AP First Look at K7

I resent that. My youngest son is a journalist.

Ah, the old weather sealing and SR cards played so early in the game...!

But seriously, how many times is this 'Pentax vs the rest of the world' argument going to play out on here?!

But, to answer a couple of your points;

SR is one way of doing the same thing as other camera manufacturers, not necessarily a better or worse way. Pentax's system has advantages and disadvantages, all well documented so I won't repeat them here.

ISO performance? Well, I went from a K20d to a D200, the K20d had better ISO performance, useable at ISO1600 where I didn't really think the D200 could do over ISO800 satisfactorily. I then purchased a D300, and I can now use pictures at ISO3200.

The D300 is fully weather sealed, although most lenses aren't fully sealed (but then nor are all of Pentax's) apart from a rubber ring at the lens/body interface. I would always use some kind of additional protection for prolonged exposure to heavy rain (like today!) anyway, but hey we're talking about the body here, right?

The FPS and AF performance of the D300 is well documented, but the metering is superb and rarely wrong footed, and you have 4 easily accessible shooting banks to set the camera up for different scenarios quickly.

It's slightly lower resolution, granted, but that's academic I think.

But, these features are only worth it if you need them, and don't forget the D300 costs a lot more, and I don't think the K20d was ever designed to compete with it. That some people think it does is a testament to how well it performs, and in all other respects the K20d is a brilliant camera. It's probably all the camera most people need if we're honest.

The K-7 looks like it will give the D300 a run for its money, and I look forward to the comparitive reviews, if any magazine can be bothered to put it up against one that is!

The thing that strikes me is that most DSLR's these days do 80 to 90% of what the next one up the range does anyway? It's a law of diminishing returns the higher up a range you go, and unless you specifically need some of the functionality of it or simply 'must have' the latest thing, then it's arguably not great value for money to go there.

The thing is...

...you can't buy an aftermarket accessory that will apply shake reduction to *all* your Nikkor lenses (even current production ones), nor can you...

...buy an aftermarket accessory to increase your pixel count. I, on the other hand, could buy...

...a handheld lightmeter that will make the D300's results look like they were guesstimated by Mr Magoo. I'll grant you the frame rate of the D300 is quicker, but as someone with no interest in rattling off hundreds of shots (and who focusses manually 99% of the time) I'd have to agree with you when you say:

For me it's no contest; the K20D already wipes the floor with the D300 and the K-7 is just going to bring more pain to Nikon's party.

oh the Pentax vs the world again
If people care about what they buy they will do research in the range you want. It's not right that the K20D is compared to lower end camera's while it competes perfectly well with the canon 40D and nikon D80.
When someone wants a 40D and looks what else is on the market they really might not end up even looking at pentax since most comparison are against the lower models and when someone wants a 450D then the K20D might seem too much.

I believe that the viewfinder (mirror vs prisme) tells a lot in which category it belongs also if it has two control wheels or not.
-Low end camera have a penta mirror and one control wheel.
-mid end penta prisme and two control wheels.
-high end have full frame sensors.
Good you also have high and low in these ranges as well but atleast they are comparable.

Seems to me that Tooks regrets he jumped ship. And I suspect the reason he comes here arguing the merits of Nikon versus Pentax is that he is trying to convince himself.

Too late now. Job done.

G

Sure. And the point I was making is that the K10D and K20D are both perfectly usable as professional cameras, and therefore merit the (ghastly) term "prosumer".

By the by, I was on the Pentax Japan website yesterday, and counted 32 "K" lenses. Back in Pentax's heyday, I seem to remember there were 27 lenses available. Most are of very recent design.

G

I admit I haven't read everything in the previous four pages but I have been thinking about this for a long time and now seems the moment to get this off my chest.

For those of you who care about how magazines like AP appear to treat Pentax I have one question "Why bother?". If you want the reassuarnce that G alludes to above, would you not be better owning Canon or Nikon?

Nikon and Canon and others have always made innovative, well designed and constructed cameras. When people have sought my advice on the purchase of a camera I have told them to buy the most expensive they can afford and the one they feel most comfortable with, for the most part brand is irrelevant. Great photographs are taken by great photographers not great cameras.

If you don't rattle of hundreds of shots, then good for YOU, YOU don't need that feature. So YOU manually focus, great, you don't need a fast accurate AF system. I'm puzzled why you would consider it acceptable to have to spend another wedge of cash on a light meter though.

Personally, I don't need SR/IS/VR on every lens I use, so that's not an important feature for ME.

hefty1, the point is, and one you've made quite well in your post, is that there is no 'Right' or 'Wrong' camera...

There is just the 'Right' camera for YOU/ME...

George, I will thank you not to make assumptions about what I am happy or not happy about - cheers! Oh, and it's never too late, I can jump ship again if I feel the need....

If you care to read any of my posts properly, you will see that I do not evangelise about Nikon being 'better' than Pentax. It's that kind of childish mentality that actually encourages me to wade in to the debates that centre around 'Pentax is the best camera in the world, why can't everybody else see that' in the first place...

For the record, I have been very happy with my move to Nikon kit (over a year ago now), but it was tinged with sadness that I couldn't get what I wanted from a current Pentax camera. I like the Pentax brand, but for the kind of photography I am 'in to', my K20d couldn't cut it. I have many more 'keepers' since I changed, but then I expected that because I purchased the kit for my specific requirements.

That's why I'm excited that the K-7 appears to be a big step forward for the kind of photography that I enjoy.

What I'm always trying to do is temper the often blinkered enthusiasm for a product, before anybody actually knows how it performs and their often uninformed views of other products from in particular Nikon and Canon.

I've said on here many times that if it's good, and it enables me to do things that I couldn't achieve easily before, then I will buy it. Although a Pentax fan, I'm not wedded to it, and will ultimately buy the kit that enables me to get the best possible results.

What's so wrong with that?

Here,Here!!!! OR Hear, Hear!! as G would like.

I suspect you mean "Hear, hear!".

G

There, there...

...none of this is worth getting upset about

Tooks,

The fact is that you take every opportunity to join in discussions comparing Nikon and Pentax. Your contributions prolong these debates, and encourage people to defend Pentax. You're actually the cause of what you are complaining about!

G

What's the point in a 'debate' with no alternative point of view?

I get involved because I've owned both sets of equipment and so feel qualified to comment.

I assure you I do not start such debates....

Perhaps not, but it takes two to argue.

The fact is that it's a rather sterile debate, to which you are a major contributor.

Anyway, that's my last word on the subject. I'm off to find a Nikon forum and give them the benefit of my valuable advice. I'm sure they'll appreciate it.

G