K-7 has image distortion and CA correction

I have long been a Pentax user, a 'stills photographer' and a firm film chap. Video has never interested me, apart from recording TV programs and I take your point John, I have not seen the K 7 yet, only read, probably what you have read about it so far. But for me personally, I would have appreciated increased pixels, full frame sensor (not sure) features that would assist me in my passion for forty seven years, still photography. Had I been interested in movie making, did some standard 8 and 16mm when I was younger, I would have by now bought a video camera. I know what you are going to say next, that Pentax has to pursue the market forces, but at what expense to photography itself?

Increased pixels? Don't you think 14,6 million isn't enough? The whole megapixel race is slowing down at the moment and it should be.
We have a compact here at home with 12 mp but when the light is just a little less then bright sunlight the noise kicks in. Luckily it has a special CCD which can group two adjacent pixels together to create a single large pixel and this gives you a 6mp camera with adequate resolution and a lot less noise.
It is a Fuji with a EXR CCD. The pixels are aranged differently so that every pixel is adjacent to antoher pixel of the same colour (not the typical bayer pattern).
14,6 for me is enough for an APS-C sized sensor, for a full-frame sensor I see about 20mp as a nice limit. If you want anything with a higher resolution you should look at a 645 or larger camera.

What expense to photography is the video capability? Very little, I expect.

Video is a by-product of the digital stills camera that only requires a little bit more electronic hardware & software. Pentax are providing it because they can quite easily. You don't have to use it if you don't like it, and I doubt the stills camera would be better if it didn't do video as well.

It would take far more than the cost of the video implementation to have more pixels (that were any good) or full frame, or any other major advancement.

Once again, in my opinion, Pentax is being wrongly criticised for including a feature that supposedly isn't very important. It doesn't bother me if the camera does a few things that I don't want to use! I'm more interested in the ones that I do want to use.

As it happens, I would be quite interested in the video, but my point remains. There are lots of things the K20D can do that I never use. That doesn't make me like the camera any less at all.

Not really interested in Fuji, apart from their film and I already have a Pentax 645 and several land cameras thank you.

Personally I want more accurate focusing, more accurate exposure, less noise at higher ISOs, greater dynamic range. I am not interested in liveview or video but Pentax need to shift units to make money to spend on R&D and so if the K-7 comes with what I want I don't mind the unwanted extras. If it doesn't, I won't buy it but if they spend the profits from those that do developing what I want for another model I am happy too.

We have to recognise that they have to make a profit to stay in business which means that have to try and keep up with market trends if they can. Lots of us on here have dreamed of a digital MX: small, simple, superbly functional and beautifully built. Most of us also realise it will never happen as they would never sell enough units to justify it.

Just my tuppence worth. Now to start looking for a nice 2nd hand K20D...

It might not be important for us but it might be very important in the position marketing position.
There is a D90 with video and all the upcomind Nikon apear to have video, probable the upcoming Canons as well. If Pentax didn't put video in it might end up in a position that everyone else has video over 6 months except the K-7. That wouldn't be smart or do you think difference?

Nail. Head. Hit.

I have never used the Live View on my K20D and, like a few others here, can't really imagine using the video function of a K-7 in anger. However, I read a review of the D90 a while ago where someone pointed out the usefulness of video as a kind of memo function (in order to record complicated lighting set-ups).

I can also see it being useful when scouting a location for a wedding or portrait shoot.

Jonathan

hello i´m pentax user from portugal, and i want to now, if this new camera pentax k7d replaces the k20d ?
The new k7d show be a great camera, but is smaller than the k20d,...
I have a k10d and ia have a gallery in the site
http://olhares.aeiou.pt/NESTORLCS
if every one want to see,and if ervery one want to use, join use..

Well not sure if you are just advertising a photo website but anyway.
The K-7 is not a direct replacement of the K20D.
The K20D will get replaced later this year (according to the rumours) with a model which will probably be a down-specced version of the K-7.
This camera will probably replace the K200D as well so Pentax will end up with a three camera line-up: K-m, K-?, K-7.

I , i think the same, K7d not replacement of the k20d, but i so in dpreview -- http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Pentax/pentax_k7.asp
and they say the k7d is a replacement of the k20d,i hope pentax replace the k20d this year, for a better camera, than the nikon d300,and they gives to hus profisional camera,
it was great for pentax user because pentax don t have a profisional line of cameras... best regards

If their aim is to replace the K20D with the K7 (with all its alleged flaws), then the second hand market for the K20D might maintain a higher than expected resale value.

Rob

Please, I must have missed something, what alleged flaws are we talking about on a camera that is not even released yet!?

If you missed it you're not the only one, so did I.

I'm frantically searching, but haven't turned up anything yet