Is the K7 already flawed?

Peter,

I know it could . That was why I was comparing it to the other shot. I was trying to show that for near identical images you would be hard pressed to tell the difference, given the differences in the expertise of the photographers in either photographic or post processing skills and knowledge. I am just fortunate in being in a position to be able to offer the same or very nearly the same pictures one taken with a Canon and the other with Pentax for comparision. Peter has just put his pictures from Tanzania on his website and sent me the link and as I was looking through them I kept thinking he had nicked some of my shots . I had to keep checking to make sure he hadn't

If you want to try and match my photo to his by some pp, please feel free

To be honest Jeanette, there is a lot of camera shake going on in your shot, and I suspect you have used a higher ISO... so if you set out to show the similarity between your lens and a faster Canon version, you haven't quite succeeded

In better light, or with better camera support, there might have been a clearer parallel

It's amazing that people spend so much energy on this.

Pentax, Canon and Nikon are ALL VERY GOOD QUALITY brands and all make excellent lenses and cameras. Period. Anyone who argues against this is just being churlish, hypersensitive and paranoid.

Pentax is a brilliant camera and lens brand. But is it the best? No.
Is Nikon? No
Is Canon? No.

They all have their role and their target audiences for whom they are 'the best'. And all of them do some things better than the competition. That's the nature of the beast

Are Pentax lenses better than Canon glass or Nikon's or the other way round? This is just nonsense and you shouldn't even go there. Yes Pentax has its own coatings, but if Canon or Nikkor lenses didn't cut the mustard the pros certainly wouldn't use them. There might be a lens here or there in each range which is better or faster than the equivalent lens in the other brands, but on the whole they are ALL EXCELLENT. Again to say otherwise is just being petty and smallminded.

Canon and Nikon are bigger companies and therefore can and do segment their market more than Pentax and can offer different things to different sectors of the market, from entry level amateurs to serious pros who demand the top spec in all areas (from Af to FPS to IQ to customer service and yes even branding and brand awareness so on) and can afford to pay for it

Pentax is a smaller 'niche' player in a position where it is trying to please several sectors of the market at one time with a more limited range of offerings. In my opinion Pentax products are brilliant at that middle segment which covers most people in this forum I expect. I don't think Pentax is trying to be anything that it is not. It is just Pentax and will always have a slightly niche identity I expect.

It really is a waste of time and energy to compare and play the 'my dad's stronger than your dad' game. Just accept what you have and enjoy it for what it is and if it no longer suits for whatever reason is personal to you try and find something else that does meet your current needs. Who cares what the brand name is if it is the right fit FOR YOU?

Totally agree,the k20 is my first dslr, being a newbee i did`nt have any lenses therefore was not tied to a particular brand. I spent months trying to decide which system to go with; i was looking for the best camera and lens range to suit me, in my opinion. I am happy with my choice of Pentax, i do not care what Nikon or Cannon are doing. Maybe one day i will find that my photography is being limited by my choice of brand. If that day comes i may change systems.

I welcome constructive critism of my photos and as I said I only posted these as they are near identical shots taken with two different camera (one apparently more highly rated than the other) by two photographers of vastly differing experience and skill. They were however, both taken in the same light, at the same time, in the same place but from possibly slightly different angles and with different lenses. Suely your comments only back up my comments re the only difference being the skill and expertise of the photographer

My shot was taken with the camera supported on a beanbag. The only camera shake would have come from someone moving in the van. I am struggling to see what you mean (I have even zoomed in on the image) when you say there is a lot of camera shake. If you are refering to the lioness's head then surely this would be slight out of focus if as I was, I was focesed on the cub's head? Please can you further explain your comments so that I can see what you mean and learn from my mistakes and improve my knowledge


Thanks
Jeanette

more a comparison of photographers than equipment....

here's a tip, open your shot in pse...
duplicate the image layer, set blend mode to "multiply" pull back the opacity to get it where it looks good to you.
flatten the layer the repost your results...
then I'll give you another tip...
we will keep a sample of each version posted in a new thread if you like, so you can see three or four steps to get your image looking it's best...

