Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-28-2010, 11:35 AM   #16
Site Supporter
Deimos's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingdom of Wonder
Posts: 1,707
QuoteOriginally posted by Eruditass Quote
In my experience, new generation typically means more than a refreshed version of the same model from year to year. Your cars analogy favors my wording. Not new from the ground up (I did not mean that when I said new sensor), but not as minimal of a year-to-year car upgrade.

Semantics aside, even a retooled model would be expected to display some differences.

I can see differences between the k-r and k-x in those images, they are very minor but not identical. but then again this is just one test done in a certain way, it isnt necessairly the be all end all of k-r k-x comparison.

also the k-r sensor can go to iso 25600 the k-x cannot. this sounds to me to be as much of an upgrade as most car manufacturers put into refreshed model year, aside from some stickers . plus the iso performance of the k-x was already some of the best in the entire camera market. so its not like they can be expected to make leaps and bounds with just some minor updates to the sensor

10-28-2010, 12:04 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 392
Unexpected

Interesting results. Like Eruditass, I was under the impression that k-r has a newer and better sensor than k-x.

Perhaps, this time around, Pentax wanted to maintain a bigger quality difference between the flagship (k-5) and entry level k-x/k-r. Unlike last time when k-7 was actually worse than k-x at high ISO.

cheers
10-28-2010, 12:16 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Southern Calif
Posts: 555
IR preview of K-r : "Sensor. The Pentax K-r is based around a 12.4-megapixel, APS-C sized (23.6 x 15.8mm), RGB CMOS image sensor, with a total resolution of 12.9 megapixels. While the resolution and size is identical to that of the chip used in the previous K-x model, it's actually a newly designed chip."
10-28-2010, 03:19 PM   #19
Veteran Member
KxBlaze's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,594
Agreed, the differences seem very negligible and this brings me to my views of the Kr since the beginning. I think the Kr is over-priced. It was suppose to be the additional features, the upgraded (new) sensor, improved AF and improved ISO performance that the Kr had over the Kx but now that it seems the ISO performance is not noticeable the only reason to upgrade would be for the improved AF and in my opinion it is not worth 2x the price. I thought and still think the Kx is the best entry-level camera you can buy and that is including the Kr.

10-28-2010, 03:34 PM   #20
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
Nice work Devorama! This is the first real comparison I've seen. Looking at K-r images wasn't telling me anything. Your test lays it all out. The K-x and k-r noise level and detail look equal to me.

Now I'd like to see a similar test of K-5 vs K-x or K-r.
10-28-2010, 03:44 PM   #21
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cordova, TN
Photos: Albums
Posts: 64
I completely disagree. I could have bought the KX and wanted the changes in the KR. It's not always about image quality. The improvements in the KR are worth the price difference if you ask me. These are the improvements that make a difference for me:

-Large 3 inch LCD with 921,000 dots of resolution (HUGE difference)
-Viewfinder focus point indicator (HUGE for me also)
-Dual power source
-Faster high speed 6 FPS framerate that captures 25 images in a single sequence
-Improved and faster auto focus system - the KR AF is super fast even in low light. Yes I have one and the AF is actually faster than the T2i I sold to get it.
-Improved in-camera HDR image capture including a Night Scene HDR mode

QuoteOriginally posted by KxBlaze Quote
Agreed, the differences seem very negligible and this brings me to my views of the Kr since the beginning. I think the Kr is over-priced. It was suppose to be the additional features, the upgraded (new) sensor, improved AF and improved ISO performance that the Kr had over the Kx but now that it seems the ISO performance is not noticeable the only reason to upgrade would be for the improved AF and in my opinion it is not worth 2x the price. I thought and still think the Kx is the best entry-level camera you can buy and that is including the Kr.
10-28-2010, 04:15 PM   #22
Site Supporter
Deimos's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kingdom of Wonder
Posts: 1,707
QuoteOriginally posted by KxBlaze Quote
Agreed, the differences seem very negligible and this brings me to my views of the Kr since the beginning. I think the Kr is over-priced. It was suppose to be the additional features, the upgraded (new) sensor, improved AF and improved ISO performance that the Kr had over the Kx but now that it seems the ISO performance is not noticeable the only reason to upgrade would be for the improved AF and in my opinion it is not worth 2x the price. I thought and still think the Kx is the best entry-level camera you can buy and that is including the Kr.

The k-r is overpriced at 850 for the body, but not at 690 which is what I paid... the k-x is 500 and something in most places
10-28-2010, 06:38 PM   #23
Veteran Member
KxBlaze's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,594
QuoteOriginally posted by BigCTM Quote
I completely disagree. I could have bought the KX and wanted the changes in the KR. It's not always about image quality. The improvements in the KR are worth the price difference if you ask me. These are the improvements that make a difference for me:

-Large 3 inch LCD with 921,000 dots of resolution (HUGE difference)
-Viewfinder focus point indicator (HUGE for me also)
-Dual power source
-Faster high speed 6 FPS framerate that captures 25 images in a single sequence
-Improved and faster auto focus system - the KR AF is super fast even in low light. Yes I have one and the AF is actually faster than the T2i I sold to get it.
-Improved in-camera HDR image capture including a Night Scene HDR mode
It was just my opinion and mine alone. The Kr is a great camera and all I was saying is that TO ME those features are not worth 2x (or at least close to that) the price and as you have shown it is definitely worth it for others. It's all about personal preference.

