Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Jeff Kott on October 09, 2009, 01:05:42 am
-
Since my orginal post got wiped out by the server problems, I’m reposting with some additional thoughts.
First of all, I really appreciate Michael’s approach with his hand’s on reviews. I really like getting his personal opinion without the cumbersome feature by feature comparison that’s otherwise available on other sites.
I am a Nikon and Pentax user. I have a Pentax K10D and six Limited prime lenses. To me the compelling feature of the Pentax system is the ability to use Pentax’s very high quality, compact, autofocus, Limiited prime lenses. Nikon, Canon and Sony aren't competitive in this respect. I really wanted to want to buy a K7 and start using my Limited primes more, but for me the deal killer was the fact that the Samsung sensor used in the K20D and K7 has 1 to 1.5 stops less dynamic range than my two year old Nikon D300. I did not want to go backwards in this regard.
I wonder if Michael’s conclusion would have been different if, instead of the Pentax zooms, he was using the Limited prime lenses and if he also didn’t have the choice of using the Pentax or the M9 and Leica lenses at the same time. If I had an M9 and a set of Leica lenses, the Pentax system would probably be less appealing as a compact high quality travel kit. Since I don’t, I’m hoping the K8 will have a sensor that is competitive on a dynamic range basis with the better APS-C sensors available today.
-
Since my orginal post got wiped out by the server problems, I’m reposting with some additional thoughts.
I take it that my reply got wiped out too, so another quick recap:
At to a Unique Selling Proposition for Pentax DSLR's, I nominate "nice small primes lenses", both the Limiteds and the newer ones specifically for DA format DSLRs. But that is likely to appeal to only a small slice of the DLSR market.
As to the 15MP Samsung sensor and its reported shortcomings (I have not studied the tests), Pentax might be moving away from Samsung back to Sony for sensors, but CMOS this time: the new Pentax M-x uses a 12MP Sony CMOS Exmor sensor, making it the least expensive camera with that sensor.
-
As to the 15MP Samsung sensor and its reported shortcomings (I have not studied the tests), Pentax might be moving away from Samsung back to Sony for sensors, but CMOS this time: the new Pentax M-x uses a 12MP Sony CMOS Exmor sensor, making it the least expensive camera with that sensor.
I hope you're right about the switch to new Sony sensors for the next Pentax top of the line model. If they are able to put an APS-C sized sensor in the K7 body with dynamic range and noise performance comparable to the 12 megapixel sensor that Nikon uses in the D300 and other bodies, I will be the first person in line to buy that camera. I think that camera with the Pentax primes will be very compelling.
-
Isn't the selling point of the Pentax the weatherproofing? 2nd only to Olympus in this regard - even featuring sealed kit lenses? A niche market for sure, but there it is.
-
Isn't the selling point of the Pentax the weatherproofing? 2nd only to Olympus in this regard - even featuring sealed kit lenses? A niche market for sure, but there it is.
Pentax has a few things going for it and different ones will be more appealing to different people. I would list the strong points in no particular order:
Pentax high quality compact primes
weather sealed body in certain lenses
in body image stabilization which works with all lenses
compact body with higher build quality (more metal, less plastic and weather sealing) than similarly sized competitors like the Nikon D90
The negatives as I see them are:
Samsung sensor with less dynamic range and poorer high iso noise performance than best APS-C sensors
autofocus does not seem to be best in class for moving subjects, so I would use a Nikon D300 over this camera for sports, etc.
So, for those who do not have the funds for a Leica rangefinder system or those who prefer autofocus, weather sealing and in body image stabilization to a rangefinder, Pentax could be compelling for a high quality compact kit
-
A few Pentax users are saying it's odd that the same samsung sensor was better in the K20d, no obvious reason why the new version should be worse (last one seemed competitive to my eyes)
On the part about stand out..I was just talking to a D300 owner today, who was complaining that the D300s was a very boring mild warm over session, and not a serious upgrade. Are there any real stand out models nowadays???
-
A few Pentax users are saying it's odd that the same samsung sensor was better in the K20d, no obvious reason why the new version should be worse (last one seemed competitive to my eyes)
On the part about stand out..I was just talking to a D300 owner today, who was complaining that the D300s was a very boring mild warm over session, and not a serious upgrade. Are there any real stand out models nowadays???
I think it has been determined by engineers on the Pentax DPR forum that the sensor in the K7 and K20 perform similarly, except in the K20 noise reduction is applied to the raw data at lower iso value, which is why it does better on pure noise test at the expense of detail.
Nikon does major upgrades every 3 to 4 years. Interim "s" upgrades are always minor. The biggest difference is the addition of video recording in the D300s. Otherwise, the D300s is not much of an upgrade for those taking still photos.
-
The Sensors have changed from the K20 to the K7 which includes 4 channels vs. 2 in the K20. Noise difference between the two more than likely have to do with the support electronics. For what it is worth, the latest DPR review of the K7 find that the noise level in the K20/K7 are lower than the competing cameras from Nikon and Canon.