No problem Jeanette, and I do apologise if ‘lots of camera shake’ was a bit harsh – perhaps that was OTT. The shot is fine, but just not half as appealing as the other!

I can only judge by my own shots, and when I shoot with a long lens in lowish light, I often get exactly the same effect. The grass in particular has that sort of partly blurred, partly sharp characteristic which suggests (to me at least) a little bit of movement. What shutter speed / f-stop / ISO combo did you use, and was it cropped (which would make a minor problem more obvious)?

As has been suggested, a bit of levels work / WB correction in PS would help the shot too.

Jeanette, PP is far from my strongest suit so I won't even try and suggest what you should do, but from a purely objective standpoint, as an observer my initial reaction was that your pic was slightly over exposed or washed out in some way - but nothing that couldn't be fixed in PP from what i understand.

How does it look on your monitor next to your friend's? How does it look to your eyes? Maybe I am seeing it through different eyes from you. We all have our own way of seeing things and our own tastes in what is pleasing to our eye.

Forgetting composition, sharpness etc. to me the colours lack some of the depth or warmth of the other picture - but again I am sure this is a simple tweak.

Bottom line is you love you photography and are openly asking for feedback in order to improve which can only be a good position for any of us to adopt

I have had a little play but I think lens choice may well have had quite a bit to do with the difference to be honest as from the look at the exif you needed something faster. At a guess I would say he is using something far more exotic than you. As a matter of interest what lens were you using?

Don,

Thanks for your tips but I am afraid I have no idea what you are saying! Another example in the differences in knowledge and skill between Peter and myself. If pse is PhotoShop Elements then I am sorry but I don't have this.

Pentaxophile and Bodyheat,

Pentaxophile, no need to apologise. Like I said I welcome constructive critism that allows me to progress my skill and knowledge. Exif Info: Exposure Program AV, Exposure Time 1/125, F number 9.5, Focal Length 400mm, No Flash, ISO 800. It is a crop but only a small one to try and make it the same as Peter's I have just cropped out part of the lioness's hind leg. It was taken late in the day but although not the best light it was still OK.

Bodyheat, your are correct - I can clearly see that Peter's shot is darker/warmer than mine, however, this could be down to the white balance setting? I have only ever used Auto.

Again if the image can be brought up in pp to be nearly the same as Peter's this is again an example of the only difference being photographer skill?

I know that buying a more expensive, complicated camera (even if it was the K-7) will not improve my photography yet and that I have a long way to go But this was meant as an exercise to show that it is more photographer skill, knowledge and lenses to a degree, than the camera used

Hi Mike,

Sorry I missed your reply while typing my own. I have just seen I was using the K200D with the Sigma 135 - 400mm 1:4.5-5.6 APO DG. I don't know what lens Peter was using but it would have been a comparable length but more expensive

I like what you have done though

Jeanette

I had the Sigma 135-400mm until I found a Bigma, a good lens for the money but not it's best at 400mm. I found that using it up to around 300/350mm was much better and cropping does get sharper pictures.

Jeanette - here's where the 'multiply layers' mode is hidden, and hopefully the shot is self explanatory in how to use it. Using the opacity slider will allow you to make adjustments. This mode is useful - you'll notice that whites are unaffected but dark to mid tones are deepened. You can pile up as many layers as you need, and cut areas out with a feathered selection etc.




It's above the highlighted layer box!

(edit - this is PSE 4.0 but I don't think they changed it too much on subsequent versions)

Hi Jeanette,

Thought I would give it a quick go too, hope you don't mind

[IMG]http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/3954/imgp9352lioness600.jpg[/IMG]

Just my take on the image, a little adjsutment with white balance, exposure and levels plus a little sharpening and then slight crop & resize.

Pentaxophile,

Thanks for that. I only have Corel Paint Shop Pro I have found the Layers menu option but not managed to do anything with it. I have said before I am not very knowledgable when it comes to pp and I have to try and take the best possible shot I can as I can't improve it that much later

I will have to go off and read how this works and get back to you

Maybe one day I will be as good as my Canon and Nikon using fellow travellers But then again maybe not