How would you change Pentax's K-7 DSLR?
By Darren Murph 
posted August 29th 2009 1:58AM
posted August 29th 2009 1:58AM
posted August 29th 2009 1:58AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
The camera itself is brilliant. The only way it could be improved would be if it were a full-frame camera, I think.
The problem lies with Pentax's lens system. Their lenses are great, but need to expand their lineup.
I agree, and while I'm a die-hard Canonite, I think Pentax makes great cameras. But their lack of any full-frame offerings is really holding them back.
The only real lack in the lens line-up is on the long telephoto lenses. Pentax actually offers 26 lenses, with some of the most interesting prime, compact lenses in the market. There are lenses for 10-17mm fisheyes, all the way to 300mm, and pretty much everything in between.
A lot of people say Pentax doesn't have the lens line-up simply because they haven't bothered to look at what is available, and simply repeat what they were told by someone else.
It's not that I haven't bothered to look, trust me. I've been using Pentax digital SLR's since 2004. But there are a few things that are notably missing. They don't have any tilt-shift lenses, and they also don't have many real "middle of the range" lenses. I can't argue that they don't have a great selection of primes, though. I own a few, and they're some of the sharpest lenses I've ever worked with (and this includes Leica M and R lenses)
I was under the impression that you could put any pentax lens on your Digital SLR.
So, if you have an old KA mount, it'll work.
All in good time. Over the past few years, Pentax has been steadily building its customer base with its very successful K10D and K20D. Unlike the big two, Pentax doesn't have the money to throw into developing FF and bringing it to market hoping that people buy it. It's too expensive and too risky. Right now Pentax is most attractive to enthusiasts/advanced amateurs, offering excellent value for the money. This is what drew me to pentax. So for now, a lot of those people aren't willing to drop $3000 on a camera body. I know I'm not. It's all about target audience and it is the people like me that Pentax is trying to target.
As more people pick up the Pentax brand, no doubt the demand for FF will increase and eventually Pentax will answer with another great camera.
@alex:
You, sir/madame, are under the correct impression.
I actually purchased the K7 before returning it. I absolutely loved the camera for still photos. The green button is really cool. My only complaint is the camera is a bit bulky to carry around, but that's not really a negative. I ended up purchasing a Panasonic GH1 for the better video features. GH1 stills look great, and I am happy with it. If the K7 had more video features and better quality, I would certainly consider it.
"The green button is really cool."
Since when do the colors of the buttons make any difference!?
@Bebop
Green button - I was wondering the same thing:
"The green button inteligently varies its function depending on the camera mode. In P and M mode it resets the exposure to the program line. In other modes it automatically sets the ISO sensitivity. "
http://www.neocamera.com/review_pentax_k7_more2.html
if you think the k-7 is bulky. you might as well forget about dslr.. and don't tell me the olympus pen is a great choice.. just forget it.. k-7 is one of the small and fully pack dslr u can find on the market today. Not to mention the built quality.
I would wish they would take the stabilization out of the body and put it in the lens. To all those claiming that it would be stupid or something, I have tried both for a couple weeks and have to say that the stabilization in the lens was quite a lot better.
id like to know it is better.... and what did you do to try both?
and i like having SR in-body... it means every lens you stick on there can take advantage of the SR... including lenses from the 80's
plus by not having SR in the lens, the lenses are cheaper... which is a good thing for a student like myself... heh
Well I have had my Canon with IS lenses for some time and swapped with my friend for his Sony (not sure which one it is right now, but it was pretty high end) for a couple weeks and now he is building a Canon system with IS lenses. Go figure.
There are advantages both ways. Having in-body does potentially make lenses cheaper and gives stabilization to every lens mounted, however, it gives no direct feedback through the viewfinder as the sensor is shifting, not the optics to the pentaprism/pentamirror. I have found this feedback, available only with lenses with stabilization built-in, to be invaluable.
To each his own.