The big difference in noise levels is in the JPG engine that Pentax uses - higher detail and more noise. Reviewers of the DPR reviews have long held that the Pentax is noisier than Nikon and Canon because they used the JPG performance as the standard. Only the latest review has looked at RAW data and finally confirmed what Pentax users have known - Pentax RAW images are superb.
The K7 does deserve a close look.
I do agree, the K7 may not appeal to people with large hands - I include my self here. That said, I love my K20 and my prime lenses.
Bob Rapp
-
...For what it is worth, the latest DPR review of the K7 find that the noise level in the K20/K7 are lower than the competing cameras from Nikon and Canon.
The big difference in noise levels is in the JPG engine that Pentax uses - higher detail and more noise. Reviewers of the DPR reviews have long held that the Pentax is noisier than Nikon and Canon because they used the JPG performance as the standard. Only the latest review has looked at RAW data and finally confirmed what Pentax users have known - Pentax RAW images are superb.
I still think the dynamic range of the current Nikons is significantly better (1 to 1.5 stops) than the K7 or k20. DPR's dynamic range testing of raw images is limited in that it only looks at how much "highlight headroom" can be recovered. Dynamic range is limited by both the level at which highlights clip as well as the noise floor. For this reason, I think DXO's dynamic range analysis is better and it shows the K20 and K7 are 1 to 1.5 stops inferior to the current Nikon APS-C sensor cameras. This difference would only be important in instances where one underexposes to hold highlight detail and then boosts shadows and mid tones in post processing to a correct exposure.
-
As a long time casual lurker here, I find Michaels writing and articles very interesting and instructive. But also as a long-time Pentax user (I learnt my photography on a K1000) I was also looking forward to his review on the K7.
I have to say I was disappointed, not so much with his opinions or conclusion, just with the way the review was done. I really feel he did not give the time and effort to find out about the cameras strengths and weaknesses. He says himself that he had three other cameras to review at the same time - and clearly he tended to pick other cameras rather than the K7. It seems for a "hands-on" review he barely laid his hands on it after the first day!
He would have done better to wait until he had a bit more time to evaluate it - or not bothered frankly. I have handled the camera in a store and was very taken with it. It does everything I want of it, and a lot more besides. I also like the fact that it is small and light. It will be great with the DA35 Macro Limited I already own - and obviously the other pentax zooms I have as well.
As to his conclusion, my main reply is that the K7's USP is precisely that it IS an all round competant camera. Most of us do not have the resources to buy more than one camera system and do a wide variety of work with the one we do have so it has to fit pretty well all roles "competently". It is the ideal travel camera. Small, light, weather sealed, the sort of photographic tool you need when resources, or luggage space, is limited.
Sorry Michael, this was not your best bit of work. I am looking forward to your next issue of the video Journal though! Keep up the good work
-
The issue may be that people are used to typical web reviews that list specs and features and do comparisons. I don't do those any more. I find them boring, and ultimately they don't tell me what I need to know when I read them elsewhere.
I therefore write my reviews the way that I would chat about a new piece of gear with a friend, telling him my impressions and thoughts.
In the case of the K7, while it is obviously a competent camera, it just didn't excite me, and that's why I seem to have treated it in an offhand manner.
Something to keep in mind is that the marketplace in DSLRs is a tough one, and we're in a lousy economy. Products of a discretionary nature have to be more than competent to succeed, they have to catch the potential purchaser's imagination by offering them something that has a special appeal. The K7, for me at least, had nothing of that sort to offer.
Kind of reminded me of a Toyota Camry. A nice competent car, good value, well built, but boring.
Michael
-
I don't understand the furore over this, not can I work out why pentax enthusiasts are so put out by anything other than a rave review.
The man said it like it is;....a camera basically like all the other half frame DSLR's which does take photographs but is fiddly to use and over complicated. Anyone who has had a good look at the k7 can only agree. Any camera where one inadvertantly changes a control while using others has effectively lost it's design integrity, and needs to be re-thought. All experienced photographers, both amateur and pro know this. On another site the review mentioned an owners manual similar in size to a paperback novel which does NOT have all of the information on how to use the miriad functions!!! This puts a new meaning to that irritating phrase seen in UK photo mag reviews; "has lots to enjoy".
The k7 is an amateur camera intended for weekend warriors, so simplicity would have been a good design target. Judging by the constant questions I get asked by friends and aquaintances, virtually no amateur with a DSLR has much idea how they actually work because of the mind numbing complexity and memory lapses from Sunday evening to the next Saturday morning, so having to memorise a paperback novel is giving them no chance!
-
I see nothing wrong with the article, it's a personal opinion of a camera, and nothing more or less. I guess most people agree it's better for an upfront "honest" article/opinion, than one that is pulling it's punches. As it is, I didn't read it as negative as some might have.
One thing does puzzle me, what makes a standout camera?? And which recent ones fit that criteria, and why?? If the pentax has had the best image quality, would that have made it a winner? Or the fastest AF v it's rivals?
