K5 vs KX

tsammyc · 10-15-2010, 09:27 PM

Hiya all, my first post. Just upgraded my KX to a K5 and thought I would post some comparisions. I know that some see it as a huge upgrade. While I would agree that high ISO IQ is much better than a K7, high ISO IQ seems just a little better than a KX IMHO. However, the camera is overall a large upgrade in usability, especially the focus speed.

Do note that the colors on the K5 and KX shots differ. Has to do with the auto white balance diferences between the two cameras and my lighting situation, which is florescent lighting and some light coming through a window as well.

K5-800

KX-800

K5-1600

KX-1600

K5-3200

KX-3200

K5-6400

KX-6400

K5-12800

KX-12800

Some Pixel Peeping
K5vsKX ISO 800

K5vsKX ISO 6400

Last edited by tsammyc; 10-16-2010 at 03:14 AM. Reason: accidentally swapped K5-6400 with K5-12800

Gilles70 · 10-15-2010, 10:50 PM

Ciao a giudicare da quello che vedo sembrerebbe che il kx regge bene il confronto con gli alti iso con il K5 o sbaglio?
Te lo chiedo perchè sarei interessato all'acquisto di un K5 o un KR in sostituzione di un KX ma se la differenza nelle immagine prodotte è questa preferisco restare con la KX per un altro anno.

Ciao.

WerTicus · 10-15-2010, 11:34 PM

Thanks for this, this is exactly what the doctor ordered.

Which has truer colours or more accurate WB? And was this in full manual mode? The exposure looks rather different!

In all honesty they are pretty close but the K-x shots look better to me. However if the K-5 is under exposed compared to the k-x, as it looks like it is, its not exactly apples to apples.

rawr · 10-16-2010, 12:01 AM

Yay K-x! Go K-x!

However you may need to test under a range of lighting conditions to fully test them both, especially low-light. Low light is the real stress test of a sensor. The RAW software you use can also make a HUGE difference to how high-ISO output renders.

Having said all that, the K-5 looks excellent.

Fogel70 · 10-16-2010, 02:14 AM

To me it looks like iso6400 and iso12800 samples from K-5 has been mixed.

At least it looks strange that iso6400 from K-5 has more noise than iso12800. And that K-x has less noise at iso6400, but K-5 has less noise at iso12800.

JohnBee · 10-16-2010, 02:22 AM

I find it rather confusing that the ISO6400 sample has more noise than the ISO12800 sample?
You sure you didn't confuse the numbers?

LeeRunge · 10-16-2010, 02:23 AM

Thank you for posting these it gives us a known camera to compare. Any chance you could take a few in a dark room and compare the 3200's and up.

Steelski · 10-16-2010, 02:36 AM

It probably helps the K-x that the exposure is about a stop overexposed. It is more like a 12800 exposure vs 6400 exposure. Also there is more DR in the K-5 shot if exposure is the same.

raz · 10-16-2010, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by JohnBee

I find it rather confusing that the ISO6400 sample has more noise than the ISO12800 sample?
You sure you didn't confuse the numbers?

that was my impression too

tsammyc · 10-16-2010, 03:16 AM

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

JohnBee · 10-16-2010, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by tsammyc

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

Phew!
Thanks for clarifying that, makes plenty of sense now

Also... what settings did you choose with the K-5 in terms of NR for these tests?
Have you thought about match the Kx grain through onboard NR adjustements?
There are so many variables with the K-5 it seems that carrying out comprehensive testing seems very extensive.

Having said that, I'm happy to have your contributions and I hope to see more!

happygui · 10-16-2010, 04:51 AM

why not leave EXIF info? thanks anyway for sharing the pics.

Urkeldaedalus · 10-16-2010, 05:31 AM

Looks like the K-x, K-r and K-5 are going to end up about the same. I wonder who will end up the high ISO noise champ among the three when all is said and done

The_Reasonable_Man · 10-16-2010, 06:02 AM

Thanks for sharing these. Wondering whey the very noticable exposure differences, though. KX looks overexposed compared to K5.

