Limited primes which are very small, lightweight, and optically excellent. The DA* 55 f 1.4 appears very good for portraits too. Some older FA lenses such as the 77mm is a portrait shooters dream as well.</p>

<p>Wildlife is more challenging just because the market for lenses >300mm is lacking compared to Canon and Nikon. I don't know about Sony. There are some third party offerings--I have the Sigma "Bigma" 50-500mm which is fun, convenient, and OK optically.But the Pentax 200mm and 300mm prime lenses are outstanding and so well built.</p>

<p>Addition: In camera HDR is just not even close to Photomatix. If you take HDR seriously this is the tool.<br>

ME</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>In terms of build, control features, and all around quality, not to mention superior IQ, either the K20D or the K7 would be a huge step up from a Nikon D60.</p>

<p>The Pentax/Tamron 18-250mm is a top-rated performer for that type of lens. A superzoom is a lens of convenience when you need to instantly go from wide angle to telephoto. But you'd get even better quality with other lenses for the interests you mention. The sky is the limit there. Michael E brings up some excellent possibilities.</p>

<p>The Pentax DA 17-70mm f/4 or Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 and Pentax DA 55-300mm would be a fine combo to get started.</p>

[john_donnella]

<p>Thanks a lot Michael. I have heard a lot about primes when it comes to Portraits. I'm just not a huge fans of primes though. I do not have a lot of cash to throw around, as to why I prefer zooms. I never go after a lens just for one subject, so if I can use a single lens for portraits along with some other subject, I'm a sucker for the zoom. Thanks for the tip about HDR and Photomatix, I will most definetly look into it.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I am going to guess that you've never held either of these cameras, or at least have not held both. The Sony has some good specs but seems distinctly more plastic-y in my opinion. I would suggest that handling & build are worth comparing too. No doubt my preference for Pentax ergonomics is rooted in experience with Pentax. I also expect that the a700 is probably due for replacement with a new model soon--lack of live view or video put it at a handicap against its more recently-updated rivals. Have you also shopped the Nikon D90? It seems to be the natural upgrade and ticks most of the 'advanced amateur' boxes as well.</p>

<p>HDR in-camera is an interesting idea though it probably wouldn't tip the balance for me. In practice you may want the additional control that doing it all during post would give you. I haven't tried it yet so maybe having it readily available in-camera is more handy and can provide better results than I think.</p>

<p>For a quantum advance in AF points and AF performance, you probably want a Nikon D300. However, having 11 points <em>can </em> be handier than the D60's three--though often many of us just use the center point anyway.</p>

<p>I'm going to suggest that you can wring good color out of virtually any D-SLR; I remember when the D40 and D60 came out everybody was saying how great their JPEG's were. There are subtle differences, but I think shooting RAW and refining your post-processing will get you more than a camera upgrade. You might want to invest in Adobe Lightroom; it can streamline how you process your RAW files to taste. In-camera JPEG processing continues to improve year by year but these changes aren't generally realized with RAW files; it's up to the RAW processor and its defaults/presets/adjustments to make that happen.</p>

<p>I don't want to dissuade you from the K-7, because I want one myself--it appears to be a great camera. I don't want you to be disappointed though when you find it isn't a fix-all though. Since these bodies are parts of systems, I would suggest that you also consider what lenses and other accessories you might be interested in. What lenses do you like & use with your D60? I'll suggest that the 18-70 Sony includes with their kits isn't a particularly great lens; if you're wanting the 18-250 anyway (which I believe is a Sony-badged version of the excellent Tamron), you might as well go with that alone. Personally I find the Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5 one of the more attractive lenses in Sony's system, though it's a little pricey (many people would prefer an f/2.8 zoom of shorter range for less $ than that). I own the comparable Pentax DA17-70/4. I would suggest you look a little further though--will you want a telephoto or ultra-wide? It is my impression that there aren't that many choices for ultrawides for Sony mount. If you're interested in prime lenses, you might want to do some research on those too--Pentax has a pretty good line-up, I believe Sony was adding a few new ones.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>After reading a few of the other responses, I'd like to add that I believe the Pentax and Sony superzooms are both re-badges of Tamron's superzoom, so that would be a draw except that the Sony-badged version costs $140 more at B&H. Since you mention the DA16-45/4, I'll say that's also a flaming bargain within its limitations of f/4 and relative lack of reach. You should also be aware that being a fisheye, the 10-17 does not overlap the 16-45 at all; the 17mm end is comparable in angle of view (though with greater distortion) to the 12mm end of the DA12-24/4. You might want to include an FA501/4 ($249 new, but there are many cheaper used substitutes) for low light & portraits.</p>

