Pentax K-x a success story for Pentax.

[yvon_bourque1]

<p>As it turns out, the introduction of the Pentax <strong><em>K-x</em></strong> is a great success for Pentax. There are no other Entry-level cameras, at the same price bracket, that surpasses the <strong><em>K-x</em></strong>. The image quality is better than any previous Pentax dslrs, period. <br /><br />The only annoying point is, in my opinion, that you can't see the little square red dot overlaid on the AF point. This makes me focus in the center and if needed, recompose.<br /><br />As I wrote once before, a <strong><em>K-7x</em></strong> would suit me just fine. That would be a <em><strong>K-7</strong></em> with the Sony 12.4MP CMOS sensor. At 240 dpi*, a file printed at 11" x 14" is equivalent to 8.87MP. (240x11)x(240x14)=8,870,400 pixels. A 13" x 17" print, at the same dpi requires 17.7MP (That is the standard size of large inkjet printers). Really, how many times do you print larger?<br />Back to the qualities of the K-x, it took me longer to write the K-x e-book than any of the previous Pentax models such as the <em><strong>K10D</strong></em>, <em><strong>K20D</strong></em> and the <em><strong>K-7</strong></em>. Why? Because there are more functions embedded within screen menus than actual dedicated buttons. Also, since this camera was target to the entry-level photographers, I toned down on the technical stuff and explained everything in laymen terms and included more color pictures and illustration.<br /><br />I got a <strong><em>K-x</em></strong> as a back-up for my <em><strong>K-7</strong></em> and I find myself using it more than the <em><strong>K-7</strong></em>, except for special situations.<br /><br />Did you get the <strong><em>K-x</em></strong>? What do you think?<br>

<br /><em>* 240 dpi is considered correct for printing on an inkjet printer. Some may say that 300 dpi is, but the ink dots can only be so small. Higher resolution only makes you printer interpolate down.</em></p>

[davidmantilla]

<p>Yvon,<br>

I don't have a k-x (yet), just a k10D. I've been contemplating getting a second camera body, thinking of the k-7, primarily because I am not happy with the noise at 800-1600ISO on the k10D. I have heard good things about the k-x, especially abou the good noise control, and am very tempted to get one (k-x, that is). (especially when it's half the price of the k-7 at amazon). <br>

Can you share more about how you use the k-x more than the k-7? I've been wanting to do more event photography... (concerts, parties, perhaps even weddings) and think having a second camera body would help avoid switching between lenses... (that or my LBA is slowly becoming a camera-buying itch). Plus, the k-x with my DA limiteds would be a very sweet street photography setup.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>What exactly are the advantages of the K-x over the K-7, apart from the very good high ISO ability of the K-x?</p>

<p>I simply wouldn't consider the K-x because of the lack of control - Not many dedicated buttons, no top screen, no finger wheel, no focus overlay etc. Obviously it's intended for photographers who don't need these things so much, and keeps the size and price down. But if you want fast, good control, the K-7 seems much superior.</p>

[laur1]

<p>It seems to me the consensus everywhere is that the K-x is a great entry level camera with great noise performance at high ISO.<br>

However, as an entry level camera, it's not an alternative to the K-7, although some people intent on bashing the K-7 seem to like to put them against each other with each opportunity they get - I hope that is not where this thread will be going.<br>

As for a K-7x, I expect that now that Pentax is using Sony sensors, that will be a matter of time until we'll see something like that. But I don't think people will be happy with that either - we'd still see those threads titled "K-x vs. K-7x - is the latter worth $600 more?". </p>

[yvon_bourque1]

<p>David and Camus,<br>

The main and best attribute of the <em><strong>K-x</strong></em> is that it produces very little noise at high ISO. The <em><strong>K-7</strong></em> is no doubt a better camera. If you are in a hurry, the <em><strong>K-x</strong></em> is great with all of the scene modes and picture modes. Shooting in poor lit area, the <strong><em>K-x</em></strong> beats the <em><strong>K-7</strong></em> hands down. If you want to make all the decisions as far as aperture, shutter speed, sensitivity, depth of field, etc...the <strong><em>K-7</em></strong> is far better. The bottom line, given the low price, the <strong><em>K-x</em></strong> is a better purchase as your only camera or ideally as your backup camera.<br>

Of course, this is just one man's opinion, but I do have both cameras.</p>

[davidmantilla]

