K-7 or K-x...for a manual camera sort of guy?

[doug elick]

<p>Though I've had various pocket-auto digital cameras, I've been a mechanical kind of guy. With the demise and increasing processing cost of 35mm color film and prints, the time has come to seriously eyeball a DSLR. I'll still keep the Rolleicord, C330 and RB67 for my more "serious" B&W work, but I find I'm not taking as many "35mm color" style photos as I used to.<br>

I still have the K-1000 I saved grass cutting money to buy back in the early 80s. I've put that thing through hell and high water for over 25 years and it just still keeps going. It lacks DoFP, MLU, Spot metering, motorwind, high speed shutter and AF, but you'd have to pry it from my cold, dead hands. My favorite lenses are the f2.8 28mm M, f3.5 35-105 "A" and my crown jewel, the f1.4 50mm "M"; I know I'll have to use them in stop-down mode on a DSLR, but it's nice that they'll all work.<br>

Both the K-7 and K-X have caught my eye. The K-X is an impressive camera for the price and since available light is my preferred mode, it's better high ISO performance and superior dynamic range are enticing. I also like the ability to use regular AA batteries. However, I can't stand having to dive into menus and prefer to have controls at my fingers. I figure AI should be there to help me, not get in the way. In this regard, the K-7's fingertip controls, LCD information display and pentaprism (vs. mirror prism) would probably suit me better. Of course the camera in my hand is better than the one still on the shelf.<br>

Does the K7 really suffer that much at higher ISO settings or are the reports just echoing older Pentax DSLR reviews that slam the camera because it doesn't do aggressive noise reduction by default? Is it really worth holding out for over a K-X? How well does the K-X handle as a manual camera? Would you trust the K-X to absorb years of being knocked about?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p> </p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>The K-7 is certainly physically more substantial, and the hard controls should meet your requirements. It also has a better viewfinder. Your A35-105/3.5 will work in all shooting modes with the aperture ring left on 'A', with the aperture controlled via e-dial. The other two lenses would require stop-down metering. The K-7 is not unusable at higher ISO. The criticism is basically that instead of taking a step forward like some of the other newer bodies (Nikon D90, K-x, etc.), it actually tests slightly worse in this regard than the model it replaces, the K20D (which was above average in its time).</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>In my opinion, it does sounds like the K-7 would be your match, for it's better level of external controls, viewfinder etc.</p>

<p>One question is how much post-processing you do? The K-7 sensor is comparable to the D300S and 7D in high ISO, but to get the most from it your need to shoot RAW, where it seems only mildy behind the K-x.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>K-7!</p>

<p>Once you add in "for a manual camera sort of guy" you negate the K-x, of course some fans of the K-x will disagree with my bold statement. However, the fact is, the K-7 is designed with control -and manual control- in mind, while the K-x is designed to make taking pictures as easy as possible. Of course, painting by numbers is easy too, but few artist actually do it... ;-)</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Also, someone pointed out something on a thread recently.</p>

<p>Since most high end printers only give about 9 stops of DR, anything beyond that is not entirely necessary. True, more overhead is a good thing when processing images, but your end product still has to fit into the confines of the lowest available output format for distribution. Today, those choices are sRGB monitors or printers (and papers) that don't offer much more than 8-9 stops of DR.</p>

<p>The counter argument could be with more stops you are future proofing yourself, but even that argument falls apart the minute the next generation camera comes out!</p>

<p>Although I haven't used the K-x, I trust the people that say it's a really good camera, I just don't think it's a main camera for someone that is a control freak. Definitely could see it as a second body for when the dial is going to 800+ for the duration of the shoot.</p>

<p>For a sample of the K-7 at 1600...</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00Ws2z</p>

[hinman]

<p>I am a huge fan of <a href="http://www.techtheman.com/2009/11/pentax-k-x-white-just-arrived.html">Pentax K-x White</a> but I will suggest on the K-7 like others have given their inputs for your stated requirements. The added controls, better viewfinder, along with many other improvements over K20D/K10D are reasons to get K-7. If high iso is a concern, go with Raw and post processing. With manual focus lens, both will do fine for you but the added controls and better metering should give you a good edge over the K-x. For dynamic range concern, go with multiple exposures, bracketing, and photomatix in software HDR if you find the need. </p>

