K5 vs KX

Urkeldaedalus · 10-16-2010, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Aloïs

Except for a better AF and a better body I don't need to change my K-x ?

The low ISO photos will also likely be better, and the movie mode, and basically everything else. But if you enjoy your K-x why upgrade at all?

LeeRunge · 10-16-2010, 09:56 AM

I would say if you crave all the features of the K7 but retaining the KX (or slightly better) sensor then get the K5.

If you have a K20/K7 by all means take the step up and get the improved ISO and AF. I can say if KX is similar to 7d (which is looks to be) then its a large step up in ISO performance. The DR is most likely going to be better on the K5 than 7d as well if we make a assumption based off the KX sensor.

Hypocorism · 10-16-2010, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Recercare

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.

Yeah I keep looking for the DOS prompt on mine. It's that neaderthal.

.R.

kittykat46 · 10-16-2010, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Ira

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.

Yes the K-5 and the K-R have this Hand-held HDR feature.

You may know there are several PC-based HDR PP software (I forgot the names) which are capable (up to a certain extent) of lining up several handheld shots for HDR processing. They all work by mathematical algorithms which can recognise that the slightly shifted images are actually the same scene, and align them back again before blending.
Pentax has likely obtained the license to build some of this into the camera on-board software itself.
Its not perfect, and you still need to hold the camera reasonably steady.

The new dSLRs are practically computers which just happen to take photographs as well

raz · 10-16-2010, 10:51 AM

tsammyc, please redo the test with both cameras on Manual mode and the same shutter speed, aperture and exposure compensation. Also the same in camera contrast/noise reduction/etc

The way they are right now (the Kx being overexpose because of the diffrent shutter speed) is not very convincing for a versus.

Thank you

Pentaxor · 10-16-2010, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by raz

tsammyc, please redo the test with both cameras on Manual mode and the same shutter speed, aperture and exposure compensation. Also the same in camera contrast/noise reduction/etc

The way they are right now (the Kx being overexpose because of the diffrent shutter speed) is not very convincing for a versus.

Thank you

also, please provide jpeg and RAW images.

change the parameters in the custom image settings, NR level set to off. shoot under LV to pinpoint focus area. do test under controlled environment, one under strong or sufficient lighting, one under tungsten (low/poor) lighting and the last one under almost no light or no light at all.

note: Noise handling by the sensor is better tested or shown under dark conditions.

no offense to the OP, but we are just trying to avoid particular people from misquoting your tests as reliable, and start spreading misinformation due to flawed results. if it ok, I suggest to edit the initial posts and remove the images for now and change it later.

johnmflores · 10-16-2010, 11:20 AM

Thanks for sharing tsammyc!

Rory · 10-16-2010, 12:43 PM

The biggest draw to me is the 14bit over 12.

dexmus · 10-16-2010, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by tsammyc

Hi all, in my haste, I accidentally swapped the K5 ISO 6400 with the ISO 12800. Its fixed now. Apologies

Thanks. This is the most useful comparison for me because I have a k-x and I am interested in k-5.
Is it possible for you to upload the raw files for k-x and k-5, for ISO 1600 and above?
I just want to push the two files through my regular workflow - Aperture, and check if there is a big difference in the outcome.

There is obviously a lot of excitement over the IQ of high ISO shots in other threads. But I have a feeling that many of these guys ignored the k-x because it's entry level, and so their feeling on 'how big a step K5 is over k-7/k20d' may be overstated a bit.

Obviously most of them shoot in extreme weather conditions and often in life threatening emergencies where an extra press of a button to change ISO is the difference between survival and destruction. I, on the other hand, don't mind that too much. But, I am quite interested to see if K-5 can make 1 or 2 stop difference over k-x. That will mean a lot. Most of my indoor shots are in dim light - 1600 and 3200 is a common scenario.

cheers,

Abhi

Adam · 10-16-2010, 08:02 PM

It appears that while the K-5 high-iso pics are more noisy than those from the K-x, they also have a significantly larger amount of preserved detail. Another strange thing that I noticed is that the K-5's photos are a little darker- has Pentax improved its metering accuracy?

