Pentax K 20D or Pentax K7

[gregory_mclemor]

<p>Hello<br>

My name is Greg and I shoot with the Canon 50d. I might be moving to Seattle where it rains a lot. I was thinking of buying a Pentax to shoot with when the weather is bad. I mostly shoot landscape and print big. Can anyone recommend the K-7 or the K20 d for image quality and build. I like the video aspect as well but have not tried it. I will use this as a back up set up so I do not want to pay a ton of money.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Both are great performers, better so at lower iso. I still use a K20D for weddings and routinely produce 11x14, 12x18 and 16x24 prints from it. Good lenses to look at are the 16-50 DA*, 31 f1.8, 50 f1.4</p>

<p>As you don't want to pay a ton, take a look at the K20D with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Can you define what "a ton of money" is for you? We're a bunch of cheap bastards around here, so to us an $800 lens is very expensive.</p>

<p>Both cameras you mention produce very similar output as they share a 14MP Samsung CMOS sensor. The K-7 sensor is newer and was redesigned to allow for video and better liveview, but is not significantly different from the K20D as far as images are concerned. The K-7 body is smaller than the K20D, so that might be a consideration for you. Both are exceptional cameras within their price range and you'd be happy with either.</p>

<p>Some of those who upgraded from the K20D to the K-7 can tell you what the advantages of the K-7 are over the K20D, which should allow you to make an informed decision.</p>

<p>What lenses would you be using with your Pentax camera?</p>

[gregory_mclemor]

<p>Thanks for the responses. For a weather proof Canon and lenses could easily be over $ 3000. I could get a pentax a couple of lenses for around 2000. I was thinkining about the Pentax 16-45 and 55- lenses if they are good lenses. I'm a student so I can't drop a lot of money.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Hi Gregory,<br>

Both of the Pentax models you mentioned function excellently in Seattle, but do realize that only a handful of lenses are weather resistant. I have the DA* 50-135mm which is one of 'em, but I don't use that much outside.</p>

<p>But let's ease some perceptions into better alignment with reality. At the risk of breaking a few codes here, let me say that it does and it does not rain a lot in Puget Sound. Basically it rains frequently, but the drops are small. If you check the published <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762183.html">stats</a>, Seattle get about 37 inches of rain a year compared with New York's 49, Boston's 42, Atlanta's 50. That said, that rain falls over 155 days, whereas NY does it in 121, Boston 112, and Atl 115. Add to that our dozens of rain-free days that feel wet and look dreary and you'll see how the perception of it raining a lot is understandable. I'll also admit that it gets pretty surreal when you go through 40+ consecutive days of preciptation and grey skies.</p>

<p>So, for a DSLR, weatherproofing is nice to have here but one can do fine shooting landscapes with what you have. But, as I've noted on this forum now and then, there is a peace of mind with a weatherproof kit.</p>

<p>Now if you plan on spending lots of non-stop time in the Olympic Peninsula photographing rain forests, vampires, and grunge holy sites (I used to live, work, and shoot in Forks among other places) where it does rain 100 inches a year on average, then I would surely score a Pentax or Olympus DSLR. And several Goretex, wool, and fleece garments too.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>The Pentax DA 16-45mm f/4 is a fine lens, fine quality performance. But it is not of the rarified weather-resistant variety (WR), since you are getting equipment with that in mind. The Pentax DA* 16-50mm f/2.8 is such, and is also more costly. The only other WR short zoom is the inexpensive WR "kit" lens, DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 WR, built pretty well for a kit lens. I am about to buy one of those just for inclement weather use, when I don't need the top performance of my Sigma f/2.8 lens. But for serious landscape work under drippy conditions, the DA* 16-50mm may be worth the cost.</p>

<p>Both the K20D (which I own) and the K-7 are fine cameras. The K20D metering tends to underexpose slightly, perhaps designed to be more protective of highlights- a good thing for JPEG shots. I often have the exposure comp set up a notch or so, but not if I notice strong highlights. It is a meaty size, but still smaller than most in its class. A good camera body for handling with hefty fast zooms. Low light, high-ISO performance is generally considered to be slightly better than the K-7.</p>

<p>The K-7 has the video for that interest, and a much better live view performance for that interest. It is more compact, yet with fine magnesium alloy construction. For larger lenses, many owners consider the optional grip to be of greater advantage on the K-7 than with the K20D, because of the more compact body size.</p>