Well as someone who went from Pentax to Canon, I have to say that the ability to get some great old lenses and shoot dslr through them is amazing. I would've never gotten some of the cool shots I've gotten at concerts and on vacation if it hadn't been for my old 1:2 28mm K-Mart lens.
But the Canon produces better pictures. By function of the better sensor I suppose, is one thing. But the autofocus is lightning fast and decisive.
So yes, I don't like that with the Rebel you can't use any older lenses, and you can't pick up a decent super-zoom from Tamron for under $100, but the benefits (including live view) outweigh the sacrifices IMO.
@Ryan - Not to sound like a dick, but you CAN shoot without image stabilized lenses, you know. I've bought old, cheap, Tamron lenses for my Canon bodies (Rebel XT, 40D and Elan 7N). In fact everyone's current obsession with image stabilization means the less knowledgeable are unloading *good* non-IS lenses. Don't get me wrong, I like IS, hell I LOVE IS, but people today are acting like its a necessary part of photography, not something that really just became common a handful of years ago.
The only advantage of a lens based system is that you see the effect before you take a picture, and that doesn't effect the final image quality at all. With a body based system, any lens, from a brand new to a 30 year old lens that mounts to the camera will have shake reduction.
Well Spankee before you make statements that you warn are going to make you sound like a jerk, make sure you know what I'm talking about before you say I'm wrong.
With the Rebel series Canon broke backward compatibility. I'm not talking about the Digital Rebels, I'm talking about the good old-fashioned Film SLRs. When they went from the FD mount to the EF mount, all kinds of good glass became obsolete and could only be used with modern cameras after a lot of hacking, physical modification and so forth.
And after you hacked your nice old lenses, things like auto-aperture, auto-focus, and even manual-focus confirm were out the window.
With Pentax, you can put 50 years' worth of lenses on a brand new body. Including a lot of neat old lenses that had auto-aperture, and which the camera would actually confirm (with the AF red dots) what is in focus.
I KNOW you can put any EF lens you want on a Canon body. I have one of my dad's old film Rebel 28-80's on there now. Works perfect. Granted you get a lot more lens flare but sometimes that's a good thing if you know how to control it. But if you want to take that sweet old 50mm f1.2 lens that you have on your F-1, or whatever, you can't do it. And if you want a fast prime lens on your Digital Rebel, get ready to pay.
@Ryan - Yes, Canon broke backwards compatibility, but the EF mount is likely older than half the people commenting in this post. It's not like they did it yesterday, I can fit the same lens that my father took pictures of my high school graduation with in 1991 on my 40D in 2009 (which is why I went with Canon, by the way, my dad shoots Canon, so I can borrow from his collection of gear going back two decades that and Minolta going under, I have bad history with Sony everything). If I want to go hardcore there's a whole industry in adapting this mount to that mount. If you look hard enough everything can be used with everything else, it's just what you're willing to sacrifice. All of which is to say, there are plenty of cool old lenses out there available for Canon (and cheap too, you just have to look). I don't think the difference between having 50 years worth of compatible lenses and 25 years is that great in the real world. YM, of course, MV
Weird coincidence, I just ordered one and here this post pops up. I'll let you know when I get it! Wish that price came down a bit, but at least I managed to get it taxfree. (also picking up a 31mm limited)
how did you get it tax free?
Assuming he lives in the US, most online stores that do not operate in the state in which one resides do not charge tax. So he probably ordered online.
While every thing else about the camera is equal to or better than its competitors, Canon and Nikon, Pentax needs to improve their camera's HIGH ISO LOW LIGHT PERFORMANCE. From what I've seen, above ISO 800, its pictures tend to be noisier than the others.
Yeah cause everyone shoots in the dark. Remember, you need light to take a photograph. Why are people dead-set on taking pictures in the dark? Use a flash.
man, it's not about shooting in the dark. it's about noise in low light. not everyone shoots in broad daylight. get a clue.
