Pentax Pentax K-7 vs mu43?

J

JoepLX3

Regular
Dear All,

How to compare IQ of potentially the most serious "small sensor" DSLR (with Pentax lenses) to e.g. GF1 with 14-140 mm and 45 mm F2.8?
- Is the only way to try it to try/buy both myself?

Note that I mainly look for out of the camera JPG (and very limited RAW manipulation), so I have no issues with in camera lens corrections of m43 (smart idea) and I need auto focus so putting Pentax lenses on GF1 is not the ultimate comparison either...
- I have read that both mu43 lenses are very good, but F2.8 is not very fast for a portrait prime, but what do I get from 1.4-8 if lens is not good wide open (and that is supposed to be no issue for the 45 mm F2.8).

Who already did this life comparison himself?

Best regards,

Joep

PS: Of course I would like to see more&better m43 lenses as well as GF2 with tiltable EVF, or Pentax join m43...
 
I have both the GF1 and K7, but have never done a side by side comparison of IQ using comparable lenses (don't have comparable lenses). I bought the K7 mainly for its weather resistance to use in rain and snow, as the GF1 was not too happy when I took it out in sub-zero temperatures. I had the Pentax 55mm f1/4 for a short period of time and loved working with it, but I feel the same way about the Lumix 45mm 2.8, although I always wish it was a 2.0. I use the 14-140 for outdoor events where lack of light is not an issue. I take the 20mm 1.7 with me when I shoot at night. I wish Lumix would release a 1.4, or even better a 1.2. What do you shoot mainly?
 
:jacobin:pigeon: said:
I have both the GF1 and K7, but have never done a side by side comparison of IQ using comparable lenses (don't have comparable lenses). I bought the K7 mainly for its weather resistance to use in rain and snow, as the GF1 was not too happy when I took it out in sub-zero temperatures. I had the Pentax 55mm f1/4 for a short period of time and loved working with it, but I feel the same way about the Lumix 45mm 2.8, although I always wish it was a 2.0. I use the 14-140 for outdoor events where lack of light is not an issue. I take the 20mm 1.7 with me when I shoot at night. I wish Lumix would release a 1.4, or even better a 1.2. What do you shoot mainly?
Click to expand...
Thanks for reply

My wife mainly shoots with our LX3, 99% kids photos, indoor as well as outdoor, sometimes with curtural/nature background. We both are very happy with the LX3 performance, but I want something more, especially atmosphere to the resulting pictures. Therefore I am looking into a fast portrait prime to mainly enable the focus screw called depth of field, in combination with learning more about / practizing with composition and in the end probably also the shutter timer as well as external flash usage (addressing shadow / creating high-light). I am also considering the more expensive full tele-range zoom lens, to capture my daughters in action, which will be difficult with fixed focal lens of a prime... (and the 20 mm F1.7 for compactness / brightness work horse)
For one holiday I borrowed a Panasonic bridge camera of my father, but I hardly used it, mainly because it was too big to bring during hikes with two young children. On the other hand I don't use the LX3 myself either, because it "feels" too much like a compact...

Why do you wish the Panasonic 45 mm prime would be 2.0?
Which Pentax zoom lens would be best "competition" to Panasonic 14-140 mm?
 
You will be very pleased with the GF1/20mm for museum pictures and with a polarizer for outdoor shots. I use the 20mm and 45mm extensively in museums (one of the reasons I would prefer the 45mm/2.8 to be a 2.0 or lower). I'm a low light/ambient light shooter, so I rarely use flash. I often crank down the exposure to gain more speed in very low light situations. In RAW, you can bring back the light. M4/3s are prone to blow out highlights, so this is a good practice anyway to at least underexpose by -1/3 The 14-140 weighs a ton, but is well cradled in the left hand for zooming and focusing. I only have the kit lenses for the Pentax (other than my old Pentax lenses), so can't do a direct comparison of zoom lenses. Search 14-140 on my Flickr stream and you can see how I use the lens. You can search my stream for other lenses as well. The 45mm macro's reviews were less than stellar (I have no idea why), but it is optically perfect, with no distortion and is quickly becoming my favourite lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacobinpigeon/
 
:jacobin:pigeon: said:
You will be very pleased with the GF1/20mm for museum pictures and with a polarizer for outdoor shots. I use the 20mm and 45mm extensively in museums (one of the reasons I would prefer the 45mm/2.8 to be a 2.0 or lower). I'm a low light/ambient light shooter, so I rarely use flash. I often crank down the exposure to gain more speed in very low light situations. In RAW, you can bring back the light. M4/3s are prone to blow out highlights, so this is a good practice anyway to at least underexpose by -1/3 The 14-140 weighs a ton, but is well cradled in the left hand for zooming and focusing. I only have the kit lenses for the Pentax (other than my old Pentax lenses), so can't do a direct comparison of zoom lenses. Search 14-140 on my Flickr stream and you can see how I use the lens. You can search my stream for other lenses as well. The 45mm macro's reviews were less than stellar (I have no idea why), but it is optically perfect, with no distortion and is quickly becoming my favourite lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacobinpigeon/
Click to expand...
I scrolled through you collection, but didn't find many real portrait photo's and I actually know from other examples it is for sure possible to do it with the 45 mm prime, but I continue to be curious how it compares to a F < 2 lens (iso 2.8), especially wrt the enhancement to take much more / better pictures with realistic defocus induced blurred background. In other words, is this a reason to go for K-7 or at least not yet buy the native m43 "portrait" prime (manual focus with kids is a no-go for me).

No distortion on native m43 lens is "easy" given in camera software correction. I am actually not against it, out of camera JPG is what typically counts most for me. But given this 14-140 lens is pretty heavy and expensive, on this application I am especially curious to know how well the Pentax full tele range zoom lens is, as good as, or even better than m43 version?

The 20 mm F1.7 is nice to have given brightness and not expensive, so despite no OIS, kind of no-brainer, just get it... (but for me also mainly because of compactness)
 
And another advantage of the K7 over any M43 camera so far ...

4690865515_bf24fa290a_b.jpg


One hopes that the increasingly rumored Pentax mirrorless interchangeable lens compact will be the first with WR construction ...:smile:
 
Back
Top