-
One thing does puzzle me, what makes a standout camera?? And which recent ones fit that criteria, and why?? If the pentax has had the best image quality, would that have made it a winner? Or the fastest AF v it's rivals?
I agree that I liked Michael's article and his way of doing his "hands on reports." What I really want from him is his personal opinion uncluttered with a feature by feature comparison.
The question of what makes a standout camera is a good one. I think the answer is that what makes a camera a standout would be different for everyone. A poster above said he knew someone who was disappointed with the Nikon D300s and was expecting more of an upgrade. I have a D300 which is obviously similar to the D300s, except for the video. This is one of the best APS-C sized sensors out there, with many parts from Nikon's professional D3 and D3x, and a two year old APS-C sensor that is still best of class. It's hard for me to imagine how someone could be disappointed with that camera.
To me, the K7's appeal would be the ability to use those awesome Pentax primes for a compact high quality camera. If you've already got an M9, Leica lenses, a Panasonic GH1 and GF1 like Michael, that criteria would not be important and he would need some other feature of the camera/system to make it standout.
-
The issue may be that people are used to typical web reviews that list specs and features and do comparisons. I don't do those any more. I find them boring, and ultimately they don't tell me what I need to know when I read them elsewhere.
I therefore write my reviews the way that I would chat about a new piece of gear with a friend, telling him my impressions and thoughts.
Fair enough, I completely understand. However a lot of us who admire and respect your opinion maybe feel a little short changed with such a casual dismissal of a clearly excellent camera. I would say it takes at least 3 or 4 days to get reasonably familiar with a camera. There will be many aspects of any camera that won't be discovered in a single days shooting.
Your work and site have changed their emphasis in the last 5 years, and I suspect don't have that sort of time available to devote to even a relatively brief "hands on" with a single camera - or at least to give all the cameras you review an equal crack of the whip - unless it is one that suits your particular needs or is somehow just "fun". And, I hope you will admit, your need is for cameras rather higher up the scale than the K7.
In the case of the K7, while it is obviously a competent camera, it just didn't excite me, and that's why I seem to have treated it in an offhand manner.
Something to keep in mind is that the marketplace in DSLRs is a tough one, and we're in a lousy economy. Products of a discretionary nature have to be more than competent to succeed, they have to catch the potential purchaser's imagination by offering them something that has a special appeal. The K7, for me at least, had nothing of that sort to offer.
Kind of reminded me of a Toyota Camry. A nice competent car, good value, well built, but boring.
For you, Michael, a new camera system of this type would be a "discretionary" purchase. You have all the cameras you need to do your job and maybe that is why you fail to get excited by this class of camera and are probably not the best guy to evaluate the appeal of the K7 to its target market (or the low end Nikon, Canon and Olympus DSLRs for that matter), and should leave that rather dull task to the other sites dedicated to the job.
I, and many people like me, consider a decent camera an essential - not just as a hobby but also to record the lives of our family and friends. However, our budgets are stretched and we only have one shot at buying the right system. If we end up with a camera that is not competent in an area that we need it to work well, then it will be an expensive mistake that we probably won't be able to rectify. To me, the fact that you think it is an all round competant camera means that it may be more suitable for most people than almost any other camera at its price point.
In a lousy economy people buy "safe". If they can only buy one car, they want reliable, practical, versatile and inexpenisve cars that will, take them to work, cope with all the shopping and carry the kids and all the baggage on holiday without breaking the bank in fuel costs.
The nippy sports cars, luxury sedans and SUVs stay in the showroom, the cars that get sold are the reliable Japanese all-rounders. You only have to look at the car market in the USA today to see that.
Of course those who already have a car or cars that cover the basics are not going to be buying a Camry. I have an accountant friend with a VW Sharan to cart the kids around in, a Range Rover for excursions and a Porsche for fun. His fourth car, if he buys one, won't be a domestic all-rounder!
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to reply.
-
What?!?
-
I don't understand why some people (especially on DPreview) are so put off by this hands-on report. My reaction after reading it was : "gee-whizz, if I wasn't so heavily invested in A-mount lenses and was looking for a new camera I'd seriously consider the Pentax K-7". Seems the old saying that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder still rings true.
Also don't understand why people have so much trouble with the difference between a "Hands-on report" and a "review" In my mind it's a big difference.
-
If the K7 had had an articulating LCD, I would have bought it, I think. I was seriously in the market for a camera system that would sharply reduce the weight I carry, and the size. The Pentax does that somewhat. (I had a K10 and bought the pancake primes at that time; I later sold the camera, but kept the primes, hoping for a better body.) But it doesn't do it as much as the new m4/3 systems -- and the change to the m4/3 is radical enough that I decided to go in that direction. I can carry an m4/3 *system* including two bodies and a range of zooms and a fast prime in a bag that used to hold one M8 and five lenses...and it's lighter. The Pentax, while small, isn't especially light, and I need at least a couple of zooms, and while the pancakes are tiny, the zooms don't match the Panasonic and Olympus m4/3 zooms for size. (And the Panny zooms are really pretty good.)
