Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-16-2010, 06:49 AM   #16
Veteran Member
causey's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,758
Perhaps K-r will surpass K-5 (and K-x) in ISO performance, just as K-x surpassed K-7?

10-16-2010, 06:52 AM   #17
Veteran Member
causey's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,758
QuoteOriginally posted by The_Reasonable_Man Quote
Thanks for sharing these. Wondering whey the very noticable exposure differences, though. KX looks overexposed compared to K5.
K-x tends to overexpose. Depending on the lens, I use, I give it -1 or -1.7 EV compensation.
10-16-2010, 07:44 AM   #18
Veteran Member
Hypocorism's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Melbourne .au
Posts: 623
QuoteOriginally posted by causey Quote
Perhaps K-r will surpass K-5 (and K-x) in ISO performance, just as K-x surpassed K-7?
But how?

Sure the K-r does have some tweaks over K-x; like ISO now expanded to 25600; upped to 6 FPS; Safox IX 11 point man-adj, better HDR etc., but it is still the same basic sensor.

Also that 25600 number is only faking things, like the K-x 12800 user-option it's not the default, that is only 200-6400.

This begs the question of whether these little collective tweaks make K-r a significantly better camera than K-x, a viable upgrade; or turn out to be just minor window dressings in practice.

.R.
10-16-2010, 08:33 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,512
The K-r adds battery choice, and focus point illumination. They were two big reasons not to buy the K-x for some reason. (neither i would give a crap about)

Not worth the dosh imo. I would easily recommend a K-x over a K-r unless they were whining about the battery or focus points, at which point id tell them to get a 1000d because we don't want em.

10-16-2010, 08:48 AM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,932
Before all this speculation gets out of hand, and maybe Mr R_H starts to link these shots and declares triumphantly that Pentax is doomed yet again for 2010

Taken from TS, original post in the local forum.
K5 vs KX Pt II - ClubSNAP Photography Forums

EXIF data.

K5 - ClubSNAP Photography Forums - View Single Post - K5 vs KX Pt II

KX - ClubSNAP Photography Forums - View Single Post - K5 vs KX Pt II

Quite a few differences in the EXIF to make any conclusive result.

1. 1 stop exposure difference
2. High ISO NR seems to be different (but I don't know what the numbers mean)
3. Picture settings are also dissimilar :
Kx
---
Saturation Normal
Contrast Normal
Sharpness Med Soft

K5
---
Contrast High
Saturation Normal
Sharpness Hard

I'm not saying that Kx cannot be better than the K5 or Kr. But the current shots are not the one to one samples to show it.
Some chap has to either lock all the settings down as the same, or do RAW.


tsammyc, lol, I'm not posting this to put you down. Really appreciate the effort for the shots. Just trying to look over the info presented and understand if what we see is what it is.
10-16-2010, 08:49 AM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 101
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by happygui Quote
why not leave EXIF info? thanks anyway for sharing the pics.
The Exif info is there. Flickr's default was to hide it. I've unhidden it.
10-16-2010, 08:56 AM - 1 Like   #22
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 101
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
tsammyc, lol, I'm not posting this to put you down. Really appreciate the effort for the shots. Just trying to look over the info presented and understand if what we see is what it is.
No worries. I'm just sorry that I mislabelled the file when I renamed it.

Both camera's are pretty much at the defaults that came out of the box and I've never tried adjusting the detailed settings. Someone mentioned that the KX tends to overexpose. I can get the shutter speed the same, but I really need a studio situation or to do it at night (I did it at 11am) to remove the effect of passing clouds.

I think the K5 is a bit better for high ISO shots and obviously much better in focusing in the dark. However, there isn't that much between the two sensors. I'm keeping both cameras until the Pentax EVIL replaces the KX.
10-16-2010, 08:57 AM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 923
1 stop exposure difference makes a huge difference at High-ISOs.
I was wondering why the K-X shots looked so "White".

Even my "Nasty, Noisy" ISO6400 K-7 shots can look a lot improved with +1 E/V, assuming the resulting shutter speed still allows hand-held.

10-16-2010, 09:04 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 359
QuoteOriginally posted by WerTicus Quote
The K-r adds battery choice, and focus point illumination. They were two big reasons not to buy the K-x for some reason. (neither i would give a crap about)

Not worth the dosh imo. I would easily recommend a K-x over a K-r unless they were whining about the battery or focus points, at which point id tell them to get a 1000d because we don't want em.
What about the 920K LCD display? I think that's quite important if you ask me.

Kind regards
.lars
10-16-2010, 09:34 AM   #25
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Philippines
Posts: 99
QuoteOriginally posted by causey Quote
K-x tends to overexpose. Depending on the lens, I use, I give it -1 or -1.7 EV compensation.
My K-X tends to underexpose, I always give my K-X plus 1/3 EV.
10-16-2010, 09:40 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 923
QuoteOriginally posted by WerTicus Quote
The K-r adds battery choice, and focus point illumination. They were two big reasons not to buy the K-x for some reason. (neither i would give a crap about)

Not worth the dosh imo. I would easily recommend a K-x over a K-r unless they were whining about the battery or focus points, at which point id tell them to get a 1000d because we don't want em.
And the new AF system.....
And the new hand-held HDR...
And higher FPS
And AF adjustment menu
And Noise Reduction level selectable by ISO sensitivity

No doubt you may not care the less about any of them, but all these have been the subject of earnest user requests in the past, including on this PF forum.
10-16-2010, 09:43 AM   #27
Veteran Member
Hypocorism's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Melbourne .au
Posts: 623
QuoteOriginally posted by Recercare Quote
What about the 920K LCD display? I think that's quite important if you ask me.
Glad you added that one in.
Yes I would benefit from the 3" x 920k too because it might then make Live View focusing (for macro work esp) a serious possibility.

The way outdated chunky resolution is a sick joke really - even viewing histograms in K-x look garbage.

.R.
10-16-2010, 09:46 AM   #28
Veteran Member
causey's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Arlington, VA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,758
QuoteOriginally posted by Conan Quote
My K-X tends to underexpose, I always give my K-X plus 1/3 EV.
I've heard of cases of underexposure, but overexposure with K-x is much more common. Something went awry with the sensor's calibration --but nothing that can't be easily fixed.
10-16-2010, 09:48 AM   #29
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
QuoteOriginally posted by kittykat46 Quote
And the new hand-held HDR...
And higher FPS
Really?

I'd like to see some of those handheld HDR shots. I've tried them on my K-x, and if I'm careful, one out of ten comes out okay.

Can it accomplish this because of the faster FPS, or is there another factor as well?

I would really like that capability if it worked nice.
10-16-2010, 09:52 AM   #30
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 359
QuoteOriginally posted by Hypocorism Quote
Glad you added that one in.
Yes I would benefit from the 3" x 920k too because it might then make Live View focusing (for macro work esp) a serious possibility.

The way outdated chunky resolution is a sick joke really - even viewing histograms in K-x look garbage.

.R.
I was puzzled about the low res. lcd-display when the K-x was released. I didn't expect 920k but something like 460k. I mean, 230K is used on budget p&s.

Kind regards
.lars
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, iq, iso, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, k5 vs, kx, pentax k-5
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:00 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top