<blockquote>

<p>it's not an alternative to the K-7, although some people intent on bashing the K-7 seem to like to put them against each other with each opportunity they get - I hope that is not where this thread will be going.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I definitely would not want the thread to head in that direction either. I guess what I have been thinking about is, buying a K-x as a backup to my k10d, or making my k10d a backup to a new k-7... I will likely keep thinking about it... in the meantime, it is nice to see so many people happy with the k-x.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>To answer David's question, I think you'll find that K20D or K-7 (pretty close in imaging performance, especially in RAW) significantly improve ISO >800-1600. Despite all the attention that K-x has been getting lately, I think that K20D and K-7 are probably <em>very slightly</em> better <= 1600 in terms of color/detail/dynamic range. The difference is that >1600, K-x doesn't fall off nearly as quickly as the Samsung-sensored K20D and K-7, and is quite impressive, probably the state-of-the-art right now, the best available APS-C D-SLR above ISO 1600 in terms of noise. <br>

Obviously in terms of feature set, K-7 equals or betters the K-x in nearly every regard. There are many reasons I'm not very interested in a K-x, from the pentaprism viewfinder to lack of cable-release connector, lack of available portrait/battery grip, lower-res LCD, etc. If you can live with a camera that is in many ways in terms of build & control inferior to your K10D, the K-x can outperform it in many ways, continuous shooting included.</p>

<p>I will likely be ordering a K-7 very shortly to take advantage of the price drops & the rebates. I know it will just be a matter of time (probably within a year) that Pentax will announce a new up-market body, whether it's K-7 Super, a K-1, a K30D, etc. that will likely improve on K-7's imaging performance...though I don't know now whether it will offer what K-7 does for me--a well-built, full-featured body, that is a 'size down' from the somewhat chunky K10/K20D I have now, probably such that it can also replace my rather long-in-the-tooth *ist DS2 which I continued to use because it is relatively small.</p>

[wpoupore]

<p>Yvon, great to hear you've got the K-x book done. Have you got rid of the annoying copy protection you've used on your other ebooks for this one? I'll be first in line to buy the book if you have. </p>

[dugger]

<p>I am thoroughly and completely satisfied with my K-7 and you'll have to pry my cold dead fingers off of it when the time comes... (hopefully not for a long time)!<br>

Oh, and I just bought your book yesterday Yvon. Thanks!</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>I've been contemplating getting a second camera body, thinking of the k-7, primarily because I am not happy with the noise at 800-1600ISO on the k10D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The K-x has less high ISO noise than the K-7 starting even at ISO800. But if you like K10D's build and viewfinder, the K-x will be a step back. K-x's lack of controls will also slow you down a bit, which may be a problem if you need to make fast adjustments. Also, the K-7 has a quiet faster shutter that is great - once you experience that, the K10D and K-x will sound like stone-age and kindergarten tools. So, the K-7 has more high ISO noise, but makes less noise when taking photos :)<br>

Coming back to high ISO noise, compared to the K10D, both the K-x and the K-7 are great steps forward. There is less difference between the K-x and the K-7 than between the K-7 and the K10D.<br>

Hope this helps</p>

[yvon_bourque1]

<p>Bill Poupore,<br>

Bill, I made the ability of printing the book without the copyright watermarks and set the printing option to high resolution.</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<blockquote>

<p>The K-x has less high ISO noise than the K-7 starting even at ISO800</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is probably true with in-camera JPEGs; the samples I've been seeing left me convinced that there is slightly more noise with K-7 at 800-1600 but also slightly more detail, so I have been imagining this to be sort of a wash, where you could probably tune either to some extent via in-camera settings and during post-processing to get pretty similar results. Anyway, close enough (again, 800-1600) where I don't think the difference should much tip the balance.</p>

[wpoupore]

<p>Fantastic!</p>

[wpoupore]

<p>Yvon,</p>

<p>I mistakenly assumed you meant you had removed the obnoxious copyright watermark from all your ebooks. I just repurchased and downloaded the K20D book only to find that nothing has changed and the "fraudulent copy" watermark is still present on every page whether viewed on screen or printed. It is unfortunate that you continue this practice that reduces the value of your otherwise fine publications.</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>Yvon wrote: <em>* 240 dpi is considered correct for printing on an inkjet printer. Some may say that 300 dpi is, but the ink dots can only be so small. Higher resolution only makes you printer interpolate down.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yvon, If you get your printing done on a Noritsu machine (or similar) you can easily print 150dpi. I've printed photos from my 10MP K10D at 18x24 and they looked great. I agree that the 12.4MP of the K-x sensor are more than enough for almost everyone.</p>