<p>Either way, you will find certain unique features like the very convenient, fast, and efficient Pentax Hyper Program and Hyper Manual systems, will offer a different handling experience. </p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Both reviews can be found here:</p>

<p><a href="../equipment/pentax/k7/review/">K-7 Review</a><br /> <a href="../equipment/pentax/k20d/review/"><br /></a><br /> <a href="../equipment/pentax/k20d/review/">K20D Review</a></p>

<p>I bought a K-7 and passed on the K20D after using or owning all 4 of the flagship DSLRs (ist D, K10D, K20D, K-7) for thousands of exposures.</p>

<p>All 4 were good cameras, the K-7 is quite a step above. And what is odd, is 3 generations later the ist D is finally officially retired, I'll be giving it away to a friend still shooting film (Nikon at that) in May! I wanted it to go to a good home, and he is as anal retentive about his equipment as me, I know it will be enjoyed. As I will further note below, the while the specs of the K10/20D were appreciated, I was sad to see the joyfully compact flagship ist D disappear into intermediate cameras like the K100D. I really missed a truly compact flagship the last few years that the K10D was my main camera.</p>

<p>As far as the K-7, not only does it have video, but it has a fully working live view. While the K20D has live view, it's like the difference between a type writer and a microsoft word type editing program (if you are anti M$ fill in your favorite word editor). Honestly, I very rarely used it on the K20D, and found it to be inconvenient at best. Whether or not you have a preconceived notion (as I did) about live view, you will undoubtebly find it useful on the K-7 for macros and landscapes (panos specifically). Also the sensor shift micro adjustment is really cool, even if it's a feature I tend to forget about. If you are someone that feels cropping a precious pixel off the edge is bad, than the composition (sensor) shift is really innovative and functional.</p>

<p>If you are shooting mostly landscapes, than the K20D and K-7 should have almost identical IQ, with the edge going to the K-7 at the lower end.</p>

<p>I think the price these days is quite similar (close to $800 for both if you competitively price), and thus the K-7 is a much better value. The K10D/20D were very well built, but as I often noted they were not on the level of the Limited lenses. The K-7 is the first Pentax SLR (digital or not) that really reaches that level not just in build, but also features.</p>

<p>Also, Michael K notes the larger K20D, I don't find the size advantageous, and the K-7 is really a joy to handle. Frankly, I'm a little surprised he finds the K-7 size a disadvantage (although I think I understand what he is specifically referring to). One final note on the size, the K-7 battery grip takes AA (or a second Li-Ion) battery. It also has full duplicate controls, while the K20D only takes a second Li-Ion and it leaves off several key controls, most importantly the AF button.</p>

<p>IMO, if you are shooting landscapes you probably don't want the extra leverage of the non integral battery grip, and if you are using the grip, you probably will find the AF button and AA battery support useful.</p>

<p>I've noticed a lot of people (including myself initially) had preconceived or frankly wrong assumptions about the K-7. I was one of the hardest critics of the cameras spec sheet early on, and even when I unboxed it I didn't really think I was going to like it. However, as you will notice, people who own this camera, and people who have used it for extended periods, all tend to have positive things to say about it.</p>

<p>To me, it could be the finest small format landscape/adventure/travel DSLR ever made and I just cannot put the K20D in that class.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>But let's ease some perceptions into better alignment with reality. At the risk of breaking a few codes here, let me say that it does and it does not rain a lot in Puget Sound. Basically it rains frequently, but the drops are small. If you check the published <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762183.html" target="_blank">stats</a>, Seattle get about 37 inches of rain a year compared with New York's 49, Boston's 42, Atlanta's 50. That said, that rain falls over 155 days, whereas NY does it in 121, Boston 112, and Atl 115. Add to that our dozens of rain-free days that feel wet and look dreary and you'll see how the perception of it raining a lot is understandable. I'll also admit that it gets pretty surreal when you go through 40+ consecutive days of preciptation and grey skies.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>ME,</p>

<p>You are being too optimistic. Boston and NYC are also warmer in winter, and cooler in summer (Bostonian's get a wonderful 12mph average sea breeze all summer). As a whole, the northeast is basically the nations sump pump dump, while your area is like a humidifier spraying out a fine mist of pleasant moisture (ok, I made your rain seem a little too pleasant, I couldn't resist!)</p>

