Is the K7 already flawed?

There are adapters to enable Pentax lenses to be used on Canon cameras, and some Canon users actually have their Pentax lenses modified permanemtly to fit their Canon bodies. Not cheap, but worth it if you want to use the best possible glass on a Canon.

http://www.cottysnaps.com/blog.html

G

What do you mean???!!! The Canon 5Dmk2 is the best camera in the world...if you are a banker in Jessops spending your bonus....

Hi,
What does 'BC' mean in the column next to IQ ?
cheers
Pete

Firstly can I apologise for what will be a long post. As many of you are aware, I love going on safari, which is were (until I joined this forum) I learnt how to use my camera. I use a specialist photographic tour company and I have always, so far been the only Pentax user amongst mostly Canon but occassionally Nikon users. This year there was a lot of banter between the Canon and Nikon user as Canon users consider Nikon cameras less capable than Canon. The Pentax K20D now makes Pentax users "cool". Anyhow, I asked Peter (the professional photographer group leader) which is the best camera and what would make him change to a Pentax. This is his reposnse
"Regarding the question of which camera is “best” then I would have to agree with Andy Rouse and say the kit is far less important than how the photographer makes use of it. If someone has little ability to recognise a good image or is unwilling to learn and improve, then using a different camera is not going to make any difference. Fortunately you don’t fit into that category! Most modern cameras are capable of taking excellent images and it’s only when conditions become difficult (low light requiring higher ISO, autofocus not being quite fast enough to track or falcon, etc) that some shortcomings may become apparent. As far as I know and from talking to lots of clients (but I am far from an expert) most mid-range cameras such as yours and the similar offerings from Canon and Nikon are all very capable. It may be that a new model leapfrogs the others for a while but then the other manufacturers catch up. Of course the Pentax does have a significant benefit in that image-stabilisation is in the camera rather than in the lens – so all lenses will offer IS.
It’s important to remember that you invest in a system not just a camera
body and you need lenses that at least match the ability of the camera. With wildlife it is specialist lenses that count (macro, telephoto, large aperture, etc) and it is here where Canon and Nikon do well as most professionals use these systems and hence they have been able to invest heavily in these products. From what I know Pentax’s offerings in these areas is a bit sparse. However Sigma lenses – particularly the EX range – have excellent optics.

The main benefit that Canon and Nikon have over other manufacturers is the robustness of their cameras and lenses in their pro range … but it comes at a price. Cameras up to £5000 and lenses similarly! They are weather-sealed and built to withstand a few knocks (not that they don’t break as I well know). I would take my pro camera and lenses out in the rain without too many concerns but not a Sigma lens as they specifically say they are not weatherproof. Similarly, the mid-range bodies from Canon are built little differently to your Pentax. Really, that’s what you’re paying for when you pay thousands rather than hundreds and not just incremental improvements on the technicalities.

You asked what would make me change to Pentax. Well to start with, someone would need to give me over ten grand to replace my current system (rather than just a camera body) and that just won’t happen. Once you start investing in a system then financial considerations come in to play for most people."

Someone also wanted a comparision between a shot taken with a Canon and a Pentax. Well I can provide you with that as well. Please bear in mind that Peter is a professional and I am not. Peter will also have performed more pp on his image while I have only sharpened and cropped mine. I have blown my images up to A3 in the past. I believe the differences in the images are down to the shill of the photographer either in camera settings or in pp or both. You are welcome to disagree with me

Peter's image
link

My version
link

Just trying to help

Just latching on to the lens discussion, I have just descended from my loft clutching a late 1970`s Pentax lens poster entitled "the many eyes of Pentax" This was a time when Pentax was one of the market leaders and the quality of the lenses always compared favourably with Nikon (Canon were virtually an unknown then), It shows 44 lenses with fixed ones ranging from the 17mm f4 to the 2000mm f13.5 the 10 zooms are from the 24-35 f3.5 to the 135-600mm f6.7, How times have changed!


The only positive is that these can still be used on the K7 if you can find them,
I saw the 2000mm for sale some 6 months ago with a second hand price of £3000!

Regards - Pete

Interesting, controversial and though provoking responses as usual!

However, what no one seems to have commented on is this. Pentax have specifically said that the K7 is a step-up into the prosumer market. If this is the case then surely they're going to have to start producing very fast lenses (both zooms and primes)that compete with the professional glass of Canon and Nikon, not just satisfying the advanced amateur market

By the way, I agree with many of the comments about it being the photographer and not the technology that produces great photos (though it can help you get images you might not have previously been able to shoot), but ultimately if the glass isn't up to scratch then we might all as well go home! (PS I'm posting from the UK!)

