Camera Labs

Bonsoir,

I would say that the most important part of the camera is the photographer

I'm very happy with my K-7. Yes, it has some drawbacks. But it's a camera I can rely on. With the DA* SDM lenses and a little experience, I get splendid pictures.

Running after the best camera is an endless (and costly ) game, especially when such feature-rich cameras need a learning-curve.

Please check my full user review so you could get the "average user point-of-view"

Best regards,

_________________
--- rei_vilo
Pentax K-5 + BG4 + DA* 16-50 + DA* 50-135 + DA* 60-250 + AF-540FGZ
reivilophotography.weebly.com

I fully agree with pgtips.

The battery grip is close to mandatory. Check here why.

_________________
--- rei_vilo
Pentax K-5 + BG4 + DA* 16-50 + DA* 50-135 + DA* 60-250 + AF-540FGZ
reivilophotography.weebly.com

I've read that review before, and it sort of misses the point. The K-7 is in a class of it's own. It sits above the D90/50D in terms of features and build quality, but it arguably sits below the 7D/D300s in terms of AF and framerate. Perhaps that makes it the middle child, but this is highlighted by the price of the K-7. It's a good £300 cheaper than the D300s or 7D and it's slightly more expensive than the D90. For reviews that "get" the unique selling point of the K-7, have a look at this Leica user's review and this Sony user's perspective.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you come across as being concerned about "sharpness" so let me ask you this question. Are you considering the Canon 7D?
Take a look at the following 3 samples (click the image to view the full resolution image):
Pentax K-7
Nikon D300s
Canon 7D

Look at the texture in the grass in the foreground, the roof of the house, the bricks in the wall, the leaves in the trees. The D300s and K-7 images look detailed and they've retained the texture of the objects. In contrast, see the 7D exhibiting Canon's trademark "noiseless image" where the camera smudges fine detail to achieve a "clean" image. Those guys at IR aren't the only people who have noticed this. This reviewer and this reviewer are a sample of reviewers on the web who have noticed the very same thing. Just do a Google search for Canon 7D sharpness.

Why do I bring up the Canon 7D? Despite this "sharpness" issue, the Canon 7D is still selling very well and is a very good camera. At the end of the day, if you're taking a photograph then pixel level sharpness does not matter regardless of what the forums say! The stuff that forum posters fixate over (sharpness, high iso noise, etc) do not actually matter when it comes to actually publishing your photo whether it is on print or on the web.

I hope this post has been useful. I apologize for the rant, but this fixation with aspects of cameras that don't really matter is what's put me off visiting forums.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

Thanks, please don't be put up off of forums on my account. I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to digital.
My questions are our of inexperience in this area.
I'm just learning about raw files and the like.
I very much appreciate your views, based on your evident experience.

Very helpful indeed.

Brad.

I apologize if it seemed personal. I didn't mean to come down hard on anyone in particular. It's just that this is a rather depressing trend that I've witnessed on forums where about the only things important to a poster is high ISO performance and sharpness.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

Bonjour Brad ,

You're welcome: Q&A are the very essence of a forum

Gordon has published a very nice series of buyers guides:

• budget dSLR
• mid-range dSLR
• semi-pro dSLR

The only problem is that Pentax doesn't let the K-7 to Camera Labs, so it couldn't be included in the list See Why are there no more Pentax reviews?.

About the K-7, feel free to raise any question: I'll try my best to help you.

Best regards,

_________________
--- rei_vilo
Pentax K-5 + BG4 + DA* 16-50 + DA* 50-135 + DA* 60-250 + AF-540FGZ
reivilophotography.weebly.com

In following the links for the 7d posted, I really have been put off of this camera. The image quality is below average compared with even lower level cameras from Canon.
Thanks for pointing this out. I had been looking at this camera.
The new Canon 60d, is just a comsumer model, a big disspointment, doesn't even have lens adjustment.
The Pentax line up, looks more and more better up against the competition.

While I really should encourage you by claiming that Pentax is fantastic, I have to be honest and say that I'm sure the 7D is a great camera and that the forums are blowing things out of proportion as usual. The most likely reason that the 7D's images do not look sharp is because of the very strong anti-aliasing filter and the resulting files will require more sharpening during post processing.

But you are correct that the Pentax line-up is very attractive

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

If the reason for softness is the filter, it still amounts to softness, no matter what the reason.
Like putting a cheap filter on the front of a top rated lens. It rather negates the lens quality, and will require more correction in post.
It would be better, I would think, to get a camera that has the best raw files straight out.
But coming from a film background and being new to DSLR technology, maybe I just haven't understood the technology yet.

thanks for reply.

Brad.

It's not a matter of quality or price. I mention this since you've brought up the example of lens filters.

It's a trade off that camera manufacturers take in order to reduce image artifacts, the so called moire effect. For an example of what happens when you have an strong AA filter vs a weak/non-existent AA filter, have a look at this article. http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm. Note that in the photos without the AA filter may look sharper, but the fine detail end up with artifacts which look very nasty. Camera manufacturers have to make a trade off between sharpness and remove such artifacts.

A slightly softer image can be fixed in post processing. This is no big deal, as most RAW converters support camera profiles where camera specific processing is applied. With such RAW converters, a 7D RAW file will require no additional work compared to a K7 RAW file. On the other hand, an image with artifacts cannot be fixed in PP without spending a lot of time cloning them out.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

Thanks, the link on the AA filter was very interesting. It seems that the ideal camera would have a button for removing the aa filter when it's not needed.

Is there a way of manually removing the aa filter?
As the article points out, the aa filter is not neccessary for most subjects.

The ideal camera would not need an AA filter

You can remove the AA filter, like the guy in the article did. I think you need some serious equipment to do it as the IR and AA filters are stuck together and thus you need some way of separating them without causing damage.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

Bonsoir Philip,

Thank you very much for the interesting link to AA and ICF .

Best regards,

_________________
--- rei_vilo
Pentax K-5 + BG4 + DA* 16-50 + DA* 50-135 + DA* 60-250 + AF-540FGZ
reivilophotography.weebly.com

PG..a question...

I do alot of my shooting in low light.
Using a handheld video cam I found that its ability to brighten or gather light at low light was very good.


How do you find the camera performs on video in lower light conditions?

_________________
Pentax K-5
Pentax 18-55mm,Pentax 50-200mm,Sigma 17-70mm,Sigma 70-300mm, Sigma 50-500mm

I don't do video so I would be the last person to be consulted as an authority on these matters

When you talk about brightening a scene in low light, you can key in adjustments of up to +/- 2EV in 1/3 EV increments. This allows you to brighten or darken the video as you capture it.

The main differences I've found between video and stills (apart from the obvious addition of sound and motion ) is continuous AF doesn't work with video, and you can't set the ISO speed in video mode.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com