<p>Look up Binghampton and Buffalo NY for rain and cloud cover. It's 200+ cloud cover and 160+ rain. Shockingly depressing isn't it? But to reassure you that you aren't going crazy, you people do lead the race for populated places with most days of cloud cover, even if Binghamton cracks the top 10! ...<a href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_city_in_the_US_has_the_most_cloud_cover">cities with 200+ days of cloud cover</a></p>

<p>NYC and Boston are cheery compared to many places, including Albany which has about 20 extra days of rain and clouds :-( .</p>

<p>Most depressing (aside from Nov and Dec when we forget there is something called the sun) we don't see more than 2-3 day stretches of continuous sun all summer. We don't get 40 straight days (although last summer it did rain almost every day in June) but we get dumped on 15 days a month for a monthly total of 5-10inches or more at times. I think we had over 9.5 in last July, and more fell in places, i think over 15inches in spots! Not to mention the 46 days of rain between 6/1/09 and 8/31/09. That means that 50% of our summer has rain.</p>

<p>However, weather chest beating aside, I do agree with and understand your point (just wanted to note, I want my 240 days of sun you mentioned), for the most part, the PNW gets a raw deal in terms of peoples assumptions even though there was places with more rain, more cloud cover days (well just anchorage and mount washington for cloud cover). And I agree, the sealing is peace of mind, more so than actual necessity in most cases. Certainly not a must have if you already have a full system. These days picking up a used 50D probably cost less than a K-7.</p>

<p> </p>

[bkpix]

<p>Gregory,<br>

I live in Oregon, where it rains a lot, or so I'm told. And I own both a K20D and a K7 at the moment.<br>

It surprised me a bit how much I like the weather sealing. While it doesn't rain a lot here, in inches, it rains lightly and continuously much of the time. I am not much of a worrier about gear, and seldom fussed about getting my Canon 20D wet, and had no problems with it.<br>

But the Pentax bodies, with a weather resistant lens, turn out to be quite a convenience. I left the K7 on a tripod for four hours in light rain the other day, taking a photograph now and then between other activities. The Canon would have been in and out of the car. A small but significant difference in shooting.<br>

As for choosing between them, get the K7. It's simply better, even though image quality is pretty much the same between the two bodies. Then get a 16-50/2.8, the weather sealed one. You'll be happy.<br>

BK</p>

 

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p><em>The Canon would have been in and out of the car. A small but significant difference in shooting.</em><br /> As for choosing between them, get the K7. It's simply better, even though image quality is pretty much the same between the two bodies. Then get a 16-50/2.8, the weather sealed one. You'll be happy.<br /> BK</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well said!</p>

[jgredline]

<p>Well, the advice you have received is pretty good so I will not add anything more, but ...Do not be surprised if the 50D becomes the back up. 8-)</p>

[martin_engineer]

<p>Hey Gregory,<br>

DO NOT BUY ANOTHER CAMERA. Spend a few bucks on a rain cover. Spend the rest on a nice lens.<br>

I think you'll find that the K20d is equal in may ways to the EOS 50d and that the K7 is a little bit superior to both in terms of handling but not necessarily image quality. The only thing I find lacking in the Pentax bodies is the autofocus. I'm sure you'll agree after you use the Pentax for a week that it's noticeably slower.<br>

The Samsung 14.6 and Canon 15.1 mega pixel sensors will be pretty equal in image quality if you shoot RAW.<br>

The Pentax bodies are just as durable as the Canon. I've personally manged to drop a K20d from 6 feet up onto concrete. It's still shotting flawlessly... except for a scratch on the body. I'm sure you'd be able to hammer nails with it.<br>

Happy shooting.<br>

- Martin</p>

 

[jgredline]

<p>Martin, Do you have a K-7? I find the auto focus speed on AF.S to be on par with my nikon bodies. True in AF.C the Pentax does not keep up.</p>

[thebs]