I have some pretty specific uses for my cameras. They need to be *good enough,* rather than great, and they need to be small and easily carried and I need to have a backup body. That's why I looked at the Pentax, and looked at the m4/3s, and in the end, the features of the Pentax were not, to use Michael's phrase, compelling.
As to what now makes a compelling camera, that's an interesting question, and I think it's possible that we may have passed the time when cameras will be routinely compelling. In the earlier days of digital, every new camera was such a leap that it was hard not to buy in; but now, a fairly large number of people will tell you that, say, a D3 or a D700 is a better camera for them than a D3x or the expected D700x -- that is, they really don't need the extra resolution, but they do need the speed. It'll be interesting to see what happens with the next Canon 1DsIV, or whatever they call it. If it's 30mp, with about the same ISO range as the 1DsIII, will people decide they can't live without it? Or would they prefer, say, a really fast 18mp?
-
I don't understand why some people (especially on DPreview) are so put off by this hands-on report. My reaction after reading it was : "gee-whizz, if I wasn't so heavily invested in A-mount lenses and was looking for a new camera I'd seriously consider the Pentax K-7". Seems the old saying that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder still rings true.
Also don't understand why people have so much trouble with the difference between a "Hands-on report" and a "review" In my mind it's a big difference.
I would much rather read a single hands on review from Michael than any number of full reviews on other sites. The interminable pixel peeping image noise comparisons, the endless descriptions of functions, menus and displays (yaaaaawwwwnnn). Which is why I, and many like me, were keen to see what Michael thought of the new Pentax.
In a very refreshingly honest admission, Michael put the following in his review:
The first was as I was choosing which camera to take out on a shoot each day (I had four different new cameras to test in a one month period). After a full day of initial familiarization I rarely found myself reaching for the K7 by choice. Not because of any particular failing, but simply because there were features or capabilities of other cameras available that simply were more compelling and which I felt would help me take better images more effectively.
If he had come to the conclusions he did after 3 or 4 days of solid use in the field, alongside his usual kit, I would have been less disappointed. However, it is clear it did not give it much more than a day. If this is a wrong imprerssion, Michael, I apologise, but that is the way it comes over.
As and when funds arise I will likely as not buy the K7 (or the K8 at the rate I am currently saving!). That is because it has everything I need in a camera. About the only thing missing is an articulated screen, but I have had that on two P&S cameras and I don't think I have ever used it in anger. And of course after over 30 years with Pentax SLRs (K1000, ME Super, K100D), I have a reasonable investment in some very nice lenses that I would like to continue to use.
My local pro camera equipment supplier will loan out the K7 - the first time it has offered a Pentax in this way. I might fork out for a week's use for my own "hands on" rather than a cursory look over in the shop. If nothng else Michael's review has made me realise that I need to try it for longer before investing my hard earned cash.
-
Dear Michael,
The issue may be that people are used to typical web reviews that list specs and features and do comparisons.
I think the true reason is that readers have the feeling that the camera never had a chance to light your fire. It was in competition with other gear you had to evaluate at the time and while we do not know what that gear was, clearly it was more up your alley than the K-7. Perhaps because it was better tailored to your preferences, perhaps it was sitting at a much higher price point. We have no idea.
But what any reader can easily infer that the whole report smacks of "This isn't the type of camera I'm interested in and I won't try to put myself into the position of a reader who might be in the market for such a camera".
Now if you only ran your private blog, your opinion piece that obviously lacks determination to try and evaluate the camera from a perspective and situation that is different from your personal one wouldn't be a problem.
However, you run a widely respected and widely read site where people expect to receive information. Information useful to them, which implies that most of the time money will be a concern and they won't be surrounded by gear that drives circles around a camera in the class of a K-7.
Because of that, I believe when publishing a review or hands-on you have the responsibility to either fully disclose that you don't normally use cameras like the K-7 and doing the hands-on for the K-7 was very low on your priority list, or try to put yourself into the position of a reader who is in the market for a K-7.
As I see it, by stating to have a "weak spot" for Pentax but then failing to get excited about their best DSLR ever, you practically creating damage for the brand. No beating around the bush about that.
I believe you haven't explored the camera sufficiently to justify the conclusion you came to. Here are some unique selling points:
- Availability of the Limited lenses
(elsewhere your site praises these a lot; your hands-on ignores the fact that the K-7 is the best camera to use them)
- Access to millions of old Pentax lenses
- Electronic horizon (correction)
(how many of use have to frequently correct crooked horizons in PP?
This feature is a godsend for people like me.)
- Rotational shake correction
(try asking Canon/Nikon to implement that...
you might be a tripod user only, but not everyone is)
- Composition adjustment feature
(this is for tripod users...)
- Cold resistant (to 14° F or -10° C)
(any other manufacturer guranteeing that?)
- Hyperprogramme shooting mode
Did you know about all of these and tried them? We cannot read anything about most of these unique features in your report. I'm not suggesting a "hands-on" should be feature list run down, not at all. But there are some unique features of the K-7 you seemed to have ignored.