[yvon_bourque1]

<p>Bill,<br>

I guess I will get rid of the copyright watermarks on the K20D book as well. Check back with me on my blog and I will announce when it is ready.<br>

The problem is that there are still some people out there that will copy the book and resell them as their own. Oh well!</p>

 

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>This is probably true with in-camera JPEGs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I meant RAW files with no NR. I think ISO800 is the tipping point. Images still look similar, but examining them at 100%, the K-x seems to be a bit less noisy while the K-7 still has a bit of advantage from its higher resolution.<br>

For me this difference only matters when I use a mirror lens, because that's the only time I push the ISO above 800.</p>

[MattB.Net]

<p>I got the K-x to replace my Olympus e-510. The Olympus is a nice camera when the light is plentiful, but any other time it was very slow to focus and the high ISO performance was not so great.<br>

So I decided to get out of the Olympus camp and get back to Pentax after a long break (I used to shoot with a ME Super in the 80's and early 90's). I'm glad I did!<br>

Pretty much everything on the K-x is superior to the e-510 with one exception, the red dot to tell me which AF point is locked. But after shooting a bit with the K-x I just set it to use the center point and recompose if need be. No trouble now that I'm used to it.<br>

I also like the size and weight better than the Olympus. I was drawn to 4/3rds for the theoretical smaller size and weight. That aspect didn't really happen until Micro 4/3rds came along. I considered a Panasonic M4/3 for a little while but decided to get the Pentax for the fast burst capability, better low light performance, and lens compatibility. I have not been disappointed!</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>Yvon: 'The bottom line, given the low price, the <strong><em>K-x</em></strong> is a better purchase as your only camera '</p>

<p>That's supposing you don't need all the extra abilties of the K-7. It's just a different class.</p>

[renatoa]

<p>And you are ready to sacrifice a better image for those abilities...<br>

I say that because for my eyes, based on Comparometer images from <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/">http://www.imaging-resource.com/</a>, K-x has better IQ at any ISO than K7.</p>

[michael_kuhne]

<p>Exactly right, Camus. While the K-x is a great camera in its own class, and has very desirable imaging qualities, I do not consider it comparable or in the same class as my K20D, nor for that matter, my K200D!! My K200D is a weather-sealed, quiet-operating, compact model with a very high build quality, yet relatively lightweight. It also has fine imaging quality. If I wish to go out in drippy weather but need a compact model, it's the K200D and a WR lens.</p>

<p>But I still like what the K-x does offer, and at a pretty low price. It has great imaging quality. It would be great as a low-light shooter, and for times when I need its ULTRA compact design for even more compact, lightweight carrying with a small lens or three like a set of Limiteds. Ideally, with Limiteds you want excellent imaging but with small, lightweight size. Smaller even and considerably lighter than a K-7 or even a K200D. Sure, some features must be omitted to provide this kind of advantage, but so be it. Nonetheless, it DOES still offer a full set of features- a MLU with the 2 second timer, etc. just not as convenient. Yet it does not and cannot be a replacement for these other more durable cameras. I would much prefer, however, that Pentax do what is necessary to correct the mirror-slap jiggle problem that has been present in some samples of the K-x. <em></em></p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>The only annoying point is, in my opinion, that you can't see the little square red dot overlaid on the AF point. This makes me focus in the center and if needed, recompose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Funny, that's my biggest complaint as well.</p>

[laur1]

<blockquote>

<p>I say that because for my eyes, based on Comparometer images from <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/" target="_blank">http://www.imaging-resource.com/</a> , K-x has better IQ at any ISO than K7.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At any ISO? Not for my eyes.<br>

I'll give K-x its credit starting from 800 in terms of noise, but the K-7 renders more detail up to 800, and arguably even at 1600 - just check the texture of the manequin's jacket on that same site. The K-7 image has more noise in the shadows, but also has more detail. I don't mind noise that much unless it "eats" details.</p>

 

[renatoa]

<p>For me the reference is "Still-life" image, because is the most reproductible.<br>

The Kodak samples patch black border shows clearly more noise for K-7 at ISO 200.<br>

All bottles details are at least at par.</p>

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Which camera would a brick wall prefer?</p>