Are You Satisfied

I went from the istD to K10D as soon as the K10D came out and very belatedly to the K20D.

I should have switched sooner, it's a very much bigger step up than is generally perceived.

Tried the K-7, it's impressive, but brings no improvement to IQ and I don't "need" any of the extra bells and whistles, nor the smaller size plus I don't like the menu and control changes, so desisted.

i've very slow on the uptake. i didn't get my k100d until it was being phased out. it was my first dslr and i love it. last week i got a k200d as it was reduced in PC World and was the last one.

i did think about a K10 or 20, but i'm lazy and couldn't be bothered with all the extra bits and bobs. most of the time i shoot in AV and i have a stack of aa recahreable batteries, so a cheap(er) k200 made sense.

i'm happy bumbling about with my 'cheap' camera.

Very sensible indeed, it's so easy for the fun to diasappear by making things too complicated and too serious. You'll get the pictures as well, because you'll be enjoying what you're doing and not agonisng over what the bext purchase should be!

I'm going to buck the trend here and say that there is no decisive reason to upgrade from the K10D to the K20D and no good reason to upgrade from that to the K-7... unless you are one of the few people who absolutely must have one of the new features (say, the intervalometer on the K20D or video on the K-7).

Let's be honest: there are lots of reasons why we may want the latest toy, but darned few reasons why we actually need the latest toy.

Image quality? Give me a break. The difference is so subtle that I defy anyone to tell the difference. I like to pixel peep too, but only to get the best out of the tools I use, not to promote endless upgrades that do not improve photography.

That said, there are a few definitive improvements.

Anyone with a K100DS or earlier camera will gain ergonomic benefits from using the K10D or K20D. The two command wheels and control positioning really help. I am not convinced the K-7 is anything but a step backwards in this regard. (As I wrote in detail.)

A real benefit from the increased pixel count (6 to 14MP) can be seen in both macro and telephoto shots, since you can crop significantly while retaining the same quality.

The weather-sealing on the top models is a real benefit.

Buying into a system now I would recommend the K20D as the best bang for the buck. Likewise if you need to upgrade from something older than the K10D. Otherwise, stick with what you have and fret over lenses instead.

A few interesting points there but one I can't agree with this your assessment of the K-7 handling and button placement.
Perhaps it's because I haven't been a Pentax user that long but I find that it is a distinct step up from the K20D. You do need to familiarise yourself with the camera in active use and then within a short space of time it becomes second nature (as always IMHO).
Also I forgot to add, even nicer with the latest firmware

True, the firmware fix is nice. I am glad to see Pentax listening to my complaints. But I know people who actually returned their unit because they didn't like the ergonomics of things that cannot be changed so easily... like button placement. So I'm not alone.

Familiarization is all well and good, but moving from one body to another is a royal pain when buttons are changed for no good reason. I wonder what was so wrong with the K20D that they had to go and mess it up?

One of Pentax's traditional strengths has been to have lots of camera in a small, neat, ergonomic package. The K7 represents a return to that philosophy after the comparatively chunky K10D and K20D. I, for one, applaud the new design.

Robin, your article raises no important objections to the K7, and comes across as a bit picky. You recognise yourself that most of the changes will please some people, and it is inevitable that they won't please all.

It also seems a little odd to criticise a camera that you have never actually handled. Had you waited until you had done so, your article might have carried more weight.

And we really don't want Pentax NOT to do something just because Nikon has done it first. That argument doesn't wash.

G

I am all for a smaller, lighter camera. The K-7 is marginally smaller but no lighter. There are smaller cameras from other manufacturers (Olympus) as there have been from Pentax themselves. And with micro four-thirds flying of the shelves I think Pentax rather lost an opportunity with the K-7.

You see me as being too picky even though you acknowledge I recognise certain improvements in the camera. I prefer to think of my coverage as detailed and as fair as possible. If anything I am biased towards Pentax. After all, I own a good deal of their equipment. In no way am I saying the camera will displease all people. Quite obviously I write only from my own point of view.

Why exactly? Where I live I get no chance to handle Pentax gear. Yet I have bought many items on the basis of thorough research and comparison with items I can handle. If you grant me the right to praise gear you must grant me the right to critique it on the same basis.

It doesn't take handling a camera to realise that two buttons placed close together might get in each other's way. It doesn't take a genius to realise that a change in button placement renders the camera ergonomically incompatible with previous bodies. An arbitrary change is never a good one.