Indeed. It's not even about what most people would call "low light". High ISO in decent light means more flexibility in shutter and/or aperture.
Dear me. Some people outside a pub once opined "why are they taking pictures? It's f***ing dark".
Sadly dear luddite, you don't realise that unlike your poxy mobile camera or pocketable point and shoot, light needn't be visible to the naked eye to be captured. Given long enough, light waves will be captured by a sensor designed to store that data and not instantly output it like our brains do. A DSLR will give you long enough. A P&S with no manual mode will not.
As for noise, even a G10 will allow 15-second images and return terrible noise in the shadows, something even a modest DSLR like my 20D wont. So whilst you may claim use a flash, don't shoot in the dark, where is the fun in that?
i have one and i love it.
There has been complaints on the forums on how it is basically a nuisance to shoot long exposures with this camera because of its DFS(?) processing. That would mean that long exposures would effectively multiply by two. a 5 min exposure would take 5 mins processing on cam. wish they could fix it.
There is a solution, simply turn off DFS. Pentax will let you do that - they aren't Nikon.
You can toggle each of the two noise reduction modes independently. Turn off 'Dark Field Subtraction' and the problem is solved. Turn it on again if you want it.
I agree... The ability to turn off "Slow shutter speed NR" or Dark Frame Subtraction in bulb mode.
The custom function menu for Slow shutter speed NR:
On - The camera determines the conditions such as the shutter speed,
sensitivity, and internal temperature, and automatically reduces
noise as necessary.
Off - Reduces noise only when the exposure mode is set to B and the
shutter remains open for 30 seconds or more.
http://www.pentaximaging.com/pdf/K-7_e_web.pdf see page 92
Noise Reduction/Dark Frame Subtraction is mandatory in bulb mode making an hour long star trail exposure to 2 hours. :(
Stunmonkey,
Any Nikon will let you turn off noise reduction if you don't want it. Not sure why you think they can't.
howd do you think?
make it free? make it better? these really are pointless. It is what it is, that is that.
I've got a D90 and would upgrade to this if it just had better high iso performance. Was really hoping they'd have upped that when it was release, as in body IS is much better for me because I get sick of playing for it with every lens (if they even offer a lens with the spec I want with it)... Good camera it seems, but not enough for me to switch...yet
High ISO Performance
Full 35mm frame
I wish they would give up the megapixel race and put out a 10mp sensor. Maybe 12mp max.
In their limited range Pentax basically has some briliant lenses.
I'm beginning to suspect anyone who complains about the "megapixel race" hasn't actually used a high MP camera with good noise control. We're talking about pro or semi-pro cameras here, not point and shoots. The ff sonys and canons are really miraculously brilliant at 24MP, packing so much detail in a small body.
Robogobo,
Full frame sensors have more than twice the surface area of the subframe DSLRs. This means that the 24MPs packed into an FF camera would be the equivalent of about 10 or 11MP in a DX camera.
I have one, and I love it.
Having said that, high ISO performance is not as good as the Nikon's. It isn't bad, and I am happy shooting at 1600, but it could be better.
The auto focus is really fast. The focus assist lamp works really well.
I am more than happy with the HD video recording. The ability to change aperture on a A lens while shooting would be nice, as would the ability to set the shutter speed for video shooting. But these are features many dedicated video cameras don't have.
The size is really nice, and the bulk is reassuring, it is a solid strong body. The weather sealing is brilliant!
I will not start an argument about full frame vs non full frame. If you were given two photos with out the exif there is no way to know which is full frame which isn't. And if anyone starts dissecting pixels to the point where they can work it out they really don't care about photography as much as pure numbers. Full Frame would give shallower DOF, and wider aspect on a given focal length, but that is it.
When I bought this camera I also purchased a D90 for a friend, and I had the chance to play around with both. The D90's high ISO is really good. Better than the K-7, but the rest is a clear win for the K-7. (If you scale down a 14.6 to the 12.3MP of the D90, the high ISO becomes even less of a difference.)