In the ISO 800 pic, we can also see better color handling by the K-5. Have the custom image features been left at their default settings?

Was in-camera noise reduction off in both cameras? Have you tried playing with the settings?

Quote:

K5vsKX ISO 6400

It would also be nice to see some scaled samples to see how the higher resolution affects the overall noise levels.

Overall, I think that we can conclude that the K-x holds its ground, but that the K-5 is at least as good IQ-wise (this was arguable for K-7 vs K-x).

kittykat46 · 10-16-2010, 08:14 PM

Not criticising the OP, just that we can't conclude from these shots.
The two cameras were metering differently.
The K-X shots had about 1 stop brighter exposure. It washed out the colours ( obvious from the Reds and Yellows in the right hand corner) and doesn't make ISO noise comparison meaningful.
It made the K-5 appear to have so much richer colours and contrast, which I don't think is right (I can believe a bit better, but not to this extent.)

outsider · 06-13-2012, 01:22 PM

I got rid of my k-5 after about 5000 shots. Tried loving it, but just couldn't. I purchased at k-x before and always felt (quietly) the k-5 was not much better than k-x in high iso. This is the 3rd or 4th place i've heard that the k-x is about the same if not a bit better in high iso performance. K-x seems to retain better detail. I much prefer the k-x colors over the k-5, which looks dull, plastiky. Not missing the k-5 at all. Still loving the k-x.

garyk · 06-13-2012, 09:01 PM

You know I have the k-5 and use the K-x more and more now. I have always said it is the best camera made for the money... Actually I use instead of the k-5. My k-5 is falling apart and my old k-x is still clunking along...

outsider · 06-13-2012, 10:16 PM

"outsider" likes this.

Ryan Trevisol · 06-15-2012, 12:56 PM

Reported OP to Admin. How am I supposed to justify buying a K-5 now??

10-16-2010, 07:58 PM	#39
dexmus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 392	thanks tsammtc Originally posted by tsammyc Hi all, in my haste, I accidentally swapped the K5 ISO 6400 with the ISO 12800. Its fixed now. Apologies Thanks. This is the most useful comparison for me because I have a k-x and I am interested in k-5. Is it possible for you to upload the raw files for k-x and k-5, for ISO 1600 and above? I just want to push the two files through my regular workflow - Aperture, and check if there is a big difference in the outcome. There is obviously a lot of excitement over the IQ of high ISO shots in other threads. But I have a feeling that many of these guys ignored the k-x because it's entry level, and so their feeling on 'how big a step K5 is over k-7/k20d' may be overstated a bit. Obviously most of them shoot in extreme weather conditions and often in life threatening emergencies where an extra press of a button to change ISO is the difference between survival and destruction. I, on the other hand, don't mind that too much. But, I am quite interested to see if K-5 can make 1 or 2 stop difference over k-x. That will mean a lot. Most of my indoor shots are in dim light - 1600 and 3200 is a common scenario. cheers, Abhi

10-16-2010, 08:02 PM	#40
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,594	It appears that while the K-5 high-iso pics are more noisy than those from the K-x, they also have a significantly larger amount of preserved detail. Another strange thing that I noticed is that the K-5's photos are a little darker- has Pentax improved its metering accuracy? In the ISO 800 pic, we can also see better color handling by the K-5. Have the custom image features been left at their default settings? Was in-camera noise reduction off in both cameras? Have you tried playing with the settings? Quote: K5vsKX ISO 6400 It would also be nice to see some scaled samples to see how the higher resolution affects the overall noise levels. Overall, I think that we can conclude that the K-x holds its ground, but that the K-5 is at least as good IQ-wise (this was arguable for K-7 vs K-x). Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

10-16-2010, 09:52 AM	#31
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	Originally posted by Aloïs Except for a better AF and a better body I don't need to change my K-x ? The low ISO photos will also likely be better, and the movie mode, and basically everything else. But if you enjoy your K-x why upgrade at all?