[john_donnella]

<p>I have not looked at the D90 because I just felt like getting away from Nikon and Canon and wanted to try some smaller companies. I think I'm just going to go with the Pentax for now. I'll probably look at Sony again one day though, because I am big fan of Zeiss lenses.<br />Thanks for your help everyone.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Nobody has pointed out that the K-7 will be going down in price within the next months. By January it should probably hit $1,000.</p>

<p>I'm not a fan of Sony cameras after having handled a few, although the A900 does seem to be an improvement on their earlier plasticky (as Andrew put it) DSLRs. Of course, it's also full frame and more expensive. What I do like about Sony is their lens line; they have a few that make my mouth water. But then I see the prices. There is no way I am paying the prices they are asking for those lenses. If I want to spend that kind of money I'll just go with Canikon.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Mis, I can always count on you for the inside scoop. Can you tell me what the price will be around the time of my birthday this fall?</p>

<p>As I mentioned before, the 16-80/3.5-4.5 had sort of been the kind of midrange lens I had been waiting for Pentax to make for quite some time--then they finally made the DA 17-70/4 so I really can't complain too much (I kind of wanted a slightly more compact 20-85/3.5-4.5). I'm glad that most Pentax lenses are cheaper than their Sony counterparts.</p>

<p>Mis, which Sony lenses would interest you if they made nicer bodies and price was no object? The 135/1.8?</p>

<p>I think their lineup is kind of weak for APS-C ultra-wide. They have a Sony-badged clone of perhaps the least desireable of the third-party u/w zooms, the Tamron 11-18/4.5-5.6. No Tokina 12-24 or 11-16. The new Tamron 10-24, and the old Sigma 10-20.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>There also is the 135/2.8 STF which I assume is the Minolta 135/2.8 STF in a new body..</p>

<p>There's another compelling reason to go Sony.. the rumored A850 full-frame body. It's rumored to SRP for $2000 US. Which means eventual street price will be perilously close to the K-7 and friends. Basically an A900 in a dumbed-down body with slower frame rate.</p>

<p>But full-frame is full-frame. And KEH is still chock-ful of ancient Minolta AF lenses that will work just fine on modern Sony DSLR's.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>That (135/2.8 STF) was actually the one I was thinking about when I said 135/1.8. Interesting A850 rumor. Good if it turns out that way. Sony has actually kept many of the Minolta FF lenses alive.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>Andrew, Sony also has the 135/1.8 Carl Zeiss T* Planar, a heavy, slow-focusing beast with no full-time manual and no ultrasonic focusing. Fantastic bokeh wide-open though -- no haloes!</p>

<p>The 135/2.8 STF is also T-rated (T/4.5), methinks Sony believes a lot of movie-makers will be buying this lens..</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>Mis, I can always count on you for the inside scoop. Can you tell me what the price will be around the time of my birthday this fall?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Inside scoop? Dude, I know about as much as your average US Pentax rep ;-) I predict that around the time of your birthday the price of the K-7 will be...just about right :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Mis, which Sony lenses would interest you if they made nicer bodies and price was no object?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 135mm f/1.8 for sure, and the f/2.8 STF; I've seen some gorgeous images from this lens. I could say the 85mm f/1.4, but an FA* 85 is actually cheaper :-) The 35mm f/1.4 would be nice (thought not at $1,370), but I do like that they have a 28mm f/2.8 for under $300. Of course, I'd like the 500mm f/8 AF mirror lens. The thought of a 70-400mm f/4-5.6 is very appealing...but not at $1,600. I wonder if it's a rebadged Tokina 80-400mm, which although rare, can be found for around $500.</p>

<p>I think Sony's DSLR division is in business because so many Minoltan's with old glass have bought Sony cameras so they can keep on using it. Am I correct?</p>

[thebs]