<p>The K20D was $500 new back turn of 2008-2009. In all honesty, the K-7 is the way to go now. I only have a K20D because I bought mid-2008, and have two chargers and five batteries (all Pentax brand for reasons I've stated elsewhere). If I bought today, it would be a K-7.<br /> I have the DA* 16-50 f/2.8, DA* 200 f/2.8 (<a href="http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Lenses/Lens-Test-Pentax-SMCP-DA-200mm-f-2.8ED-IF-SDM-AF">PopPhoto review</a>) and now the D-FA100 f/2.8 Macro WR (<a href="http://www.popphoto.com/reviews/lenses/2010/04/lens-test-pentax-d-fa-100mm-f28-wr-macro">PopPhoto review</a>) in my weather sealed system. I had the DA* 50-135 f/2.8 and it just wasn't long enough (I kept using my DA 55-300 f/4-5.8 instead, and now the DA* 200 f/2.8 always). All are solid, although sometimes people do get a bad 16-50 sample (my first one was).<br /> And I agree with Javier. The AF.S and SDM is quite and solid in Pentax, but AF.C and USM are going to be better for sports-action in Canon. Still, I shoot with a K20D + DA* 200 f/2.8 and, now my new backup, K-x + DA 55-300 f/4-5.8 for sports-action. I couldn't get into stadiums with Canon or Nikon sized lenses, and the K20D + DA* 200 f/2.8 is weather-sealed.<br /> In fact, even though the weather is not looking good for Grand-Am in Alton, VA on Saturday, I'm considering going because I want to shoot in the varying drizzle to rain. That is, of course, if they still hold the races. ;)</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>It would seem the use Gregory is addressing would make AF speed a secondary consideration anyway. Shooting in sometimes rainy conditions is a primary issue. As to handling, it remains a highly individual matter, but in general, more people prefer a more massive body rather than a compact body with use of larger lenses for hand-held shooting. But not all do.</p>

<p>It relates to use in terms of practical need. I have both the larger WR K20D, as well as the WR compact K200D. I have found for myself that on their own, the K20D handles a little better with weightier lenses than the K200D (which is still pretty good, having a very deep grip design). Some people have stated on this forum that even with the K20D they prefer to add yet more to its mass and also for vertical shooting function, by nearly always having the optional grip attached! For them, this feels better in their hands.</p>

<p>But the K200D is certainly my choice when I will be doing any lengthy carrying and walking about, or bicycle riding. It weighs about 1/4 lb less than even the K-7, and is yet slightly smaller, but is very strongly built. The concept of an advanced, well-built compact design, however, may not be everyone's cup of tea. There are those who always desire larger body designs.</p>

<p>I think the well-built compact body concept, likewise my K200D, does represent greater versatility. If my need is for extensive carrying, yet I might also need some extensive use of a larger lens and vertical hand held shooting, I take along the battery grip for the K200D. Then it amounts to having a modular system, where one can go from a compact body with a compact lens carried in a smaller pack, changed to a larger body with a larger lens- just like that! The grip does not take much room, and may even be shoved into a pocket. For myself, I find this to be a very effective means of dealing with both situations.</p>

<p>Gregory, if your shooting needs include a lot of hiking, etc. the K-7 can't be beat in terms of practical considerations. I assume since you are considering the K-7 to begin with, you are not one of those who insist on always working with a larger body. The K-7 IS beyond a doubt the most advanced, best built, metal body, WR aps format <em>compact</em> DSLR in existance. It offers great versatility and utility.</p>

<p>Speaking of compact design and quality, the K-7 carried with the DA21mm f/3.2 and /or the FA 43mm f/1.9 Lmiteds would be delightful. </p>

[russel_yee]

<p>but the 21 and 43 aren't WR, kinda defeats the purpose of gettin the k-7 don't it? they are nice for hiking though, I use them with the km. Sometimes, I wish they were the 15mm and a 70/77 instead.<br>

Also, $2000 is a ton of money to me=) but then, I had more money (for camera stuff) as a student than I do now.</p>

[thebs]

<p>I do agree going with non-WR/DA* glass with a WR body is probably not ideal. But my permanent residence is in Florida, where I attend most shooting events. It's one of the reasons I decided to stick with my K20D and replace my K100D with a K-x. All of my DA/FA glass goes on the K-x, and all of my DA*/WR glass goes on my K20D.<br>