Aloïs · 10-16-2010, 06:40 AM

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

10-15-2010, 09:27 PM	#1
tsammyc Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 101	K5 vs KX Hiya all, my first post. Just upgraded my KX to a K5 and thought I would post some comparisions. I know that some see it as a huge upgrade. While I would agree that high ISO IQ is much better than a K7, high ISO IQ seems just a little better than a KX IMHO. However, the camera is overall a large upgrade in usability, especially the focus speed. Do note that the colors on the K5 and KX shots differ. Has to do with the auto white balance diferences between the two cameras and my lighting situation, which is florescent lighting and some light coming through a window as well. K5-800 KX-800 K5-1600 KX-1600 K5-3200 KX-3200 K5-6400 KX-6400 K5-12800 KX-12800 Some Pixel Peeping K5vsKX ISO 800 K5vsKX ISO 6400 Last edited by tsammyc; 10-16-2010 at 03:14 AM. Reason: accidentally swapped K5-6400 with K5-12800

10-15-2010, 10:50 PM	#2
Gilles70 New Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 20	Ciao a giudicare da quello che vedo sembrerebbe che il kx regge bene il confronto con gli alti iso con il K5 o sbaglio? Te lo chiedo perchè sarei interessato all'acquisto di un K5 o un KR in sostituzione di un KX ma se la differenza nelle immagine prodotte è questa preferisco restare con la KX per un altro anno. Ciao. Last edited by Gilles70; 10-16-2010 at 12:41 AM.

10-15-2010, 11:34 PM	#3
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	Thanks for this, this is exactly what the doctor ordered. Which has truer colours or more accurate WB? And was this in full manual mode? The exposure looks rather different! In all honesty they are pretty close but the K-x shots look better to me. However if the K-5 is under exposed compared to the k-x, as it looks like it is, its not exactly apples to apples. Last edited by WerTicus; 10-15-2010 at 11:49 PM.

10-16-2010, 12:01 AM	#4
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Yay K-x! Go K-x! However you may need to test under a range of lighting conditions to fully test them both, especially low-light. Low light is the real stress test of a sensor. The RAW software you use can also make a HUGE difference to how high-ISO output renders. Having said all that, the K-5 looks excellent.

10-16-2010, 02:14 AM	#5
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	To me it looks like iso6400 and iso12800 samples from K-5 has been mixed. At least it looks strange that iso6400 from K-5 has more noise than iso12800. And that K-x has less noise at iso6400, but K-5 has less noise at iso12800.

10-16-2010, 02:22 AM	#6
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	I find it rather confusing that the ISO6400 sample has more noise than the ISO12800 sample? You sure you didn't confuse the numbers?

10-16-2010, 02:23 AM	#7
LeeRunge Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 993	Thank you for posting these it gives us a known camera to compare. Any chance you could take a few in a dark room and compare the 3200's and up.

10-16-2010, 02:36 AM	#8
Steelski Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Varna Posts: 470	It probably helps the K-x that the exposure is about a stop overexposed. It is more like a 12800 exposure vs 6400 exposure. Also there is more DR in the K-5 shot if exposure is the same.

10-16-2010, 02:39 AM	#9
raz Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Timisoara, Romania Posts: 248	Originally posted by JohnBee I find it rather confusing that the ISO6400 sample has more noise than the ISO12800 sample? You sure you didn't confuse the numbers? that was my impression too

10-16-2010, 03:16 AM	#10
tsammyc Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 101 Original Poster	Hi all, in my haste, I accidentally swapped the K5 ISO 6400 with the ISO 12800. Its fixed now. Apologies

10-16-2010, 03:23 AM	#11
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by tsammyc Hi all, in my haste, I accidentally swapped the K5 ISO 6400 with the ISO 12800. Its fixed now. Apologies Phew! Thanks for clarifying that, makes plenty of sense now Also... what settings did you choose with the K-5 in terms of NR for these tests? Have you thought about match the Kx grain through onboard NR adjustements? There are so many variables with the K-5 it seems that carrying out comprehensive testing seems very extensive. Having said that, I'm happy to have your contributions and I hope to see more!

10-16-2010, 04:51 AM	#12
happygui Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: OHIO Posts: 211	why not leave EXIF info? thanks anyway for sharing the pics.

10-16-2010, 05:31 AM	#13
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	Looks like the K-x, K-r and K-5 are going to end up about the same. I wonder who will end up the high ISO noise champ among the three when all is said and done

10-16-2010, 06:02 AM	#14
The_Reasonable_Man Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: People's Republic of Portland, Oregon Posts: 30	Thanks for sharing these. Wondering whey the very noticable exposure differences, though. KX looks overexposed compared to K5.

10-16-2010, 06:40 AM	#15
Aloïs New Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Lyon Posts: 11	Except for a better AF and a better body I don't need to change my K-x ?