DPR review of K-7

Tom C cakaltm at gmail.com
Sat Oct 3 21:12:15 EDT 2009


Yeah, as much as I've given reasons for not getting a K-7, I still
might.  If the exposure control control was much improved that could
make me happy for a while... and if I can sell a couple of items on
e-bay, as Paul suggests, it could make it less of a hit.

Let's see... if I order it Monday with expedited shipping so that it
arrives on Wednesday when she's gone for the day... it'll be just like
getting the K20D.  It looks like the *istD to her and in her mind it
is. :-)


On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Jack Davis <jdavisf8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Might matter to a hammer handed "semi pro" (K-7 has now been so designated) who, weather and other conditioned be damned, MUST get the shot.
> This situation fits, maybe..two struggling beginning "pros."(?)
>
> Jack
>
> --- On Sat, 10/3/09, Tom C <cakaltm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Tom C <cakaltm at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: DPR review of K-7
>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml at pdml.net>
>> Date: Saturday, October 3, 2009, 1:34 PM
>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Adam
>> Maas <adam at mawz.ca>
>> wrote:
>> > I'd tend to agree with them if it wasn't for the
>> pricing. Oh, and the
>> > performance hit and lower build quality. If the 5DmII
>> was 5fps and had
>> > AF comparable to the A900 or was cheaper than either
>> I'd say it was a
>> > better value. Right now it's more expensive here in
>> Canada (same price
>> > in the US according to B&H) and is pretty much
>> unobtanium to boot
>> > which changes the value proposition.
>> >
>> > --
>> > M. Adam Maas
>>
>> Is 'build quality' that much of a factor if one only
>> realistically
>> uses the camera for 2 - 3 years before upgrading to the
>> newest and
>> latest.  Build quality is desirable, I'm sure no one
>> would argue that,
>> but I wonder.  Different body types, magnesium vs. a
>> steel & plastic
>> body, weather sealing.  There's no doubt there may be
>> advantages, but
>> at what cost to the end consumer, and if the camera only
>> sees 2 - 3
>> years of use, was that extra expense of sufficient benefit,
>> or does it
>> merely serve to gratify that materialistic side of our
>> egos?  Hey I
>> like a quality product just as much as the rest of us.
>>
>> Back in film days where one might plan on using the same
>> camera for 5,
>> 10, 15 years, I think build quality was a larger
>> factor.  Today if any
>> camera I owned suffered a catastrophe sufficent to require
>> repair I'd
>> probably junk it in favor of a newer model.
>>
>> I know the Mark II supposedly does not have weather sealing
>> that
>> matches some competitors, but how often will I be actually
>> need that
>> weather sealing?  If I was standing taking pictures in
>> the pooring
>> rain, I'd be providing some kind of protection to the
>> camera and lens
>> anyway.
>>
>> Since you've used the Mark II, was there anything specific
>> about build
>> quality that was not up to par or even better than the
>> average DSLR?
>> The lower frame rate is fine since I'm not shooting action,
>> and even a
>> slower AF than some, is not a big deal for the same
>> reason.  I'm
>> largely looking at it for general landscape photography,
>> large
>> enlargements, and specifically for night/astrophotography
>> and the
>> automation add-ons Canon has for that.
>>
>> Not being argumentative, just thinking out loud and
>> thinking that
>> because of the short life cycle of digital products, maybe
>> our
>> parameters for measuring them should also be changing.
>>
>> It's almost getting to be like: Do I use the quadruple
>> quilted toilet
>> paper to wipe my butt or do I go for the cheaper stuff,
>> because it's
>> all going to get flushed anyway?  Not that any of this
>> is cheap.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML at pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
>> directly above and follow the directions.
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML at pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
>




More information about the PDML mailing list