10-16-2010, 09:56 AM	#32
LeeRunge Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 993	I would say if you crave all the features of the K7 but retaining the KX (or slightly better) sensor then get the K5. If you have a K20/K7 by all means take the step up and get the improved ISO and AF. I can say if KX is similar to 7d (which is looks to be) then its a large step up in ISO performance. The DR is most likely going to be better on the K5 than 7d as well if we make a assumption based off the KX sensor.

10-16-2010, 09:58 AM	#33
Hypocorism Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Melbourne .au Posts: 623	Originally posted by Recercare 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. Yeah I keep looking for the DOS prompt on mine. It's that neaderthal. .R.

10-16-2010, 10:19 AM	#34
kittykat46 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 923	Originally posted by Ira 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. Yes the K-5 and the K-R have this Hand-held HDR feature. You may know there are several PC-based HDR PP software (I forgot the names) which are capable (up to a certain extent) of lining up several handheld shots for HDR processing. They all work by mathematical algorithms which can recognise that the slightly shifted images are actually the same scene, and align them back again before blending. Pentax has likely obtained the license to build some of this into the camera on-board software itself. Its not perfect, and you still need to hold the camera reasonably steady. The new dSLRs are practically computers which just happen to take photographs as well

10-16-2010, 10:51 AM	#35
raz Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Timisoara, Romania Posts: 248	tsammyc, please redo the test with both cameras on Manual mode and the same shutter speed, aperture and exposure compensation. Also the same in camera contrast/noise reduction/etc The way they are right now (the Kx being overexpose because of the diffrent shutter speed) is not very convincing for a versus. Thank you

10-16-2010, 11:11 AM	#36
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by raz tsammyc, please redo the test with both cameras on Manual mode and the same shutter speed, aperture and exposure compensation. Also the same in camera contrast/noise reduction/etc The way they are right now (the Kx being overexpose because of the diffrent shutter speed) is not very convincing for a versus. Thank you also, please provide jpeg and RAW images. change the parameters in the custom image settings, NR level set to off. shoot under LV to pinpoint focus area. do test under controlled environment, one under strong or sufficient lighting, one under tungsten (low/poor) lighting and the last one under almost no light or no light at all. note: Noise handling by the sensor is better tested or shown under dark conditions. no offense to the OP, but we are just trying to avoid particular people from misquoting your tests as reliable, and start spreading misinformation due to flawed results. if it ok, I suggest to edit the initial posts and remove the images for now and change it later.

10-16-2010, 11:20 AM	#37
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Thanks for sharing tsammyc!

10-16-2010, 12:43 PM	#38
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	The biggest draw to me is the 14bit over 12.

10-16-2010, 08:14 PM	#41
kittykat46 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 923	Not criticising the OP, just that we can't conclude from these shots. The two cameras were metering differently. The K-X shots had about 1 stop brighter exposure. It washed out the colours ( obvious from the Reds and Yellows in the right hand corner) and doesn't make ISO noise comparison meaningful. It made the K-5 appear to have so much richer colours and contrast, which I don't think is right (I can believe a bit better, but not to this extent.)

06-13-2012, 01:22 PM	#42
outsider Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 416	I got rid of my k-5 after about 5000 shots. Tried loving it, but just couldn't. I purchased at k-x before and always felt (quietly) the k-5 was not much better than k-x in high iso. This is the 3rd or 4th place i've heard that the k-x is about the same if not a bit better in high iso performance. K-x seems to retain better detail. I much prefer the k-x colors over the k-5, which looks dull, plastiky. Not missing the k-5 at all. Still loving the k-x.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-13-2012, 09:01 PM	#43
garyk Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 488	You know I have the k-5 and use the K-x more and more now. I have always said it is the best camera made for the money... Actually I use instead of the k-5. My k-5 is falling apart and my old k-x is still clunking along...

06-13-2012, 10:16 PM	#44
outsider Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 416	"outsider" likes this.

06-15-2012, 12:56 PM	#45
Ryan Trevisol Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: South Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 312	Reported OP to Admin. How am I supposed to justify buying a K-5 now??