That does not mean smaller cameras are not possible. The same argument was used to justify the larger size of the K10D and K20D. But, funny, my K100DS is smaller and still has SR.

Not true. Some have found exactly the same problems in person that
I could easily see by looking at photos of the camera and comparing it to the bodies I have. Some have even returned the camera in dismay, as a result of the poor ergonomics. (Other reasons too, but several have singled out the handling.) Read around the forums and you will see.

But perhaps you think I should spend 1300 euros for the privilege of writing a blog article.

Almost any camera works "just fine" -- that is not the point. I want a camera that is significantly better than before, in order to justify parting with a significant chunk of money. Perhaps you are richer or more easily pleased. Fair enough.

Tell you what, George, you write the blog you want to and I'll write the blog I want to. Fair?

I take tons of high quality photos that please many people. Unsolicited offers have started to come in for professional work, even though I've only had a DSLR for a year and a half. Examples of my work are not exactly hard to find on the web. My aim is better photography through better tools, practice and experience.

But, yes, I also have an imagination. I think it helps.

P.S. Your assertion that you "haven't stooped to personal remarks" would ring truer if your post didn't directly insult my writing, the purpose of my blog, my motivations and, indirectly, my photography.

Sorry, my mistake; you are correct of course. I even referred to 4/3 in a previous post.

The point about earlier Pentax DSLRs remains, however.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

Another piece of advice is to manually focus. It can work a lot better than AF. And you can choose wherever you want the focus to be in the frame, without messing about with moving AF blobs.

I defocus and refocus with every shot. This ensures a good number of keepers. The following was done hand-held with a simple macro adapter on my FA77. In this case focus was achieved by moving my body, keeping the focus ring still. Click through for Flickr page and larger version.

The wireless remotes just trigger the shutter, but you can set your camera (most models) to focus first. I prefer to get focus and then just use the remote to trigger.

The wired remotes operate in bub mode, so you can use them to open the shutter with the first action, and then close the shutter when you wish with a second action.

Both have their uses. Cheap eBay models work fine.