The following properties can also be found in other models:
- magnesium alloy body
- 100% viewfinder
- top sensor resolution
(I believe only the Canon 7D has neglibly more resolution
but lacks body-based shake reduction). - very quite shutter
- weather-sealed body and weather-sealed kit lens
- in body image stabilisation
- lens correction
- HD-video
- mirror-lock up function
- embedded copyright feature
- DNG support
but what other camera offers them all in on package at this price point???
No unique selling point???
In his LL "istD" review Mike Johnston wrote:
"While it may not do any one thing the absolute best, it does everything well, in a simple, straightforward, ergonomically sound, and conservatively designed package.' (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-jan-05.shtml)"
Apparently, this way of thinking is no longer applied.
What would the K-7 would have done to excite you? Be bigger? Be a rangefinder or medium-format camera?
I believe given your situation it would have been better to decline writing a report.
Various comments made in other forums:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-...-k-7-prove.html (http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/71629-http-www-luminous-landscape-com-needs-pentax-k-7-prove.html)
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...0482&page=1 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=33280482&page=1)
show how many feel that the K-7 hands-on report doesn't meet the standard luminous landscapes editorial level.
-
but what other camera offers them all in on package at this price point???
No unique selling point???
In his LL "istD" review Mike Johnston wrote:
"While it may not do any one thing the absolute best, it does everything well, in a simple, straightforward, ergonomically sound, and conservatively designed package.' (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-jan-05.shtml)"
Apparently, this way of thinking is no longer applied.
Well, after reading this long tirade I went back to Michael's review to see whether I missed anything, and I didn't. I believe this sentence in the review which I reproduce in the next para <<>> below, answers the point you made just above, (and the same point about price/features from the perspective of a one-camera purchaser made by someone on DPReview):
<<In the end, the Pentax is a fine camera and anyone who finds it of interest will likely not be disappointed with its purchase. Don't regard this as damning with faint praise. It's a camera that will likely to be found equal to the needs of most photographers looking in this price and performance category.>>
Personally, I think this sentence, and several others in the review address this point about price and features quite adequately, and essentially says the same thing you approvingly quote Mike Johnson as having said.
My sense of decent standards in a camera review is to situate the equipment in a range with its peers, provide informed commentary on what it does steller, well, not so well, badly - by compariosn - and offer readers advice about what kind of a "buy" it is. I don't know the K-7, but having read all the reviews and commentary I could put my hands on, it seems to me that this review did all those things, so I fail to see what the issue is.
One matter NONE of the on-line material addresses is whether or not Pentax Canada even exists. I have sent them three emails within the past couple of months asking for a link to download their raw converter, because a colleague asked me to compare some Pentax images converted in ACR versus the same done in Silkypix. Not even the courtesy of an auto-reply from them. If that's a valid sample of Pentax service it makes them even worse than some of the others in an industry segment which doesn't distinguish itself with speedy or enthusiastic customer care.
-
Personally, I think this sentence, and several others in the review address this point about price and features quite adequately,...
You can make that statement about any DSLR in any segment, because they are all capable cameras and none of them is a bad buy.
I don't know the K-7, but having read all the reviews and commentary I could put my hands on, it seems to me that this review did all those things, so I fail to see what the issue is.
So what about -- just to make one of many possible points -- the unique selling points Michael denies the existence of? An automatic horizon correction (done with hardware by rotating the sensor, not by image deteriorating post processing) may not be important for some, but for many it is a unique selling point. To not know that such a feature exists or to claim there is no unique selling point nevertheless is not an issue?
-
[quote name='TeeKay' date='Oct 15 2009, 09:35 AM' post='317352']
You can make that statement about any DSLR in any segment, because they are all capable cameras and none of them is a bad buy.
TeeKay,..that looks to me like you have just shot down your own argument,...that's the point that Micheal made, namely, that the k7 is simply and 'also ran' just like all the others. Quite adequate but not exemplary. Pentax used to be an innovator and, in case you have not noticed, the DSLR market could do with some innovation at the moment. When pentax decides to make something that has a noticeable superiority of design then I'm sure LL will be ready to give it a good review.
I don't see the problem,..why are all the pentax people SO defensive and insecure, such that ONLY a rave review (of an average product) will suffice?
As regards the 'auto-horizon' and other such items,..when and where will these 'juicy fleas on an old dog' end? How about an 'auto compose' feature with the rule of thirds superimposed over the subject showing poor positioning of major subject points,...or how about 'suto scene enhancing' with the Eiffel tower in the cameras memory to pop into the shot, or your friends faces,......how about adding the internet to the screen on the back...??
-
Tee Kay, MIchael can speak for himself of course, but my speculation is perhaps that he didn't think the horizon levelling feature was the greatest thing since sliced bread. As a sample of one, it would be very low on my list of priorities for a set of camera features. A feature breakthrough doesn't only require that a feature is "new", but also that it is really significant/important. That's a matter of judgment.