<p>There are many extras in K-7 over K-x that are too long to list here but few things come to mind as in TAv, weather sealing, 100% viewfinder coverage, 77 segments metering, horizontal level indicator, vertical battery grip option, auto-iso in manual mode, etc.</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Hin,</p>

<p>Loved the 15mm shots...I have not a dime to spend on a new lens, and the 15mm was second on my list anyway to the 60-250mm but you've sold me on it!</p>

<p>Now, I'm going to wait and see if it comes out in a WR version, I can wait for it, but I'm sold on it at some point! LOVE that flare control!</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>However, I can't stand having to dive into menus and prefer to have controls at my fingers. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>In defense of the K-x - its function menus are really nicely designed and allow you to change settings very easily. You're not going to get lost trying to figure out where you can set white balance, for example. "Menu" is really a misnomer - they're screen controls that you navigate with the directional buttons. It's easy to find what you need - the problem is just the lack of dedicated buttons for quick access.<br>

The K-x has nice ISO performance, but I don't find it significantly better than the K-7 until you get past ISO 800. The pentamirror makes manual focusing more challenging. When I switch from the K-7 to the K-x, the difference in viewfinder and shutter are the things I notice immediately - the experience is much better with the K-7.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>If you're planning on using manual focus lenses, that's a big plus for a pentaprism over a pentamirror. Even then, you need to budget for a replacement focusing screen, at least one of the generic Chinese ones, if not a Katz-Eye.</p>

 

[MattB.Net]

<p>It sounds like the K7 might suit you better. I have a K-x and really like it, but it does have it's compromises. The small size and weight is a huge plus for me because I like to carry it on hikes and mountain bike rides for a lot of my photo opportunities.<br>

But that small size also eliminates some things that just wouldn't fit like illuminated AF points and a pentaprism. Controls are easy to operate once you get used to them. The Info button screen with all the key info and quick access to adjustments seems really intuitive and useful to me. </p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>The small size and weight is a huge plus for me because I like to carry it on hikes and mountain bike rides for a lot of my photo opportunities.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Good point, but what is lost in that statement is the compactness of the K-7. True it's bigger than the K-x, but it's also considerably smaller than equally spec'd competition.</p>

<p>Besides that, do a search, when the K-7 came out there were numerous complaints it was too small for the giant man hands of many on our forum. However, while it is small, Pentax actually did a good job with the control layout. I have medium hands (my general glove size is medium for insulated gloves) and the K-7 handles equally as well as the larger K10D/K20D. Actually IMO it handles much like an improved ist D, which was a perfect sized camera. Small, but with the batter grip it was able to be large enough to balance bigger lenses, and fit the hands of man giants.</p>

<p>I'm confused why the K-x is acceptable in size (and this isn't directed at you, Matt, just a general question) but the K-7 was critiqued at gimmicky and too small.</p>

<p>IMO, Pentax found a sweet spot for a pro spec'd APS-C camera. It's incredibly compact, but NOT at the expense of usability and control layout.</p>

<p>The flip side of this is the "live menu" on the K-7 and K-x info screen does negate a lot of need to menu dive in both cameras. I still forget there is a live menu on the K-7, but have recently acclimated to using it for DR settings. I am sure it was more designed for the K-x and I think the K2000 also uses this menu system where it should really be useful.</p>

<p> </p>

[MattB.Net]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm confused why the K-x is acceptable in size (and this isn't directed at you, Matt, just a general question) but the K-7 was critiqued at gimmicky and too small.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it all comes down to the target market. For some reason a lot of people don't take a camera seriously unless it's big and expensive. The K-x being neither I think doesn't get even a second look from these people. The fun colors to choose from probably make it even less of a contender to these folks. So it's not that it's necessarily ok on the K-x but that the K-x is already out of consideration.<br>

