K-7 now £799!!

Just back from the seashore trying out my new 55-300 (thanks, SRS). I had to pump things up to 800 ISO to get the shutter speed and aperture I wanted. The raw results didn't look bad on-screen, although some noise was evident when pixel-peeping. I ran a couple through Neat Image and printed them out at A4. Not a trace of noise. They also looked a heck of a lot better on glossy paper than they did on my LCD, although it's pretty accurate on colours. The moral, if there is one, is that you'll never really know how good your images are until they're printed.

Edit: I haven't reached the heady heights of owning a K7 yet, just a humble GX-20.

Al

the priest, thankfully, is a friend of the parents. And I don't see that there will be an issue with a full setup for the group shots - as long as I don't disturb the ceremony, I'm fine.

Bret

I meant it as a joke - they'll be too powerful at 800+! Good to have the clergy on your side though.

I think I see the problem here. The only film camera I ever owned was some cheap Kodak purchased with pocket money in the early 70s for an amount in the region of £8. Whether it was able to shoot at ISO 1600 or 3200 with some combination of film I neither know nor care.

What I do know is that my requirement today for high ISO capability was recently eloquently set out by the oddly named poster, KZ. I simply want to take pictures of my kids in poorly lit but natural surroundings. That is to say without any kind of additional lighting.

However, it seems to me there is a large minority of individuals on this forum who sneeringly look down on this type of photography. Instead they see themselves as artists and technicians, elevated far above the unwashed masses who like to take pictures of their family. Why not simply use a variety of studio lighting equipment and accessories to enable proper photography at ISO 100 is the attendant view.

Based purely on a back of the envelope calculation it seems to me that the market for slrs has grown by a factor of maybe 7-10x from the late days of film to today’s market dominated by digital. This market growth has undoubtedly been driven by rank amateurs who demand functionality and ease of use. It has been a staggering democratisation of high end photography that is clearly abhorrent to many.

But for those who care about the future of Pentax as a brand as opposed to their own pretentions as artistes it should be welcomed that they finally appear to be adopting a mindset of mass-market appeal.

As for your comment regarding movie mode autofocus that is simply too asinine to address.

Nobody should ever look down on any form of photography, as it's all valid. Those who take family photos will record people and events that have a lasting value, sometimes way above the artistic stuff....which pictures are a treasure trove of records of our past?

I shall leave gartmore to defend his position as he wishes, but asinine his comments most certainly are not. He knows more about shooting movies than most of us if not all of us on this forum.

Yes, it is. You know why? It demeans the value of average ability. Only those who can market and provide excellent, thought-provoking art will survive. And even they won't make money, except by selling tuition to those who want to be better but don't have natural talent. See X-Factor and the hate campaign for the christmas number one.

Then again, the attitude of the average user towards professionals... as in the comment reported on another site - "get a single large print, then we can copy as much as we want" followed by a "you're not allowed to do that" sums up the lack of understanding and willingness to pay for quality in most cases.

I think 90% of the dSLRs now sold will be with a kit lens and that lens will stay. Users buy them because they want to burn some cash and have a "nice" camera. If you want ease of use, get a G11. Or an X70. Don't buy a dSLR; they are for control and those who want to learn. And not beginners who aren't interested. Still, they'll buy them.
I don't care what marketing has to tell me, and yes, you can call it elitist - but the same thing applies to computers, too. And cars.
It's slowly all being dumbed-down and it's not good. Anything that used to require skill - and the resultant feeling of a job well done - has been shortened and filtered for a generation of "NOW". I've seen it on another forum - a succession of nice dSLR bodies that hardly get used, a couple of lenses ... and they gather dust. Fools.

Today, I got my new work phone - an N900. It's taken me the better part of three hours to sort it to something close to I want - and the number of posters on forums asking for help because they've installed something they were told not to is frightening. Why do they do it? Because they must have the latest and greatest. Bah humbug say I - get something and hit its limits first and *then* replace with better. Understanding why you want something before pulling the trigger is, IMO, the only real way forward.

Who said kids portraits aren't useful? I will be recording the christening and chaos afterwards for a friend, very deliberately, because I think the atmosphere is important. And flash, if used well, does not detract from the mood.

Bret

I have never been aware of any sneering attitude towards anyone else on this forum, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide lnks to the comments you have found so abhorrent.

Asinine? I note you sum up yourr experience as "The only film camera I ever owned was some cheap Kodak purchased with pocket money in the early 70s for an amount in the region of £8. Whether it was able to shoot at ISO 1600 or 3200 with some combination of film I neither know nor care."

I sum up mine thus: link

No need for any links, Gartmore.

Tell me honestly that you mistook the K7 dslr for a professional video camera and I will instantly apologise for considering you a smartarse.

Vouchsafe me details of how I may go about shooting 35mm film at ISO 1600/3200 and I will recognise you are not taking the piss.

In my film days some 30+ years ago you bought TriX which was ASA 400 and pushed it in the developing stage. Sometimes it was pretty sometimes it wasn't. I think I achieved around 1600 that way but it wasn't an exact science.

Ignoring your facetious first request and being the ever helpful person I am, you will find details of just one method of how to expose 35mm film at 1600/3200 here: link, quite straightforward really.

(sigh @ Shaky - you only had to Google)
I've used Fuji 1600ASA Superia colour negative film. Once.

At the time it gave the results I wanted, but I keep the scans as a reminder of how massive grain can be, and how far the dSLRs have come on
ISO6400 on the K20D looks amazing in comparison

Matt

You thought that was massive, have you ever tried GAF Daylight 500???

I like grain.

@mattmatic
That is exactly how people should look at noise.
The problem is that a lot of DSLR users don't even recognise a roll of film when they step on it.

For those who don't want to follow links, can I just add that with black and white film you expose at higher ISO values by extending the development time. As Ken said, simple.

With colour transparency film you adjust at least one of the development times, but you need to be careful as colour balance may change if you go too far.

With colour negative film you can't change the processing but you can take advantage of quite a wide exposure latitude.

In any event there are/have been many ultra-fast films on the market.

Worth adding too that films like Kodacolor were designed for simple P&S cameras with perhaps a fixed fairly slow shutter speed, maybe one or two apertures and a dirty plastic lens; so bright colours and almost impossible to overexpose. Google 'D logE curves' if you cant sleep one night.