Cheers, Tim.
Damn, Can I be your friend?
I'd like to buy one, when prices goes down, but what i'm trying to understand if high iso quality is acceptable or not... Someone says is a real problem, some others see it like grain...
@Patriks7
While I agree with you that the IS in lens is better than the IS in camera, your friend probably had an A700 which has an IS technology that is more than 2 years old. The new A900 technology is much better (which I doubt your friend has or else he wouldn't switch to Canon after a 3k investment). Overall, the camera built in IS makes the lens cheaper as mentioned and it allows the ability to use older lens such as minolta ones made in the 80's and 90's. Unless the majority of your income is from photography, in which case you should have the best equipment possible, I think a hobbyist should look at value more than sheer performance. After all, for most people, there are many other things in life they would like to spend on, therefore making the best value items (in this case, built into camera vs built into lens) the more logical choice. Just my 2 cents.
It's really funny to hear "put IS in lens" coming from Canikon people.
Yes, in-lens IS is better (about 2 times faster).
But then one runs immediately into problem that really few lenses in Canikon line-up actually have IS. Worst part: best Canikon lenses (which many use as an argument in favor of Canon or Nikon) do NOT have IS yet.
The infamous "Oh! buy D500 and you get access to the excellent L line of Canon lenses" is the most ridiculous. L lenses are terribly overpriced as non-full-frame bodies go. And only few Ls were remade now with IS.
I had this opinion for quite some time: it's simple jealousy, as Canikon users find themselves being forced to buy the same lenses again - now with IS. Because IS though is important, is NOT that important.
I'm not sure about the 2x faster. Most IS systems (lens or body) give you at least one stop if not two if you know how to use it. For lens based IS to be that much better it would have to give you 3 to 4 stops, which I don't see happening in real-world conditions. IS doesn't give you license to be sloppy, just extra insurance for when you need it. Both work just as well when you're shooting with good technique.
Another way of looking at it is I would doubt that in-lens shooters have 2x more keepers or half of the shots ruined because of camera shake, as compared to in-body users. For most people the difference (if any) in IS for what I'll assume is 95% of what most people shoot at (24mm - 100mm) is imperceptible at best, but the advantage is that in-body you have it in all situations.
Maybe at 200 or 300mm and above in-Lens IS is better, and for those who shoot long glass of course they should find the system best for them. But for the majority of people having a lighter and less expensive system is more advantageous. In-lens IS does make the lens heavier thus increasing inertia and so I guess they can hold it steadier. ;-)
For me I shoot fine without IS, but where IS comes in handy is when I'm shooting fast and focused more on getting the shot. I just like the extra insurance regardless of what lens I pull out of my bag.
I know this is still marketed as a still camera, but it would be nice if they improve the video performance.
1) h.264
2) full manual control
3) standard resolution
I wish it were full frame, and 1080p video would be nice.
Having owned a Pentax K10D for a year or so, I can speak volumes about the two areas where Pentax lead the DSLR (and point and shoot) market: Build quality and usability. When I first picked up a K10D in the store, I had not chosen any particular brand, but the minute I held it in my hands, it felt perfect. The weight, shape and control layout made perfect sense. The fact the camera was splash proof made it ideal for night time rain in the city shots and hiking in the British weather. The subsequent reviews echoed these observations. If the K7 is anything like the K10D (and K20D), then like most reviewers here, the only thing missing is full 1080P video, but perhaps in the K9? Woof.
(Must also mention the excellent usability, operational speed and build quality of Pentax point and shoot cameras too.)
I love Pentax, but godamn build a new flash system from scratch! That piece of junk AF540FGZ just frustrates me with their inconsistent flash output!
It's not just that particular flash gun; it's the entire P-TTL system that's bogus. It gets so confused about reflective surfaces. I've learned to compensate for it, but it sure is a pain having to change settings before every shot.