Liberartoo, I think you think to highly of the K-7 it isn't a 5D or D700 but in the range of the D300 and 50D.
It's nice that pentax would come with a 400mm f/2.8 it would make the system more profesional but I don't believe it would bring many photographers over or that many want to pay £4000 for the lens.
A 400mm f/5.6 for £1800 would make more users happy since it's atleast reachable for most to get that lens and enjoy it. £4000 lens is only for the real pro's or people that have too much money but those wouldn't buy in the K-7, D300, 50D, etc. range but will probable have something like a 5D or D700.

I think you'll find that for most "normal" eventualities Pentax glass is quite able to hold its own against Canon and Nikon. In fact I'd go as far as to say it can hold its own against Zeiss and Leica too.

I think the problem here is in the perception of what makes a "pro". If you mean someone who shoots wildlife, sports or topless Z-list celebrities from a distance of a mile away then yes, those people are almost certainly going to be using Canon or Nikon equipment as they are the only two companies that supply those long fast lenses. But these people only make up a tiny proportion of "pro" photographers; for every paparazi out there stalking the latest Big Brother reject there are hundreds of wedding, portrait, fashion, landscape, product, forensic, medical, astronomical, fine art, etc pros who simply don't need a 400mm f/2 lens!

For those (the vast majority of "pros") there is nothing in the Pentax line that is in any way inferior to the offerings of the big two. Pentax don't have the resources to cover every base lens-wise so it makes sense to concentrate on the sorts of optics that 95% of people actually want and - more importantly - buy.

It would be interesting to know how many of those who cite the reason for swapping systems as being "the availability of long fast lenses" actually then go on to shell out their hard earned cash on one of them? I'm guessing those that do are very much in the minority...

For sure. Except Pentax have said they want to enter this market. I've just read this month's 'Photographer Monthly'comparison between the K7, 50D and D300. Compared to the other two the K7 falls short on both image quality and colour rendition/contrast. Now, if I was a newcomer wanting to choose between them then my choice would not be the K7. So it begs the question how are Pentax going to shift prosumers (not just its current user base) to the K7 if a) the camera is not quite matching its competitors and b) the glassware isn't up to scratch?

Well, my cousin shoots with a Canon 1D MK3 and uses L series lenses exclusively, some of his shots were in a lot of the national press over the last 2 weeks.

What I find interesting is when he looks at some of my shots (in particular the K-7 parrot shots when I was testing the camera) and says comments like 'I wish I could get shots that sharp', or 'blimey, what lens did you shoot that with' or 'bloody hell, look at the detail in that!'

Thing is, in the real world, our glass is just as good, if not better optically than the competition. Having seen comparable shots taken at weddings with our DA* & LTD glass v L series glass, I would argue 'when are the other markets going to produce lenses on a par with our Limiteds!?'

Where Canon and Nikon do have an advantage is in the range of specialised lenses, such as tilt shift, telephoto primes and others. If this is what you mean by 'is the K-7 flawed' then I think you should be more specific, as from a quality point of view, it's already there and has been for years.

Jeanette, I think your image would be vastly improved with a bit of PP.

Hmm... My K20 + DA* Lenses can produce better results than my cousins 1D MK3 and L series lenses, so I take it that you're not speaking from experience? The K-7 results with the DA* 60-250 shocked him.

Not everything you read on the internet or in magazines is true you know!

Personally I think Pentax aimed the K-7 at the 50D and D300 ... and it looks to me as if they have fallen short in 3 areas (of the Nikon anyway) which are fps, iso and af performance. It has all the little quirky things like auto levelling, HDR and video but at this level of camera I don't think those things are important (interesting, yes .. important.. no). Yes the Pentax has excellent IQ (imo better than both the other two) and built in SR (which makes quite a difference) but the things that it has fallen short on are what tempts your average camera buyer to begin with.

As for the lenses I think that unless you are thinking of going pro (in which case you wouldn't be using Pentax to begin with) the line up is pretty good and the majority of DA lense (esp DA*) produce stunning results.

And I agree with Peter, with a bit of processing the lion and cub could look so much better.

There is a myth that a 'professional' lens is better optically. Usually it means that the lens is a better build quality. As I rarely drop my lenses (and have a lot of insurance) I can live without it.

This is my first high ISO shot. K7, 60-250 f/7.1 ISO 3200!

The only processing was conversion to jpeg and Photobucket resizing. link.

I for one am sticking with Pentax!

If you are referring to 'Photography Monthly' then I personally would take a couple of steps back and add just a pinch of salt to their conclusions.
Firstly, was the camera a preproduction unit? I suspect very likely given a magazine review to print time cycle.
Secondly, I understand a certain Will Cheung to be strong contributor to that magazine and I don't think it is a great secret that he is a particularly ardent Nikon fan.
Balanced review? I will say no more

It is difficult but I'd have to say if I were a newcomer my mind would not be made up based on magazine reviews alone.

I must admit when I first got my K20D I was pretty amazed by the level of image quality and detail captured when fitted with a good quality Pentax lens. The K-7 is certainly no worse in my book and has many new benefits/features.

Just my opinion