anyone did Kx to Kr?

Mystic · 11-03-2010, 11:58 AM

I wonder, if you did, and if you'd want to be picky, would you notice the worse performance of the sensor?

I mean less dynamic range, and more noise.

do you in some way visually notice, that it has less DR or more noise?

for example, when I had k20d and then K7 I clearly noticed that k7 sensor is performing worse..

_lyan_ · 11-03-2010, 12:17 PM

Worse performance? It's almost the same sensor...

**Deimos** · 11-03-2010, 12:33 PM

If you put images side by side you likely wouldnt be able to tell the difference. And in the one comparison posted on this site search "iso flower" it seemed that the k-r produced a bit more detail.

you cant go basing "performance" on what dxo says.

I have a k-r its great, maybe not worth the upgrade from a k-x if all that matters is IQ...but all the other features over the k-x make it a much better choice for me

Mystic · 11-03-2010, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Deimos

If you put images side by side you likely wouldnt be able to tell the difference. And in the one comparison posted on this site search "iso flower" it seemed that the k-r produced a bit more detail.

you cant go basing "performance" on what dxo says.

I have a k-r its great, maybe not worth the upgrade from a k-x if all that matters is IQ...but all the other features over the k-x make it a much better choice for me

I understand that..
i'll look for that thread, but as I remember, no kx-kr comparison showed, that kr has an advantage in IQ.. at least to my eyes.

and I also understant that when I had K20d image quality was superb in every way I could imagine at least up to ISO 1000.

so as both kx and kr are better than k20d in IQ so theres isn't much point in complaining.

here is the comparisons.. to my eye kx performs better, not by much.. and maybe only at pixel level but still, better
All sizes | high-key_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

in this test it's about equal:
All sizes | low-key_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

in this test I see that kr has less dr and results are less sharp. maybe it could be because of the actual sample, but kx pictures look better..
All sizes | grey_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

**Deimos** · 11-03-2010, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Mystic

I understand that..
i'll look for that thread, but as I remember, no kx-kr comparison showed, that kr has an advantage in IQ.. at least to my eyes.

and I also understant that when I had K20d image quality was superb in every way I could imagine at least up to ISO 1000.

so as both kx and kr are better than k20d in IQ so theres isn't much point in complaining.

here is the comparisons.. to my eye kx performs better, not by much.. and maybe only at pixel level but still, better
All sizes | high-key_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

in this test it's about equal:
All sizes | low-key_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

in this test I see that kr has less dr and results are less sharp. maybe it could be because of the actual sample, but kx pictures look better..
All sizes | grey_ISO_elevator | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

In the first two I think the k-r shows a bit more detail myself, in the last one though the k-x def looks better. Then again this is just one test done in a certain way perhaps with some faults. The differences are so small to be honest they are almost negligible

It seems though that even if one is very very marginally better than the other detail or noise wise, your only ever going to notice it by pixel peeping. and the other k-r benefits imo make it worthwhile

_lyan_ · 11-04-2010, 02:53 AM

They're quite the same camera... at least speaking about sensors. There can be small differences but nothing great, imho. Real upgrades in K-r are about what is "around" its sensor

Mystic · 11-04-2010, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by Deimos

In the first two I think the k-r shows a bit more detail myself, in the last one though the k-x def looks better. Then again this is just one test done in a certain way perhaps with some faults. The differences are so small to be honest they are almost negligible

It seems though that even if one is very very marginally better than the other detail or noise wise, your only ever going to notice it by pixel peeping. and the other k-r benefits imo make it worthwhile

I agree with you.

Originally posted by _lyan_

They're quite the same camera... at least speaking about sensors. There can be small differences but nothing great, imho. Real upgrades in K-r are about what is "around" its sensor

K20d and k7 were soposed to be the same sensors too..

**Deimos** · 11-04-2010, 06:18 AM

I was looking at some of my images on pc last night, taken with tammy 17-50 and 90mm. Wow the k-r (and those lenses) are great.

Most shots were taken at iso 800 and 1600 and they look amazing....800 with no NR honestly looks like 200 or 400 did on my d60

kittykat46 · 11-04-2010, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Mystic

I agree with you.

K20d and k7 were soposed to be the same sensors too..

The K20D and K7 both used 14 MP sensors from Samsung....that's the end of the commonality. There has never been any real indication they used the same sensor.