I also don't have particularly large hands, so it all suits me fine.</p>

[thebs]

<p>K-7, or buy a used/refurbished K10D or K20D if you're trying to buy cheap. The K-x is great for new shooters, but if you like to throw those dials, the K20D satisfies much better. I care both myself, the K-x (typically with a Fisheye) and the K20D (with my DA* glass).</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>I think it all comes down to the target market. For some reason a lot of people don't take a camera seriously unless it's big and expensive. The K-x being neither I think doesn't get even a second look from these people.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Excellent point!</p>

<p> </p>

[doug elick]

<p>To answer some of your questions:<br>

How much do I use photoshop? I wouldn't know where to pour in the chemicals. Honestly, I've played with Gimp (open source image processing software), but haven't had much need to fix images beyond removing specks, adjusting contrast/saturation or sharpening a little. I'll certainly grow my digital skills and come up with a modest workflow, but I view PS and it's ilk like manipulating in the darkroom. Get the lighting and composition right first. In that respect, I have no burning desire to employ HDR to make every image pop with awe-inspiring sameness or convert freckled women into a plasticy, eyes glowing, frankenmodels.</p>

<p>I'm starting to think that though the K-x has impressive specs, the lack of instant access controls would quickly annoy me.</p>

<p>I've been reading and have watched the product videos on B&H, but I'm still not clear exactly how the aperture and shutter speed are controlled on the K-7. Do they both have individual wheels or am I stuck cycling through choices with a button for either? Do the additional controls on the battery grip merely duplicate what's already on the camera or add additional ones? </p>

<p>I've come up with manual SLR/TLRs where the focus, aperture and shutter speed at my fingers...that's the way I like it. My Dad's autowonder Canon SLR had thumb and finger wheels for the aperture and speed which seemed like a good system at the time. How exactly is the K-7 laid out for manual operation?</p>

<p>Finally, how big of a leap is the K-7 & kit lens beyond the K-20D? HD video recording is nice, but I'm looking for an SLR, not a videocam. Autofocus and auto-metering are nice, but they'd only be absolutely essential 5% of the time. Only one of my cameras even *has* a built in center weighted meter, though I would have liked a built in spot meter function. I've never owned anything that can autofocus, autometer or autowind (ignoring the little digital P&S I have). I can't imagine crying over the difference between 4 or 5 fps burst rates. Tonal quality, resolution, sensitivity, dynamic range, noise characteristics, flash sync speed, time exposure, yes. Built in sepia modes...not so much.</p>

<p>Before you ask, I'm 37.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Doug</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>1) An SLR is not a video cam. Don't use the HD video if you don't want to, you'll probably be disappointed with all SLR video at this point anyway. It doesn't impact the rest of the camera in any way to have it there, and I like it as an option, although I admit I don't use it much. As I've noted the K20D technically has HD video. 21FPS at HD res sans sound. if you don't believe that Pentax just didn't have time to finish it, look for it on any camera that currently has video, not there? It was alpha stage HD video!</p>

<p>2) YOu can totally customize how the control wheels work in all modes. In manual (by default settings) the front control wheel does shutter the rear does aperture. If you are coming from Nikon or something and want to reverse them, it can be done.</p>

<p>3) in Av or Tv the opposite wheel by default does absolutely nothing, if you want it can be custom set to do something. There are like 37 custom functions to mull over (this is opposed to 1 custom function of the K1000...lens cap on, lens cap off!</p>

<p>4) The K-7 is LIGHT YEARS ahead of the K20D. See my reviews on this site on both of them. Honestly other than sharing a similar (the K-7 has the second generation 14.6MP sensor) 14.6MP sensor the similarities between the cameras stop pretty quickly. The K20D is very very similar to the K10D in form and FINISHED functions. The K20D added lots of incomplete, almost testing level features like rudimentary live view on a 230,00 dot screen, while the K-7 has a fully working live view on a 900+k dot screen.</p>

