This is a camera where many of its key features are not easy to list on a checksheet: improved AF, improved ISO (51200!), Pentax ergonomics (DPReview calls Pentax ergonomic design: "up there with the very best in its class".) Really needs some hands-on to get a feel for what it can do.
It's a great camera and I'll be pre-ordering it. Unfortunately, the MSRP is a mistake. It's $400 above the virtually identically featured Nikon D7000. Pentax's strong point has been providing feature rich cameras that undercut the competition. No matter how capable the camera, I don't know how this pricing strategy will work out for Pentax.
It's a great camera and I'll be pre-ordering it. Unfortunately, the MSRP is a mistake. It's $400 above the virtually identically featured Nikon D7000. Pentax's strong point has been providing feature rich cameras that undercut the competition. No matter how capable the camera, I don't know how this pricing strategy will work out for Pentax.
Is the D7000 weather sealed? Can't seem to find details on that anywhere.
Regardless, I'm more likely to pick up the new 18-135 WR now, and the K5 down the road. Will be very glad to see better high-ISO results and hopefully much more accurate, faster AF.
I thought it was but guess not. That's a plus for Pentax but then the Nikon has 39 AF points. Kind of a wash which then brings it down to price..
EDIT-
I take that back- it does have weather sealing per Nikon's website:
Compact but durable with magnesium-alloy top and rear covers, superior weather and dust seals and a 150,000 cycle-rated shutter system providing reliable operation
I will wait for any decisions to replace my K-7 with the K-5 after we see production shots at all ISO's and the price comes down.
I'm in a similar position - have a K200D, and while I enjoyed using the K-7 in the store, and the ergonomics are spot-on, there wasn't the leap in image quality I was looking for to justify the purchase. Instead I spent the money on glass. I'll be lining up to buy a K5 so long as the AF is much more crisp and 1600-6400 ISO are usable.
Pentax always has superior ergonomics and features... if they'd just go full frame.... I can't imagine ISO 51200 on a 1.6x.
I'd buy a full frame Pentax in a heartbeat over any canon or nikon
FF gets discussed ad nauseum over at Pentaxforums.com.
Quite frankly, Pentax's current lens line up strongly favors APS-C.
However, I am surprised that Pentax hasn't jumped on the EVIL/ILC bandwagon yet. They are known for making high quality, small sized lenses that would compliment an EVIL nicely. In fact, the DA40 pancake was, last I checked, one of the highest rated lenses over at PF.
That sensor is %68 larger... quite a jump if you ask me. The problem I have with it is the 4/3 ratio... compared to 2:3 and 4:5, barely any frames or even print services offer that ratio
That sensor is %68 larger... quite a jump if you ask me. The problem I have with it is the 4/3 ratio... compared to 2:3 and 4:5, barely any frames or even print services offer that ratio
It is larger, but not full medium format 645. As you can see from the relative imager sizes it's just not a giant leap over the FF 135 format, but it's not a tremendous price premium over the costliest 135 format dSLRs. I'm saying the Pentax 645D is a pretty good consideration and good compromise versus 135 format
The 3:4 aspect ratio will derive an 8" x 10" and an 11" x "14 pretty efficiently, I believe much more efficiently than a 2:3/4:6 ratio sensor. Plus if you "must" crop a portrait orientation from the 3:4 aspect ratio capture in landscape orientation you preserve much more detail than 4:6 ratio chips in the same circumstance.
It is larger, but not full medium format 645. As you can see from the relative imager sizes it's just not a giant leap over the FF 135 format, but it's not a tremendous price premium over the costliest 135 format dSLRs. I'm saying the Pentax 645D is a pretty good consideration and good compromise versus 135 format
The 3:4 aspect ratio will derive an 8" x 10" and an 11" x "14 pretty efficiently, I believe much more efficiently than a 2:3/4:6 ratio sensor. Plus if you "must" crop a portrait orientation from the 3:4 aspect ratio capture in landscape orientation you preserve much more detail than 4:6 ratio chips in the same circumstance.
Yeah, I do see what you mean... the 8x10 and 11x14 do crop very well inside the 3:4 ratio. The main problem I have is that from a 3:4 camera you're cropping almost EVERYTHING to fit another frame or print size, except the rare few offered print/frame sizes in 3:4. I do see some printing companies now starting to offer smaller 3:4 ratios, but you know it really isn't that popular when the only available print sizes among Smugmug's Bay Photo, EZ Prints and a local Burrell printing company here are 12x16, and 30x40.
