K7 review

[bob-c]

<p>Here's another K7 review from a website I often visit, for anyone interested.<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/k7-hands.shtml<br>

-Bob</p>

[jacques c pelletier]

<p>"Competent camera" is really the final word in this review. Whatever that means to us.<br>

JP</p>

 

[michael_elenko]

<p>Thanks for the heads up Bob. I prefer an impressionistic review of a camera by a photographer over the more methodical, lab-oriented review of a technician.</p>

<p>That said, this must be the most boring review of any camera I've ever read.</p>

<p>Ugh.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Why oh why did Michael Reichmann keep calling it the K7? There's a little dash between the K and the 7...</p>

<p>Makes me wonder how much attention he paid to the camera.</p>

[frank_b._baiamonte]

<p>Now I remember why I don't read that many camera reviews but prefer to wait for the opinions of people who use cameras to take real photos. I'll admit I didn't read the whole thing (it was pretty boring). I stopped at the part where he noticed the mirror lock up feature of the 2-sec self timer and wrote a memo to Canon. He made it sound like a new invention that someone had just figured out. I'm pretty sure my K10D does the same thing, and I know my K20D does because I use it all the time. I'll hazard a guess and say that feature has been around even longer than that.</p>

[laur1]

<p>I was still wondering when the review will start when I got to the end of it.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I've read quite a few articles on LL and this one is disappointing. It makes me wonder if this was written by the same author (Michael Reichmann?) as this article is rife with typographical and other errors and really looks like a rush job. I guess he wasn't inspired to give it as much attention as he usually might. Honestly, I get more out of most of Ken Rockwell's write-ups than this one. Seems rather jaded. It's true. If you're already accustomed to pricier cameras, you might not get super-excited about this one unless the compact, weather-sealed build particularly appeals to you. And it appears this wasn't all that interesting to the reviewer, actually complaining more than most about its compact size.</p>

[bob_stevenson]

<p>Fascinating to see peoples reactions here especially since many are brand loyalists rather than 'photographers'.</p>

<p>LL is a serious photography site rather than a brand related enthusiasts site. As such the k7 got a good overview rather than a detailed examination. Those who regularly look at LL will know that Reichman does not do detailed reviews but does offer excellent apraisals for people who are going to be serious users rather than enthusiasts (hopefully, the items will be good enough to turn them into enthusiasts over time!)</p>

<p>In line with this, the k7 got a pretty good 'review' and compared reasonably with the 'others', in some ways even bettering them. However, Reichman put his finger right on the places where pentax will have to improve if it is genuine about raising the profile of it's cameras and the final imterpretation was to more or less suggest that pentax is 'me too' items, and in this he was not wrong. People here on this site love pentax and are only happy with glowing reviews that make them feel justified in their choice. Not all people, and especially photographers, always share that view and Reichman succinctly summed up why that's the case.</p>

<p>The k7 is an 'ok camera' and that's what got 'reviewed',..who can complain with that? Personally, I found that it set out my own reservations and finalised why I will now 'move on'. Every photographer is different and the major problem for a small maker like pentax is to offer something for everyone, and thus miss the target for most. The review, such as it was, accurately tasked pentax rather than the k7 itself, which actually came out with it's true face recognised.</p>

[bob_stevenson]

<p>I forgot to add,...the apparently odd reference about mirror lock up would only make sense to regular visitors to LL because Reichman has been waging a campaign for the last several years to persuade Canon to properly implement MLU. It's interesting, but perhaps predictable given the attitude of DSLR makers to their captive audience, that he and other notable reviewers have failed to accomplish this.......</p>

[shaloot]

<p>"Fascinating to see peoples reactions here especially since many are brand loyalists rather than 'photographers'."</p>

<p>Really? Here? I think it's more like we are both... and what's up the quotations around "photographers"?</p>

<p>And what will you be moving on to Bob? Away from an "ok" camera and company to...?</p>

[r.t. dowling]

 

<p><em>"Why oh why did Michael Reichmann keep calling it the K7? There's a little dash between the K and the 7... Makes me wonder how much attention he paid to the camera." </em></p>

<p>There are dozens of people on this site, and probably hundreds or thousands elsewhere on the web, who (for example) refer to the Nikon D300 as the 300D; refer to the Canon 40D as the D40; refer to the Nikon D40 as the 40D; etc. I guess we should be thankful that Reichmann <em>only</em> omitted the hyphen between K and 7!</p>

 

[tnaskedov]

<p>Hey Bob, smug much?</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I've read enough of Reichmann's reviews to know not to expect a thorough going-through of every detail, and do value his photographer-oriented opinions over many sites who mostly regurgitate the spec sheet. He says as much himself, there are other places to get that kind of information. I was only noting that this review seemed pretty sloppy, sloppier than other articles I've seen from him, on the low end of his usual standards. Like he wished he hadn't committed to doing it. </p>

<p>If you don't (<strong>as he doesn't seem to</strong> ) personally care about or have a preference for the <strong>compact</strong> weather-sealed body, or the K-mount that is crucial to those of who already shoot Pentax or are particularly attracted to Pentax glass, the camera may not offer that much excitement for someone who is used to a, say, Canon 50D which is similar in price right now and offers similar performance and specs for the most part. The point of the K-7 is that it is Pentax's first body that really competes directly with and even betters the 50D and Nikon 300D in some respects. Just like there are a few who convert away from Pentax in search of better AF, etc., there are some who convert to Pentax in search of a smaller, lighter kit with compact Limited primes.</p>