<p>5) if you mostly shoot above ISO 800 the K-x probably has IQ advantages (although much less so in RAW). If you print your images the K-7 is pretty close (some ways better, some worse, I mention how in my review) to the K20D in IQ. So from an IQ perspective the K20D and K-7 are probably a push. I feel that the K-7/K20D are among the best low ISO print cameras on the market. This is both my own observation and something that a few people I know who shoot the K-7 commercially have noted as well. So if printing is important this is something to consider.</p>

<p>6) the controls on the K-7 grip 100% replicate all important shooting buttons on the camera, HOWEVER, the K20D lacks an AF button. Some have made due without it, I rarely used my grip on the K10D and eventually sold it. If you have big hands the AF button ommision (IMO a serious one) can be dealt with, if you have smaller hands or just don't like fumbling for a button that should be accessible. Do you really need a grip? If you are shooting a lot in potrait mode I'd get one, or if you need the extra battery power. The battery on the K-7 is a weak point, but more so the more you use the live view or video mode, less so the less you use them. Since getting the K-7, however, I shoot a lot more using live view and the IR release. These two things eat battery, not to mention fill flash. Using all 3 I typically get 4-6GB per charge. Although I don't see specs for this, I'm going to guess that the 6AA Lithium option of the K-7 grip would get about 1500-2000 shots, which is pretty respectable.</p>

<p>For what it's worth, I've only owned dual wheel Pentax SLRs (yes, SLRs, I own the PZ-1P which really is the precursor to the digital era flagships). The exception being the *ist 35mm. I never could get used to the single wheel and I sold the wonderful little camera. I think you will find the dual wheel setup at least more convenient, if not necessary when shooting manual. The green button (was the IF button on the PZ-1P) is also a great feature in manual. The Green Button essentially changes the exposure to the metered base exposure. I know you don't want the camera to take you pictures, but say you are shooting into the sun for a series, and you turn away from the sun and see something fleeting. If you shoot on spot meter like me, find a mid tone fast (or a light or dark tone and adjust), press the green button and either fire the shutter or adjust. If you shoot in 1/3 stop increments like me, it might take 9 turns of the wheel to get the correct settings without the green button.</p>

<p>Any way, Pentax clearly feels the dual wheel setup is worth paying more for since they only offer it on flagship SLRs. I agree!</p>

<p>Finally, no matter how automated a camera is, it only has as much control as you give it. The K-7 allows you to take full control of it in every aspect, or you can turn all the dials to GREEN and hand it off to your wife, kids, or any cameraphobe off the street and potentially get a few keepers!</p>

[doug elick]

<p>I'm still debating and saving the dough, but I thank you folks for your opinions. Hopefully the K7 will drop in price a bit. I could skip the kit lens to save a little dough, but that would leave me with no 50mm prime equivalent. Only my 35-105 f3.5 would get me there ( It *would* be a great manual lens on the K7 though).</p>

<p>I was moseying around downtown with my fiance and decided to bring the old K-1000 with the f1.4 50mm. I've been farting around with digital point 'n shoot cameras for a while and if felt great to bring my ol' friend up to my eye for a change. I had a minor epiphany while enjoying pizza and beer that for over 25 years, that simple, unfailing "student camera" has been on my hip, an extention of myself after all this time.The point was really hammered home when one of my fiancee's friends we ran into exclaimed, "I love your vintage camera!". Vintage? It performs exactly the same as the day I brought it home. Ugh!</p>

<p>I know no digital camera will have the lifespan of my ol' K-1000, but that feeling of the camera becoming a part of my eye is terribly important. I really wonder if any of the current cameras will fit the bill in this respect.</p>

<p>When I got home, I got out the camera bag and took a look at my Rolleicord IV, Mamiya C330f and RB-67; in their own rites, fantastic cameras. I know digital relegates these old beasts to the old folks home, but though the numbers tell me a 14 megapixel sensor can beat my Rolleicord, there's something visceral about the process and the results that I still haven't found in the DSLRs I've borrowed. Sharp? Yes. Competent? Yes. Feed the soul? I'm not sure.</p>

<p>Crap, am I on the brink of a photographic mid-life crisis?</p>

<p>Doug</p>