Designers work on paper before ever seeing a mock-up. They do so from experience. As I have done.

Besides, now I have handled the K-7 it has not changed my mind one bit. In fact I was even less excited by it than I had hoped. I would not change one word in the article based on my short time with the camera. (I guess I got lucky. Or maybe I was applying time-tested design principles?)

I didn't make that argument. I merely noted the changes and their precedents. I think you are reading some of my value-neutral comments as being critical. (Actually, the camera borrows more from Olympus than anyone. I maybe should have made that point more strongly.)

It is not enough for a new body, especially one as hyped as this, to be just "good enough". If it doesn't build on strengths to offer real benefits I don't see why I should be a cheerleader for it just because it has the Pentax name. In fact Pentax only benefits by having strong but fair critics, both inside the company and without. How else will improvements ever occur?

Robin, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree
I can see this is a bit of a passion for you having put pen to blog some while ago on the subject. I can say that without being petty I could list each and every aspect you mention regard to the K-7 handling as a positive or at the very least non concern for me.
OK some will like it some will not but in my experience (having also owned a K20D and Oly D-SLRs before that) it is a distinct step forward and a joy to handle

Different format. Not comparable.

I'm not into granting rights, but had you praised the camera your article would have had no more validity than the present one. Reviewing things unseen is a practice that does nobody any good at all.

If it's all so obvious, what was the point of your article?

Or maybe you didn't try it for long enough, or maybe you weren't in the mood to admit you might have got it wrong.

I will let others be the judge of that. This is what you wrote:

"This is only for obtuse reviewers who complained there was no ISO button on previous models. There was, but it was labeled "OK". So now we have an extra button that provides no new functionality. And again, this is on the top surface. Could this be because this is how Canon does things?"

[QUOTE]It is not enough for a new body, especially one as hyped as this, to be just "good enough".[/quote]Pentax hasn't hyped it nearly enough, in the view of most people.

There are two problems with your article. One is that you reviewed something you hadn't even seen. The second is that you damned it ("I am truly sorry things turned out so negative!") largely on the basis of the placement of a couple of buttons.

G

Personally I just can't take advice from someone who has never handled/used the product they are talking about .. just seems plain daft to me.

In what way are the previous Pentax and Olympus APS-C cameras a different format? Yet these have been distinctly smaller and lighter than the K-7, a claim you appear to take issue with.

You cannot argue against my points and so instead say I have no rights to argue -- an obvious fallacy. My review restricted itself to things which can indeed be judged against criteria I explicitly presented and used as a guideline. Had I talked about aspects of the camera outside this scope then you'd be right. Or perhaps you failed to read the design criteria article?

Read it again and you might understand, since it is plainly stated and clear. In the meantime it might help to stop trying to twist my words into something you can take exception with. I don't remember claiming "it's all so obvious" and even if I did, your reaction shows it is certainly not obvious enough to some.

That might be how you work but it is not how I work. This should be obvious to even the most blind, since the article already contains corrections that I have admitted!

[QUOTE]The second is that you damned it ("I am truly sorry things turned out so negative!") largely on the basis of the placement of a couple of buttons.[/quote]It was a review of the ergonomics. What do you expect me to talk about?

George, I hold a different opinion to you. Get over it. And I hardly think I "damned" the camera. That's your black and white thinking getting in the way of a measured approach.

The difference between your opinion and mine is I support mine with evidence and reasoning. Whereas all you can do is vaguely and rather pathetically attack me. How sad.

Fair enough! I hope the camera pleases enough shooters to enlarge the Pentax camp. And I hope that next time Pentax makes the revolutionary camera they were promising. Maybe this will be the 645D?

Pentax make APS-C format DSLRs whereas Olympus make 4/3 System DSLRs, so I expect this was the reason for the comment about the formats being different.

The Olympus cameras are potentially smaller because the format is considerably smaller.

My "Upgrade" Path

ME Super (Stolen)
Nikon FA
Konica Minolta Z2 (Dead)
K100D

My first digital was bought to supplement the FA and I didn't like it at all. Electronic view finder! Terrible - 10x Zoom lens but no wider than 38mm. I eventually learned to live with it until one day it refused to switch on. So it was back to the FA until I bought the K100D and I have been delighted with the camera.

Next upgrade - K20 perhaps if I can justify it but first I have a couple of lenses in mind!


Cheers
MZ