BTW, I just took some tele shots with my new Pentax D-FA 100 f/2.8 Macro. In good light, the AF doesn't hunt. It's actually really good. I was a bit surprised. I'll post them in another thread.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Right- my working MO when weather might be an issue, yet desiring compact carrying is to have some WR and then a small quality non WR or so. The smallness of the Limiteds makes this doable. Like my 21mm and/or 43mm in combo with my DA* 50-135mm in a separate lens beltcase. If I will be doing some macro, the new D-FA 100mm WR is quite small also.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>I do agree going with non-WR/DA* glass with a WR body is probably not ideal.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree. the Limiteds arre well built to tight tolerances, unless you are shooting in downpours and are leaving the camera exposed, the chance of anything happening to it is quite slim. Remember not every Nikon lens you see at a sporting event is sealed, yet they seem to get the shots!</p>

<p>Bearing in mind MOST landscape photographers DON'T use sealed cameras or lenses (how many sealed medium and large format cameras are on the market?).</p>

<p>As ME pointed out, the sealing is much more peace of mind than necessity, since 99% of the time if the weather is bad enough to require sealing, your camera actually isn't out anyway.It's really hard to take compelling shots in a down pour, more than likely though you camera will be subjected to mist, fog (with condensation), high humidity, perhaps some snow and some light rain.</p>

<p>Peace of mind comes in knowing the best landscape shots are created with the potential for you and your gear to get wet (keyword is potential), such as with a storm barreling in during sunset, or on a multiday trip where running to the car to protect your camera is not an option. It's these times that both a good carrying system, and weather resistance become more important for you to actually take the chance on carrying the system and thus getting the shot.</p>

[audun_sjoeseth1]

<p>There i no reason to be afraid to put unsealed lenses on a sealed camera, even in rain. </p>

[thebs]

<p>All <strong>I</strong> said was "ideal." Doesn't mean you won't get ideal shots. It just means the most <strong>ideal setup</strong> is WR body+lenses. I also qualified further with my bias, <em>"But my permanent residence is in Florida."</em><br>

This is what someone else (<strong>not me</strong>) said ... <em>"but the 21 and 43 aren't WR, kinda defeats the purpose of gettin the k-7 don't it?"</em><br>

I <strong>never</strong> meant to suggest that the K20D or K-7 wouldn't do great with limiteds.<br>

<em><br /></em></p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I <strong>never</strong> meant to suggest that the K20D or K-7 wouldn't do great with limiteds.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Bryan, I don't think anyone was suggesting you said that. I've just seen it written a lot that there is no reason to have a sealed body if you don't have a sealed lens, i disagree with that premise.</p>

<p>I do agree it's the optimal setup for inclement conditions, but I don't think not having that setup makes the sealed body unneeded. <em><br /></em></p>

[ian s. forsyth]

<p>Does any remember the k10d that went into space and the reported problems of condensation in the camera not being a problem. If I remember correctly I don’t think he was using an WR lens. If there was to be a problem with moisture you would have seen this with the air pressure, humidity, and temperature changes the camera had gone thru. I think this would have brought forth any issues of camera and lens failure .</p>

[thebs]

<p>Ian --<br /> They lifted the K10D to over 100,000 feet (20 miles) into the stratosphere by air balloon. The atmosphere pressure at 100,000 feet is only about 2-3% of sea level. It wasn't quite into the thermosphere at 327,360 feet (62 miles), sub 1% atmo, aka "officially recognized space." Although the pressure conditions are similar, there are still many differences, including thermal (the Earth is an interesting study -- the atmosphere, and its effects, actually extend out hundreds of miles, and vary radically).<br /> And yes, they used the kit lens. This was for other reasons though.<br /> The problem with using a weather sealed lenses are that they have gaskets and seals. They were worried about the pressure of atmosphere air causing an "explosive decompression"at some point where the pressure exceeded the retention. The kit lens would let air escape. Using the kit lens was, therefore, a much lower risk. The body, as long as the lens didn't accumulate a lot of condensation that entered the housing, would likely survive.<br /> I wouldn't recommend putting the K10D body through many such trips though, even if the kit lens is a toss-away. Things can get into the housing. But the use of a non-weather sealed lens was for reasons of pressure. And that I completely concur with.</p>

[martin_engineer]

<p>I've used both 18-55 and 50-200 non WR kit lens' in light rain and mild to heavy snow with no problems at all.... no moisture or condensation inside. I read somewhere that it's good to leave them in the camera bag for the temperature to normalize when bringing your kit inside from cold weather.<br>

Javier. I don't own a K-7... only had 20 minutes to play with one.</p>