<p>Having reviews like his pointing out possible ergonomic/operational irritations could be seen as a good sign. Part of playing on a higher, level playing field is that you have to take your lumps, as standards are higher. If something--even something that many may find trivial--is suboptimal, it is more likely to be mentioned. And attention to detail from more people may help make future cameras better. The comment about the SD card door is interesting to me, as I liked the K10D/20D lever-operated door and the new door doesn't look as good to me, and may actually have some operational issues.</p>

<p>And Bob, I'm pretty sure your comparison between brand loyalists and "photographers" (quotes included) wasn't meant to be very nice or complimentary to folks here. Consider keeping that fascination to yourself. The fact that some of us frequent this particular forum may indicate a preference but doesn't mean we don't take photography seriously or have blinders for what else is out there.</p>

[doug_nelson3]

<p>The feature I find most "compelling" in Pentax DSLRs is the availability of truly great compact prime lenses. I don't even own a zoom, as I am put off by their beer bottle size and weight. These lenses were my reason for choosing the K20D. I don't regret it for a minute. Now if I can justify one of the new compact bodies as a travel camera "for my wife". . .</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>I pretty much agree with Andrew. I've been reading Michael Reichmann's articles for some years, and this was a quick, sloppy write up, not up to his usual standard.</p>

<p>He recently purchased a Leica M9 and reviewed a Canon 7D, so I can well imagine him not being too excited about the K-7, even moreso since he doesn't shoot Pentax anymore (he owns Leica, Nikon, Canon and Sony digital systems).</p>

[jgredline]

<p>I have stopped reading reviews on the K-7...My only review I need is the one I get when I look at my monitor or prints and and I like what I see ....allot...</p>

[audun_sjoeseth1]

<p>Javier: How high ISO do you use? And at that ISO setting, do you still like the results?</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>It seems like there are a lot of people who simply don't "get" Pentax -- they don't understand the point of Pentax's unique signature features, or they don't need those features and they assume that nobody else needs them either. As an example, a quote from Reichmann's review:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"But therein lies its failing in my eyes. The camera isn't compelling for any reason. In marketing terms it doesn't appear to offer a USP (Unique Selling Proposition). Almost every aspect of the camera is competent, and there are only a few failings. But it also doesn't really excel at anything. It isn't the fastest, the sharpest, the highest resolution, the smallest, the lightest, the fastest focusing, or have the fastest frames rates." </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The camera isn't compelling for any reason? OK, if he doesn't find it compelling, that's fine... he's entitled to his opinion. But no unique selling proposition? Doesn't excel at anything? That's flat out wrong.</p>

<p>Off the top of my head:</p>

<p>1) It is the smallest pro-build weather-resistant DSLR available;</p>

<p>2) It is the most affordable pro-build weather-resistant DSLR available;</p>

<p>3) It is the only APS-C pro-build weather-resistant camera with built-in image stabilization;</p>

<p>4) Despite having a larger sensor, the K-7 is smaller than the Olympus E-30, and <em>much</em> smaller than the Olympus E-3;</p>

<p>5) It is one of only three APS-C DSLRs currently on the market to have a 100% viewfinder (the others are the much costlier D300s and 7D)</p>

<p>Most of you know that I'm not a Pentax fanboy and that I've criticized Pentax plenty of times in the past... but when a person publishes a review for the whole world to see, and gets the facts wrong, they deserve to be corrected... which is what I'm doing here. Not defending Pentax (why should I? I'm not on their payroll), but simply setting the record straight.</p>

[jgredline]

<blockquote>

<p>Javier: How high ISO do you use? And at that ISO setting, do you still like the results?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>On the K-7 i try and stay below 800 where as in the K20D i have no problem at 1600.</p>

[audun_sjoeseth1]

<p>Below 800? That sounds bad! Do you expose to the right? If so, I hope that the K-x will better, and that they put that sensor in a new version of the K-7.</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Audun,<br>

I do expose to the right and I have tried the different menu options in the K-7 and still, when it comes to noise, the K20D kicks it butt...From what I hear, RAW fixes the noise problem.</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

<p>R.T., you have it right. That quote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"But therein lies its failing in my eyes. The camera isn't compelling for any reason. In marketing terms it doesn't appear to offer a USP (Unique Selling Proposition). Almost every aspect of the camera is competent, and there are only a few failings. But it also doesn't really excel at anything. It isn't the fastest, the sharpest, the highest resolution, the smallest, the lightest, the fastest focusing, or have the fastest frames rates." </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly the same thing could be said about nearly every other camera including the Canon 5D Mk2, 7D, Leica M9, Nikon D700, etc. that many are so excited over. Even a camera that may have industry-best performance in one class is usually merely competent in other areas. It happens that in this particular case, the unique selling propositions that K-7 offers are things that Mr. Reichman doesn't seem to care much about.</p>

 

[audun_sjoeseth1]

<p>OK, Javier, thank you! <br>

So you use JPEG, and not RAW?</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Yes Audun..I am a Jpeg only shooter..The results I have seen from the K-7 at ISO3200 look pretty good when processed from RAW, But I am not skilled in that area. If anyone would like to tackle a RAW K-7 high ISO file, let me know and I will shoot some, email them to you and see what you can do with them or it in PP. Let me know.</p>

[laur1]

<p>Andrew said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The comment about the SD card door is interesting to me, as I liked the K10D/20D lever-operated door and the new door doesn't look as good to me, and may actually have some operational issues.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, this is the principal issue I found with my K-7 too. I actually thought my card was stuck in the reader initially - I still have problems taking the card off. Really bad design on that door - you need to hold the card by the edges and it keeps sliding. Really bad, especially given how well implemented the card door was on the old bodies. That being said, it's the only issue I've found with the K-7, and given how many things it does better, it's easy for me to ignore it (at least, until the next time I have to take the card off again).</p>