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.