And it is not true that no DSLRs are "bad buys". There are good choices and not so good choices. Again all of this is relative. Did you read my article on this website called Camera Metrics (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/camera-metrics.shtml)? I think this is the way one should think about it. Look at what you pay for a Sony A850 or A900 or a Canon 5DMkii compared with one or two recent Nikon offerings at twice the price and arguably hardly commensurate value-added in terms of features and perhaps perceptible IQ. When I read the feature set of the Pentax K-7, when I read the reviews about its handling and IQ, knowing what I know about the quality of Asahi's optics, I have no problem with the conclusion that both Michael and Mike reached - that it's a fine camera for the price point and will appeal to many customers for that reason.
And "viewfinder", I don't think he said it is an "also-ran". I do, however, think much of the complaining about this review is a tempest in a teapot.
-
TeeKay,..that looks to me like you have just shot down your own argument,...that's the point that Micheal made, namely, that the k7 is simply and 'also ran' just like all the others. Quite adequate but not exemplary.
It is not true that the K-7 is just like any other camera. Please reread my list of unique selling points. If any of these are important then the K-7 may not be "exemplary" in an absolute sense but your only/best choice.
I don't see the problem,..why are all the pentax people SO defensive and insecure, such that ONLY a rave review (of an average product) will suffice?
Why do you accuse me of being defensive and insecure only because I criticise the level of rigour/enthusiasm that apparently went into this "hands-on report" and its write up? Obviously the hands-on could have reported on a number of unique points of the K-7 but chose not to. I (and many others) don't know why not.
If Michael had written that the K-7 is unacceptable due sub-par dynamic range and sub-par high ISO noise performance and gave it a "Not Good Enough" I would not be in a position to fault him for that. But he didn't take issue with the sensor / noise reduction philosophy. He said the K-7 did not have any unique selling point. Which is factually wrong.
Tee Kay, MIchael can speak for himself of course, but my speculation is perhaps that he didn't think the horizon levelling feature was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Now that's absolutely fine. However, as a reader should I not be in a position to make my own mind up whether I find such a feature important or not? Is a review/report not pretty useless if it only works for you if your are the author yourself or happen to have the same preferences as the author? The problem is, as a reader of Michael's reports you don't even know whether you have the same preferences as him since he doesn't tell you about the electronic horizon and that he thinks it is unimportant.
If Michael had written "The K-7 comes with an electronic horizon and optional automatic horizon correction but I don't think these are important feature because this is how I make sure I avoid crooked horizons in the field: ... and it works far better for me." then I would have been completely happy (regarding this particular unique selling point).
Of course, Michael and anyone else is entitled to be underwhelmed by the K-7!
I would just like to see that this being underwhelmed happened for the right reasons (did he explicitly consider all unique selling points before stating there are none?) and that a reader can make up their own mind whether or not there are important unique selling points instead of just taking someone's word for it with whom they may or may not share the same preferences.
Did you read my article on this website called Camera Metrics (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/camera-metrics.shtml)?
No, not yet, but I will. Thank you very much for the pointer.
-
I think many of the people posting on this topic do not understand Michael's type of review. If you would think of it as a "road test" then you would understand what Michael was trying to say. Most of the reviews of digital cameras on the net are so loaded with, for me at least, too much of what I don't want to know and very little of what I do want to know. That is why Michael's type of review/road test is so much more valuable.
For what it is worth, I live in a major metropolitan area and I did two searches at the two major photography stores in the area Service Photo and Penn Photo and neither carried a Pentax dslr. The second search on the Pentax website by zipcode did list a store - Sam's Club, a noted photography emporium with "Always low prices" but a lack of people who know what you are interested in purchasing. Like most big box stores that sell laser printers they have only one brand - HP.
I have nothing against Pentax, I own and still use my Honeywell Pentax ( yes I know a film camera, but I bought it new probably before many of you were born) and while I would consider buying a Pentax DSLR, I would want to handle it and talk with a sales person who could answer my questions.
So what am I to do? Well, I will keep using my current camera and when I am ready to purchase a DSLR I will go to the local dealer and look very carefully at both the Canon and Nikon offerings, and, if they have any the Sony DSLR.
Jay
-
I think many of the people posting on this topic do not understand Michael's type of review. If you would think of it as a "road test" then you would understand what Michael was trying to say.
That's not the issue for me at all.
What would you think of a "road test" for a new car which automatically parks in a parking space but the "road tester" never tries or mentions this feature (perhaps because it is of not interest to him/her personally)? Instead the "road tester" says the car has no unique selling point even if there is no other car doing that? Is that OK just because it is a "road test" as opposed to a "review"?
So what am I to do?
Perhaps read a good "hands on" report? For that to work, however, the report should try to enable you to evaluate the product for yourself rather than just communicating a personal opinion that apparently was formed in a very short exposure to the product, the latter apparently not fitting the usual requirements of the road tester. If you know the road tester very well, you'll know what to make of the road test. If not, then you may be misinformed.
I realize that all the reviews and reports in the world are not substitute for handling a camera in a shop but the situation you describe makes it all the more important that sources on the internet are useful and reliable.
-
That's not the issue for me at all.
