K-r vs. K-x ISO samples (or return of the ISO flower!)

**Deimos** · 10-28-2010, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Eruditass

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

dexmus · 10-28-2010, 12:04 PM

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

solar1 · 10-28-2010, 12:16 PM

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."

KxBlaze · 10-28-2010, 03:19 PM

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.

audiobomber · 10-28-2010, 03:34 PM

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.

BigCTM · 10-28-2010, 03:44 PM

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

Originally posted by KxBlaze

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.

**Deimos** · 10-28-2010, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by KxBlaze

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

KxBlaze · 10-28-2010, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by BigCTM

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.

Originally posted by Deimos

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...)

RolloR · 10-28-2010, 06:52 PM

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.

BigCTM · 10-28-2010, 07:44 PM

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.

Originally posted by KxBlaze

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...)

KxBlaze · 10-28-2010, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by BigCTM

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

tsammyc · 10-28-2010, 11:17 PM

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.

Turbo_Spool900 · 10-28-2010, 11:49 PM

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?

devorama · 10-28-2010, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Turbo_Spool900

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.

Gilles70 · 10-29-2010, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by Turbo_Spool900

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.

10-28-2010, 12:04 PM	#17
dexmus 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, 06:38 PM	#23
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	Originally posted by BigCTM 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. Originally posted by Deimos 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.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-5 low light/High ISO samples	johnmflores	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	21	04-19-2011 05:03 PM
Nikon D7000 High ISO Samples	vancmann	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	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

10-28-2010, 11:35 AM	#16
Deimos Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Kingdom of Wonder Posts: 1,777	Originally posted by Eruditass 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, 12:16 PM	#18
solar1 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Southern Calif Posts: 565	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
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	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
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	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
BigCTM 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 Originally posted by KxBlaze 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
Deimos Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Kingdom of Wonder Posts: 1,777	Originally posted by KxBlaze 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, 06:52 PM	#24
RolloR 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
BigCTM 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. Originally posted by KxBlaze 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
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	Originally posted by BigCTM 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
tsammyc 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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-28-2010, 11:49 PM	#28
Turbo_Spool900 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
devorama Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 638 Original Poster	Originally posted by Turbo_Spool900 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
Gilles70 New Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 20	Originally posted by Turbo_Spool900 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.