Mystic · 11-04-2010, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by kittykat46

The K20D and K7 both used 14 MP sensors from Samsung....that's the end of the commonality. There has never been any real indication they used the same sensor.

well from what i remember it was said, that:

they made 4 channells for read out data, that made possible 5,2fps, in k20d was 2.

and so called improved nr algorithms..

from what i remember, it was stated that k7 sensor is basically improved k20d sensor, and we shouldn't expect better image quality.

WerTicus · 11-04-2010, 09:19 AM

the performance difference between k-r and k-x is very minimal according to dxo numbers... honestly you probably wouldn't notice even if looking for it.

raf02 · 11-04-2010, 08:08 PM

been thinking about it for a while then just decided to invest on a nice glass instead of upgrading to the k-r =)

Eruditass · 11-05-2010, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by WerTicus

the performance difference between k-r and k-x is very minimal according to dxo numbers... honestly you probably wouldn't notice even if looking for it.

Between these two, I'd pick between price and features, not the minuscule difference in a couple of pixels.

ggeorge11 · 11-12-2010, 06:27 AM

I have a Kx and love it. It is my 1st DSLR, when I heard about the Kr, I thought about getting it. There are some nice changes, but I think I will go for a K5 about mid 2011. It will take that long to save for it.

kp0c · 11-12-2010, 08:10 AM

I think that the K-x is a perfect first DSLR camera that one can use for a long time before really needing to upgrade. Those upgrading quickly from K-x to K-r do so probably because they have a lot of spare money (but no enough for a K-5 I guess) and/or always want the new toy. IMHO, when I upgrade my K-x, I want to upgrade to a body that has more features than just being more recent. For example, dual dials, top LCD, weather sealing, micro af adjust... these are the features I want in my next camera, not just a red dot in the view finder... (although I would like to have an AF assist lamp on my K-x).
Bottom line is there is few reason to upgrade from K-x to K-r. Yes, the upgrade could be justified, but I think one would be better served by holding on to their K-x a little longer and save up for a more advance camera feature wise like the K-5.
Just my two cents, as usual.
Karl

11-03-2010, 11:58 AM	#1
Mystic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 490	anyone did Kx to Kr? I wonder, if you did, and if you'd want to be picky, would you notice the worse performance of the sensor? I mean less dynamic range, and more noise. do you in some way visually notice, that it has less DR or more noise? for example, when I had k20d and then K7 I clearly noticed that k7 sensor is performing worse..

11-03-2010, 12:17 PM	#2
_lyan_ Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Bari, Italy Posts: 34	Worse performance? It's almost the same sensor...

11-03-2010, 12:33 PM	#3
Deimos Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Kingdom of Wonder Posts: 1,777	If you put images side by side you likely wouldnt be able to tell the difference. And in the one comparison posted on this site search "iso flower" it seemed that the k-r produced a bit more detail. you cant go basing "performance" on what dxo says. I have a k-r its great, maybe not worth the upgrade from a k-x if all that matters is IQ...but all the other features over the k-x make it a much better choice for me

11-03-2010, 03:31 PM	#4
Mystic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 490 Original Poster	Originally posted by Deimos If you put images side by side you likely wouldnt be able to tell the difference. And in the one comparison posted on this site search "iso flower" it seemed that the k-r produced a bit more detail. you cant go basing "performance" on what dxo says. I have a k-r its great, maybe not worth the upgrade from a k-x if all that matters is IQ...but all the other features over the k-x make it a much better choice for me I understand that.. i'll look for that thread, but as I remember, no kx-kr comparison showed, that kr has an advantage in IQ.. at least to my eyes. and I also understant that when I had K20d image quality was superb in every way I could imagine at least up to ISO 1000. so as both kx and kr are better than k20d in IQ so theres isn't much point in complaining. here is the comparisons.. to my eye kx performs better, not by much.. and maybe only at pixel level but still, better All sizes \| high-key_ISO_elevator \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! in this test it's about equal: All sizes \| low-key_ISO_elevator \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! in this test I see that kr has less dr and results are less sharp. maybe it could be because of the actual sample, but kx pictures look better.. All sizes \| grey_ISO_elevator \| Flickr - Photo Sharing!