<p>John --<br>

I started with a K100D with the DA 10-17 f/3.5-4.5, DA 16-45 f/4, DA 50-200 f/4-5.6, later the DA 55-300 f/4-5.8. It was a great, inexpensive start with a system. Today you can get the K20D body with the DA 10-17, DA 16-45 and DA 55-300 for about the same price I started with. It's an inexpensive system to start with,and covers most everything.<br>

I decided to stick with Pentax and drop more money into the system. But you don't have to. With a basic, sub-$700-800 or so glass set, you're going to get a lot out of it without committing yourself with a $2K+ glass purchase and $1K+ body to get the same features.<br>

I do now have a K20D with a DA* 16-45 and DA* 50-135 and, just recently, the DA* 200, which replaces my prior DA 16-45 and DA 55-300, although I still use the 55-300 sometimes and very much still the DA* 10-17. My wife uses the DA 16-45 with flash on the older K100D for indoor photos when she needs such and PnS doesn't cut it.</p>

[mindblob]

<p>Both are very nice camera's.<br>

I suggest you look into lens-choices for both camera's.<br>

Also the general handling, like how does it feel in your hand, what buttons does it have, button placement.<br>

Why not consider the D90? You will miss out on weather-sealing and tougher build-quality, but apart from that it is also a very nice camera. with extremely nice ergonomics.</p>

<p>Kind regards</p>

<p>Thomas</p>

[mattluther]

<p>I own both and my short summary of differences would be like this.<br>

Pros for K-7: <br>

- Live View, very compact and sturdy design, movie. A somewhat more versatile flash system.<br>

Pros for the A700:<br>

- AF still faster and more hassle-free than Pentax, and shorter release lag. A better UI combining viewing of the settings with direct access to changing them. In my mind a better high ISO performance. Three well laid out memory slots for storing personal shooting settings. <br>

Wether you like Sony lenses or Pentax ditto is a largely a matter of taste, with some notable exceptions. The 12-24/f4 is an indispensable reporters tool, very good for architecture also, but Sony has nothing comparable. Sony on the other side has some high grade zooms and tele lenses, the choice for Pentax is more dubious. Likewise Sony has the 16-80 lens which is said (I don't have one) to be very good, and has a unique range. <br>

But the worth of the Sony 18-70 kit lens is best described by the price of my kit. It was cheaper, with the lens, than the body only. The Pentax 18-55 WR which accompanies a K-7 kit is much better.<br>

This may come late for Johns decision, but in time for someone else.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<blockquote>

<p>Mathias: "A better UI combining viewing of the settings with direct access to changing them"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you expand on this? Which settings are easier/more direct to access? I guess you might mean the ability to move around the status screen with the directional controller? My impression from what I've read is that Sony's approach out-of-the-box to high ISO NR is more aggressive noise reduction which may be preferable to some but can also to some extent be configured to reduce NR to retain more detail.</p>

<p>For my education, what do you find less versatile about Sony's flash system?</p>

[mattluther]

<p>The settings: Sony has managed to unify the system to just the usual menus on leafs on one hand, and the infoscreen with the actual settings on the other hand. Every setting you see on the info screen can be accessed directly. Pentax still has the menus on leafs, the first info screen with not accessible settings and then a second info screen where you can change some settings. Better than at K10D and K20D but still not as good as Sony. <br>

Noise: Sonys sensor just seems to be a little less noisy. Just my impression. <br>

I actually forgot an important advantage for the whole Pentax platform: DNG output. Means your software will support the raw files at once, and probably still after many years.<br>

Flash: I have two dedicated flashes for both systems, and it seems the Pentax ones work better in wireless mode which I think is pretty important. More accurate, easier to adjust the output of individual flashes – plus the possibility to use the built-in flash as controller only, which is a real killer. On the negative side is the somewhat more cumbersome procedure with Pentax when you want to balance flash and ambient light, on Sony a one-push affair. The K-7 also for some reason disables anti-shake when in wireless flash mode, but Sony retains it.<br>

In shake reduction there might be another difference. It seems Sony moves the sensor only when the shutter is opened, while the Pentax approach is to keep it kind of floating like on a gyrocompass all the time. The Sony method seems somewhat more effective, but this is a very hard thing to measure.</p>