What would you think of a "road test" for a new car which automatically parks in a parking space but the "road tester" never tries or mentions this feature (perhaps because it is of not interest to him/her personally)? Instead the "road tester" says the car has no unique selling point even if there is no other car doing that? Is that OK just because it is a "road test" as opposed to a "review"?
Perhaps read a good "hands on" report? For that to work, however, the report should try to enable you to evaluate the product for yourself rather than just communicating a personal opinion that apparently was formed in a very short exposure to the product, the latter apparently not fitting the usual requirements of the road tester. If you know the road tester very well, you'll know what to make of the road test. If not, then you may be misinformed.
I realize that all the reviews and reports in the world are not substitute for handling a camera in a shop but the situation you describe makes it all the more important that sources on the internet are useful and reliable.
It isn't a review of every feature. It is a report on how it was used. You can either assume he didn't use that feature or didn't care. The net is the same. The consumer can look all the features up for themselves. If there is one they really want (and I have a hard time imaging anyone caring about the one that has already been mentioned) they can hunt down a review that discusses it.
That said, I'm sure MR will take your criticisms to heart and ask for all 10,000 color options for the Kx should pentax send him one for review. I'd hate to think of a Pentax user who is unsure if the teal version will match their murse.
-
Pentax used to be an innovator and, in case you have not noticed, the DSLR market could do with some innovation at the moment. When pentax decides to make something that has a noticeable superiority of design then I'm sure LL will be ready to give it a good review.
I don't see the problem,..why are all the pentax people SO defensive and insecure, such that ONLY a rave review (of an average product) will suffice?
The K7 is innovative and it offers many features, including weather sealing and cold weather performance, at a lower price point than the competition.
LL offers regular trips to Antarctica...which camera manufacturer guarantees performance in cold weather? Hmm...how many Canons have failed on those trips over the years? Weather sealing, cold weather performance, inbody IS, excellent VF, low price point...nope no innovation here!
Pray tell us defensive and insecure Pentax people which other "average" camera offers so much?
-
This is my last post on this topic, because I think the subject has been well-aired and nearing exhaustion. Several summary observations come to mind reading all these points of view.
(1) There are different kinds of reviews, and depending on the kind of review it is, reviewing every detail may be more or less important.
(2) What you get from a Michael Reichmann review is how a very experienced professional finds the overall handling and performance of the camera in real-world photography, and what he sees as distinguishing it - or not - *in important ways* from its peers. If you think his experience and judgment is worth anything, you'd appreciate having this kind of contribution a mouse-click away; if you don't, well you don't.
(3) He never said the camera isn't good value for the money - in fact he did, if not in exactly those words. But regardless of what HE says about that, we as individual consumers with our individual likes and dislikes, needs versus desires, and deep or shallow pockets, need to make that determination; the review is only an assist.
(4) I have always found brand loyalty a curious phenominon. I really have none and I'm grateful for that. I like things that perform and meet my needs at a price point I can afford. I don't care who manufactures it. And this is all the more *a propos* when you consider that no one brand of anything has everything. I also consider service an important component of the brand, and the little I've seen of Pentax leaves me cold.
(5) In that vein, at some point we have to ask ourselves some questions about what makes companies tick and some more prominent and successful than others. As mentioned in one of the posts above, why should it be so hard to find and test a Pentax, when Nikon and Canon are all over the place? This isn't an issue of "natural justice" or "underdogs", it's a story about corporate policy and strategy, which pervades everything from marketing through to service - making and selling cameras isn't only about features and technical quality. I'd like to see more of that angle covered in reviews, but it's a very difficult thing to do because reviewers don't have the data to do it reliably. That's just a limitation we'll live with, but it means we need to keep our eyes and ears open about the company behind the product before we buy.
-
Pentax fans that I've heard from have all stressed the weather proofing aspect. That's fine, but there are other weather proofed cameras that I wouldn't use on a bet because of their poor ergonomics. Weather sealing is only one aspect of a camera's overall gestalt.
Then there are the cameras that make no weather sealing claims, but which do the job just fine. I've worked in two recent heavy rains with the Leica M9 over the past couple of weeks and had no problems whatsoever. Leica makes no weather sealing claims, and never has for the M series.
One needs to get beyond the marketing hype and see cameras for what they are – complex machines that need to meet a variety of different user's differing needs.
I report on things as I find them. I mostly report on my own take, but try and put myself in the mindset of probable users as well. But in the end if I'm underwhelmed by a product, as I was with the K7, I simply have to say so.
Michael
-
But in the end if I'm underwhelmed by a product, as I was with the K7, I simply have to say so.
So you did look at all these unique selling points and found them to be unimportant?
- Availability of the Limited lenses
(elsewhere your site praises these a lot; your hands-on ignores the fact that the K-7 is the best camera to use them)
- Access to millions of old Pentax lenses
- Electronic horizon (correction)
(how many of use have to frequently correct crooked horizons in PP?
This feature is a godsend for people like me.)
- Rotational shake correction
(try asking Canon/Nikon to implement that...
you might be a tripod user only, but not everyone is)
- Composition adjustment feature
(this is for tripod users...)
