Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 21, 2009, 8:06 AM   #31
Senior Member
bigdawg's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Thach Alabama
Posts: 14,981

Originally Posted by mtngal View Post
Well, big dawg, some of us ARE 5' tall and have small hands!

That's one of the good things about the battery grips - it helps people who have bigger hands. I tried one when the K10 first came out and a Pentax rep happened to be at my local camera store. Like Penolta, I quickly came to the conclusion just handling his display set-up that there was no way I could deal with one and still focus/operate a zoom. I think that was the time he also showed me the 540 flash - which I promptly bought.
My wife is 4'10 and she cannot handle the K10D..For her I gave her my DX6490 which has a 10X zoom and is light enough for her to shoot one handed while she beats me up with the other hand...LOL
Big Dawg
bigdawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2009, 8:08 AM   #32
Senior Member
DMJJR's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 907

Just got my K20D for half the price of the new K7-no interest at all in the video-can't believe it would be worth double the cost of the K20D
DMJJR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2009, 8:43 AM   #33
Senior Member
bilybianca's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,425

I'm not the least interested in the video feature either. Apparently very few of us are. Is it simply a question of old dogs and new tricks? Or are all the camera makers meeting an unexisting demand?
Besides of that, it seems like Pentax have asked themselves "What would Kjell like?" and made a camera to meet my wishes. Smaller, all metal, enhanced dynamic range and high ISO performance. Full backwards compatibility.
But I won't buy it. I bought the K20D before the price had started falling, but still just a little more than a year ago. It's far from worn, and what was the best just recently is good enough for me now. I'll just drool and get the K8D, or maybe the K7D Super in two years time or so.

bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2009, 8:55 AM   #34
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,528

Originally Posted by bilybianca View Post
I'm not the least interested in the video feature either. Apparently very few of us are. Is it simply a question of old dogs and new tricks? Or are all the camera makers meeting an unexisting demand?
It's an interesting question. I think there are 2 markets driving this:
1) Photojournalist. This one was a surprise to me but I now understand it. More and more newspapers and media outlets are putting video on websites. At the same time, there is more and more staff cutbacks. Having a DSLR that can do video apparently makes a lot of sense to photojournalists for this purpose.

2) bigger reason - the digicam crowd. This drove the megapixel race, then the superzoom (18-200 type) lens concept, then liveview and now video. People have been conditioned to expect all-in-one solutions. The "i can do video with my digicam, why not a DSLR" is a question a huge number of digicam users have. It's the new megapixel race over again. Imagine someone releasing an 8mp DSLR now - even if dynamic range, high iso and overal IQ were a quantum leap ahead. It would fail because of marketing associated with megapixels.

In all, I don't see video as a bad thing. The price of the K-7 is competitive. Even without video if the camera were to deliver on the spec sheet that price is a reasonable price point compared to the competition. Better dynamic range, high iso performance and focus performance equal to the competition's prosumer DSLRs is no small feat. What's good to see is Pentax gave some other important features in addition to the video. Now it's just a matter of - does the real-world results live up to the promise of the spec sheet.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2009, 9:10 AM   #35
Senior Member
Wingman's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Hebron, Kentucky (northern Kentucky/Greater Cincinnati):KCVG
Posts: 4,295

The dialog has been very interseting and insightful. All in all, most appear to be eager to see if the actual IQ and performance lives up to the spec sheet.

As for me, with the K20D + a recently acquired K10D in my stable, I think at the present time, my choice would be to spend the money on a DA*300 f/4 lens. As I seem to recall the late Herb Kepler saying (paraphrased), bodies come and go, but good glass is forever!
Wingman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2009, 9:38 AM   #36
Senior Member
Monza76's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,073

Okay, sober second thought time. Do I need video, no... Do I need faster auto focus, not really, but it would be nice... Do I need a tougher body, no... Do I need the new metering system, no... Do I need 5.2 fps, no (I rarely shoot continuously anyway)...

What I really need is a K20D (much more affordable). Do I need a K7, no... Do I want a K7, hell yes!!!

I can now get a K20D for half the price of a K7, the difference is too much for me to ignore.

Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2009, 10:03 AM   #37
Senior Member
bahadir's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263

Noticeably faster frame rate, the built in AF assist light for low light scenarios, an updated sensor with 4-channel data readout supposed to yield lower noise and an improved 77 segment exposure metering are attractive enough for me If only the sync flash speed was improved to 1/250'' or sth...
Anyway, it is the on board HDR capability which excited me greatly also! I will be disappointed perhaps, considering dedicated raw conversion and noise removal softwares being superior always! After all, we apply different tone mapping settings almost for each job. Hope I prove to be wrong : ) Then, I will happily be one of these early adopters!
bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2009, 11:13 AM   #38
Senior Member
penolta's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206

There is a lot of rationalizing going on here. Do I myself need some of those features? No. Except for faster focusing, etc. for bird photography, no. Except for HDR. Except for . . . . But would they be nice to have, yes. Let's face it - we only live once. Even if you don't need it, but want it, and can afford it, do it! Don't need video? What happens if you are out and a tornado pops up, or you witness an airplane crash? Would you rather have a still or a movie clip that would provide more valuable information for somebody - you would miss a once in a lifetime opportunity. Just look at what is being done with cell phone cameras - nearly everyone with one is positioned to get grainy, jerky movie clips on the evening TV news of some newsworthy event - even some network reporters use them from far-away places - and this camera one hopes should do better than the X70. Only one such experience could justify having it available (unless, of course, you carry one of those do-everything cell phones . . . . ).
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2009, 11:39 AM   #39
h7edge's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 45

Adding video seems to "cheap'n" the camera to me. Not sure why Pentax did this... thought maybe to get more of the PS crowd but for the price I doubt it. Maybe its simply because they can put video on it lol. I am curious to know what the quality of the video would be like. I would take one for Christmas Even now I have a PS (that does video) that is small and fits in my pocket for those ocassions where I just can't have a larger DSLR at and there are some good quality video cameras that are inexpensive that can be kept in the camera bag and doesn't take up much space. I really don't get it but I do like all the other specs! (except the price)
h7edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2009, 2:37 PM   #40
Senior Member
mtngal's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,004

I think that JohnG pretty much said it all - the manufacturers need something to say "buy this new camera" and they've finally reached the end of the megapixel wars (until someone develops a radically different way of building sensors). Video has become the next cool thing and if it sells cameras, why not? I certainly would never NOT buy a camera because it has video (it wouldn't be a reason TO buy it though).

How many times have you read, "don't buy such-and-such camera, it's been out for 2 years and is getting obsolete" and "wait for next month, so-and-so is coming out with a new super cool camera" even though such-and-such camera can take awesome pictures? Each of these cameras have to have something that will make them super-cool, rather than just including the same features.

Pentax may have hit a home-run with this camera (I hope so). The specs indicate that it offers something for everyone - the video which a number of camera manufacturers are pushing as the "must-have, super-cool new feature" selling point (and which appears to be better than some of the competition) which will make a number of super-zoom users happy, along with a number of desirable upgrades for the Pentax faithful, giving them a reason to hand over more money to Pentax (and help keep them in business). That's great - Pentax keeps the faithful happy and bring in new people, a winning combination.

Now lets hope that the camera delivers.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:35 PM.