I'd personally rather have 2:3 for the rest of the printing/available frames that are around. I still wonder from time to time where and who the hell standardized 11x14, its such an odd size
I'm in a similar position - have a K200D, and while I enjoyed using the K-7 in the store, and the ergonomics are spot-on, there wasn't the leap in image quality I was looking for to justify the purchase. Instead I spent the money on glass. I'll be lining up to buy a K5 so long as the AF is much more crisp and 1600-6400 ISO are usable. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif" border="0" alt="" >
Anything is better than your K200D as far as ISO goes; even the K20d is quite a bit better. I have the K-x and it is far superior to the K200D in regards to ISO so perhaps the k-5 will be a worthy upgrade minus the price. It should drop in six months.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Anything is better than your K200D as far as ISO goes; even the K20d is quite a bit better. I have the K-x and it is far superior to the K200D in regards to ISO so perhaps the k-5 will be a worthy upgrade minus the price. It should drop in six months.<o:p></o:p>
I know - the K20D was already out when I bought the K200D, bu it was my first SLR, hard to justify the $$.
Good to see that Pentax has lifted even if its only in small steps.The 51200 ISO is great ,now you can shoot up to 3200 ISO with faith that it will be usable.Still have a soft spot as I still own a K20D
Comments
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Blog: http://blog.scolephoto.com
Is the D7000 weather sealed? Can't seem to find details on that anywhere.
Regardless, I'm more likely to pick up the new 18-135 WR now, and the K5 down the road. Will be very glad to see better high-ISO results and hopefully much more accurate, faster AF.
EDIT-
I take that back- it does have weather sealing per Nikon's website:
Blog: http://blog.scolephoto.com
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
My Flickr
I'm in a similar position - have a K200D, and while I enjoyed using the K-7 in the store, and the ergonomics are spot-on, there wasn't the leap in image quality I was looking for to justify the purchase. Instead I spent the money on glass. I'll be lining up to buy a K5 so long as the AF is much more crisp and 1600-6400 ISO are usable.
I'd buy a full frame Pentax in a heartbeat over any canon or nikon
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=168836
Prices were just announced and, at around $10,000USD, it's well positioned against FF 135 cameras like the Canon 1Ds MKIII and the Nikon D3x.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
FF gets discussed ad nauseum over at Pentaxforums.com.
Quite frankly, Pentax's current lens line up strongly favors APS-C.
However, I am surprised that Pentax hasn't jumped on the EVIL/ILC bandwagon yet. They are known for making high quality, small sized lenses that would compliment an EVIL nicely. In fact, the DA40 pancake was, last I checked, one of the highest rated lenses over at PF.
It is larger, but not full medium format 645. As you can see from the relative imager sizes it's just not a giant leap over the FF 135 format, but it's not a tremendous price premium over the costliest 135 format dSLRs. I'm saying the Pentax 645D is a pretty good consideration and good compromise versus 135 format
The 3:4 aspect ratio will derive an 8" x 10" and an 11" x "14 pretty efficiently, I believe much more efficiently than a 2:3/4:6 ratio sensor. Plus if you "must" crop a portrait orientation from the 3:4 aspect ratio capture in landscape orientation you preserve much more detail than 4:6 ratio chips in the same circumstance.
Check out the crop comparisons on this page:
http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/aspect-ratio.html
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Yeah, I do see what you mean... the 8x10 and 11x14 do crop very well inside the 3:4 ratio. The main problem I have is that from a 3:4 camera you're cropping almost EVERYTHING to fit another frame or print size, except the rare few offered print/frame sizes in 3:4. I do see some printing companies now starting to offer smaller 3:4 ratios, but you know it really isn't that popular when the only available print sizes among Smugmug's Bay Photo, EZ Prints and a local Burrell printing company here are 12x16, and 30x40.
I'd personally rather have 2:3 for the rest of the printing/available frames that are around. I still wonder from time to time where and who the hell standardized 11x14, its such an odd size
Pics Here
I am thinking that the 25,600 is better than the K-7's 6400 at this point. It is looking good so far.
My Flickr
Anything is better than your K200D as far as ISO goes; even the K20d is quite a bit better. I have the K-x and it is far superior to the K200D in regards to ISO so perhaps the k-5 will be a worthy upgrade minus the price. It should drop in six months.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
I know - the K20D was already out when I bought the K200D, bu it was my first SLR, hard to justify the $$.
I won't go without top LCD and weather sealing, so by the time the K-5 gets near USD 1000 I'll be ready to go. <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif" border="0" alt="" >
cheers