- Cold resistant (to 14° F or -10° C)
(any other manufacturer guranteeing that?)
- Hyperprogramme shooting mode
And even though you try to put yourself in the position of a photography working with a limited budget, the whole package offered by the K-7 -- even though it doesn't excel in individual disciplines -- does not represent a unique value for money offering for you (if one can live with some of the limitations that other models, typically costing at least x 1.5 do not have)?
This is just to clarify. Thank you very much in advance for responding.
-
And even though you try to put yourself in the position of a photography working with a limited budget, the whole package offered by the K-7 -- even though it doesn't excel in individual disciplines -- does not represent a unique value for money offering for you (if one can live with some of the limitations that other models, typically costing at least x 1.5 do not have)?
This is just to clarify. Thank you very much in advance for responding.
Michael has his opinion, and when reading one of his reviews, that's the opinion I would like to hear. Other reviewers have other opinions. Add that to the available specifications, and your own hands-on-experience at a store, and you should be able to make your own opinion about the camera.
If you already own the camera, then Michael's opnion does not really matter, unless it makes you feel that you bought the wrong camera.
I own the K7 myself. A great camera, but with some apparent shortcomings.
Kind regards
Thomas
-
I'd like to hear of readers' experience getting service from Pentax. The very limited scope of what I wanted from Pentax Canada was left totally unanswered after several polite attempts, which makes me wonder whether they even have a support facility in business here.
-
I'd like to hear of readers' experience getting service from Pentax. The very limited scope of what I wanted from Pentax Canada was left totally unanswered after several polite attempts, which makes me wonder whether they even have a support facility in business here.
Well, I had to contact them once here in Germany before and after they disbanded their subsidiary (this summer) and out-sourced the maintenance area to a company which until then was specialized in repairing and maintaining Canon gear. Everything else is now conducted by the European headquarters in Paris.
I had bought a DA* 55/1.4 which back focused on my K10D. I established contact via email with an official member of staff before the closure. He answered after a day or two, if I remember correctly. At least I wasn't put off then. It became difficult afterwards because at some point (presumably after the disbanding) because I didn't get any answers to my remaining questions. I did use the official email adress (dunno, info@ or some such, the one listed on their website).
In the end I called the official support number and got the new contractor firm. I was advised that repairs could take some time (technicians still had some training on Pentax gear to do), 3 to 4 weeks. In the end it took about 8 weeks and I wasn't updated on the current status. Called myself to get an update. Lens still misfocuses occasionally but I'm not going to resend it. Don't want to be without camera again for such a long period (mind you I don't make a living by my photography, it's purely for enjoyment and hobby (can't afford a second body. Well, maybe now that the K7 is out prices on used bodies might be low enough, who knows)).
Prior to the disbandment of the official German branch it had a very good standing with the community, repairs seem to have been done fast and well, almost no complains. I have not tried to contact them since I've got my lens back.
Oh, by the way, (can't resist ), Mr. Reichman's article on the K10D on LL was the tipping point of the scales in favor of mine buying the K10D instead of the Nikon D80 (well, and the fact that its body fits my hand better and the K10D was more affordable). Have not had the chance to hold a K7 but from the pictures it might be too small for my hand. Will try it out though. Size matters if you have big hands
-
Just dropped by to see whether Michael added any further response.
Unfortunately he hasn't responded to any of the concrete questions I posed after his last post. Well, that leaves me "underwhelmed" not only by his "hands on" (aka "blogger opinion piece") but more so by his (lack of) response to criticism.
I read his articles about the Sony A900 and in the latter's case it was just fine to "not [be] the king of any one hill" whereas in the K-7's case that means that there is something wrong with the camera. I too can get more excited about a Sony A900 compared to a K-7 (though that may not even be the case for others, say street photographers) but that's not the point.
It is totally fine for Michael to have different standards for different cameras and be underwhelmed by a camera that is one or two categories below his usually gear but to handle it like he did in his "hands-on" IMO demotes his site to a personal blog as opposed to a trustworthy source of information.
-
You can't expect everyone to like or appreciate something in the same way as yourself. If you like it then use it, why the need for internet affirmation?
-
demotes his site to a personal blog as opposed to a trustworthy source of information. ..
*******
This from a person who "joined" after this thread went up and only comments on the K7???
Steve
-
Unfortunately he hasn't responded to any of the concrete questions I posed after his last post. Well, that leaves me "underwhelmed" not only by his "hands on" (aka "blogger opinion piece") but more so by his (lack of) response to criticism.
................................................ IMO demotes his site to a personal blog as opposed to a trustworthy source of information.
Maybe he didn't respond because perhaps he thinks your criticism isn't worth the bandwidth it occupies.
This website is recognized world-wide as one of the very best reference resources on the internet about photography in general and digital imaging in particular. It has thousands of pages of very useful content - provided to the world free of charge to users. How you can dismiss this whole enterprise as untrustworthy simply because you don't like the review of one camera defies reason and any sense of proportion.