11-03-2010, 03:44 PM	#5
Deimos Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Kingdom of Wonder Posts: 1,777	Originally posted by Mystic I understand that.. i'll look for that thread, but as I remember, no kx-kr comparison showed, that kr has an advantage in IQ.. at least to my eyes. and I also understant that when I had K20d image quality was superb in every way I could imagine at least up to ISO 1000. so as both kx and kr are better than k20d in IQ so theres isn't much point in complaining. here is the comparisons.. to my eye kx performs better, not by much.. and maybe only at pixel level but still, better All sizes \| high-key_ISO_elevator \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! in this test it's about equal: All sizes \| low-key_ISO_elevator \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! in this test I see that kr has less dr and results are less sharp. maybe it could be because of the actual sample, but kx pictures look better.. All sizes \| grey_ISO_elevator \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! In the first two I think the k-r shows a bit more detail myself, in the last one though the k-x def looks better. Then again this is just one test done in a certain way perhaps with some faults. The differences are so small to be honest they are almost negligible It seems though that even if one is very very marginally better than the other detail or noise wise, your only ever going to notice it by pixel peeping. and the other k-r benefits imo make it worthwhile

11-04-2010, 02:53 AM	#6
_lyan_ Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Bari, Italy Posts: 34	They're quite the same camera... at least speaking about sensors. There can be small differences but nothing great, imho. Real upgrades in K-r are about what is "around" its sensor

11-04-2010, 05:04 AM	#7
Mystic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 490 Original Poster	Originally posted by Deimos In the first two I think the k-r shows a bit more detail myself, in the last one though the k-x def looks better. Then again this is just one test done in a certain way perhaps with some faults. The differences are so small to be honest they are almost negligible It seems though that even if one is very very marginally better than the other detail or noise wise, your only ever going to notice it by pixel peeping. and the other k-r benefits imo make it worthwhile I agree with you. Originally posted by _lyan_ They're quite the same camera... at least speaking about sensors. There can be small differences but nothing great, imho. Real upgrades in K-r are about what is "around" its sensor K20d and k7 were soposed to be the same sensors too..

11-04-2010, 06:18 AM	#8
Deimos Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Kingdom of Wonder Posts: 1,777	I was looking at some of my images on pc last night, taken with tammy 17-50 and 90mm. Wow the k-r (and those lenses) are great. Most shots were taken at iso 800 and 1600 and they look amazing....800 with no NR honestly looks like 200 or 400 did on my d60

11-04-2010, 06:26 AM	#9
kittykat46 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 923	Originally posted by Mystic I agree with you. K20d and k7 were soposed to be the same sensors too.. The K20D and K7 both used 14 MP sensors from Samsung....that's the end of the commonality. There has never been any real indication they used the same sensor.

11-04-2010, 09:01 AM	#10
Mystic Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Lithuania Photos: Gallery Posts: 490 Original Poster	Originally posted by kittykat46 The K20D and K7 both used 14 MP sensors from Samsung....that's the end of the commonality. There has never been any real indication they used the same sensor. well from what i remember it was said, that: they made 4 channells for read out data, that made possible 5,2fps, in k20d was 2. and so called improved nr algorithms.. from what i remember, it was stated that k7 sensor is basically improved k20d sensor, and we shouldn't expect better image quality.

11-04-2010, 09:19 AM	#11
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	the performance difference between k-r and k-x is very minimal according to dxo numbers... honestly you probably wouldn't notice even if looking for it.

11-04-2010, 08:08 PM	#12
raf02 Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 37	been thinking about it for a while then just decided to invest on a nice glass instead of upgrading to the k-r =)

11-05-2010, 09:29 AM	#13
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by WerTicus the performance difference between k-r and k-x is very minimal according to dxo numbers... honestly you probably wouldn't notice even if looking for it. Between these two, I'd pick between price and features, not the minuscule difference in a couple of pixels.

11-12-2010, 06:27 AM	#14
ggeorge11 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Central Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 218	I have a Kx and love it. It is my 1st DSLR, when I heard about the Kr, I thought about getting it. There are some nice changes, but I think I will go for a K5 about mid 2011. It will take that long to save for it.

11-12-2010, 08:10 AM	#15
kp0c Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery Posts: 761	I think that the K-x is a perfect first DSLR camera that one can use for a long time before really needing to upgrade. Those upgrading quickly from K-x to K-r do so probably because they have a lot of spare money (but no enough for a K-5 I guess) and/or always want the new toy. IMHO, when I upgrade my K-x, I want to upgrade to a body that has more features than just being more recent. For example, dual dials, top LCD, weather sealing, micro af adjust... these are the features I want in my next camera, not just a red dot in the view finder... (although I would like to have an AF assist lamp on my K-x). Bottom line is there is few reason to upgrade from K-x to K-r. Yes, the upgrade could be justified, but I think one would be better served by holding on to their K-x a little longer and save up for a more advance camera feature wise like the K-5. Just my two cents, as usual. Karl