QuoteOriginally posted by Deimos Quote
The k-r is overpriced at 850 for the body, but not at 690 which is what I paid... the k-x is 500 and something in most places
$690???? that is a good deal, where did you find that? For $690 the Kr is worth it.

**The Kx might be $500 something in some places but it is easy to find under $500 (Amazon, Adorama, NexTag, etc...)


Last edited by KxBlaze; 10-28-2010 at 07:03 PM.
10-28-2010, 06:52 PM   #24
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 264
they seem identical to my eyes.

and maybe the reason why the K-r is relatively expensive is because of that included Li-ion battery and charger.
10-28-2010, 07:44 PM   #25
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cordova, TN
Photos: Albums
Posts: 64
I paid (as well as a few others here) 829.00 for the KR 2 lens kit with the 55-300, which is more than the 2 lens KX kit with the 55-300 but not 2x as much. The lowest price I have ever seen on the KX 2 lens kit with the 55-300 is 628 at amazon. It's normally closer to 700.

QuoteOriginally posted by KxBlaze Quote
It was just my opinion and mine alone. The Kr is a great camera and all I was saying is that TO ME those features are not worth 2x (or at least close to that) the price and as you have shown it is definitely worth it for others. It's all about personal preference.



$690???? that is a good deal, where did you find that? For $690 the Kr is worth it.

**The Kx might be $500 something in some places but it is easy to find under $500 (Amazon, Adorama, NexTag, etc...)
10-28-2010, 07:58 PM   #26
Veteran Member
KxBlaze's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,594
QuoteOriginally posted by BigCTM Quote
I paid (as well as a few others here) 829.00 for the KR 2 lens kit with the 55-300, which is more than the 2 lens KX kit with the 55-300 but not 2x as much. The lowest price I have ever seen on the KX 2 lens kit with the 55-300 is 628 at amazon. It's normally closer to 700.
You guys are getting pretty good deals because I haven't seen the Kr 2 lens kit for less than $999 but then again I haven't looked.

My reference for the "2x (or close to that)" was seeing the Kr with 1 lens for $829 and the Kx 1 lens for $450
10-28-2010, 11:17 PM   #27
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 101
Having done a K5-KX comparision, this is exactly the result that I expected. Overall, the K5 is probably 1 stop better than the KX/KR, but its close enough that you wouldn't buy it just for higher ISO capability. The KX is just a wonderful bargain at this point.
10-28-2010, 11:49 PM   #28
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 61
Slight off topic, but is it just me or does the K-x seem to render fine lines and details slightly better than the K-r (according to this test)?

Re: All sizes | high-key_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Look at ISO-100 comparison. The K-x appears to be a bit sharper. Maybe it's the exposure? Or were they both taken at exactly the same exposure?
10-28-2010, 11:56 PM   #29
Veteran Member
devorama's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 638
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Turbo_Spool900 Quote
Slight off topic, but is it just me or does the K-x seem to render fine lines and details slightly better than the K-r (according to this test)?

Re: All sizes | high-key_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Look at ISO-100 comparison. The K-x appears to be a bit sharper. Maybe it's the exposure? Or were they both taken at exactly the same exposure?
The exposure for both was the same. You can see the full sized pictures with EXIF in the same set.
10-29-2010, 12:09 AM   #30
New Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 20
QuoteOriginally posted by Turbo_Spool900 Quote
Slight off topic, but is it just me or does the K-x seem to render fine lines and details slightly better than the K-r (according to this test)?

Re: All sizes | high-key_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Look at ISO-100 comparison. The K-x appears to be a bit sharper. Maybe it's the exposure? Or were they both taken at exactly the same exposure?
Anche io ho la stessa impressione che il K-x sia migliore nel dettaglio ma perde leggermente nella resa cromatica.
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, comparison, iso, k-r, k-x, kr, pentax, pentax k-r, series
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 low light/High ISO samples johnmflores Pentax K-5 21 04-19-2011 05:03 PM
Nikon D7000 High ISO Samples vancmann Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 48 11-05-2010 06:38 PM
Some K-r high ISO JPEG samples Asahiflex Pentax News and Rumors 34 10-11-2010 04:29 PM
ISO comparison samples between main cameras Mystic Pentax DSLR Discussion 0 06-07-2009 12:11 PM
Tests iso 200 to iso 3200 with k100d Deni Post Your Photos! 0 06-20-2007 05:17 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:10 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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