anyone did Kx to Kr?

chibiunko · 11-23-2010, 10:57 AM

I was in the market for a new DSLR a month ago with a budget of around 800 dollars and was deciding between the K-x and the K-r. After some research, I felt that the price difference didn't warrant the slight improvements the K-R was offering.

So I bought the K-x for around $450 and with the money I saved, I bought myself a Pentax DFA 50mm Macro lens which has been on my camera everyday.

ggeorge11 · 11-23-2010, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by UnknownVT

Congratulations on being published.

A point I'd like to highlight is the use of your Tamron 18-200 zoom -
which is not held in such high regard - being basically a compromise everything.

However your results show that it is more than adequate - nay, good enough to be selected for publication in a prestigious book -
not just for one shot but for three including full page.

I'll bet the editors didn't ask what lens you used -
so there was no preconceived prejudice that it was not a prime lens -
they selected on the quality of the results alone.

This really shows that in the real-world most lenses for dSLRs are more than up to the task -
and the resulting photograph is much more to do with the person behind the camera/lens than the equipment alone.

Please don't get me wrong great lenses are still great lenses and the difference is measurable.

But a monkey is not going to shoot great pictures even if it had the best dSLR and a bag full of top primes - is it?

For most non-scientific usage - most lenses are really more than good enough -
and the selection of these photos shows that even a lens that may lag many other primes and zooms on the test bench -
gives nothing away in quality - even for prestigious publications.

Well done!

Thank you for the compliments! I really use the heck out of that lens, and 95% of the time get great results. I shoot most of the time AV mode, and I understand that sometime I will need a tripod. I can live with it. I also have the Tammy 90mm macro, and I just bought the Tammy 70-200 f/2.8. (i told you I was hooked!) oh and I have a sigma 135-400 so.. I guess I am addicted now also.

UnknownVT · 11-23-2010, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by ggeorge11

Thank you for the compliments! I really use the heck out of that lens, and 95% of the time get great results.
I also have the Tammy 90mm macro.

The Tamron 18-200 has a great range -
I have often thought of getting it over my two "kit" zooms 18-55 and 50-200 -
because inevitably there are occasions when I wished I had the other lens on the camera!

Now the Tamron 90mm Macro is very highly regarded -
do you see much difference on a general shot between that and the 18-200?

ggeorge11 · 11-23-2010, 04:55 PM

Being the Tamron 90mm is of better quality, it does turn out some awesome pics! But I have been so happy with the 18-200, I have kept the 90mm to just macros, and flowers, and the colors have always been spot on. The only argument I have about the 18-200 is it is soft at 200. That is why I have the 70-200 now. But I just went to Perdanales state park, and shot over 90% with the 18-200 again. I shoot at night with the 18-200 here are some samples. for the price, I can't say enough good about the lens. All of these were shot at 100 ISO and f/5 with a 6 second shutter speed. w/ focal length of around 48-55 mm I try to shoot as low an ISO as possible to keep the noise down.

feel free to go to my shutterbug site and see some of the macro and 18-200 shots to compare also.

Texas in Pixels- Joseph K. George | SmugMug

even with this setting it picked up the bugs around the lights

garyk · 11-29-2010, 03:25 AM

I'm really interested in the k-r. I have the k-7 and the k-x walks all over it... I would like a backup. The k-r looks pretty interesting.

ggeorge11 · 11-29-2010, 07:15 AM

I am interested on how the Kx, walks on the K7? Because I am lookng at the K7 for my main camera. I look at the stats, and read about some noise at higher ISO. But I go out of my way to shoot below 2000 ISO. I also like the weather proofing. I would hate to buy one and be dissapointed. So I should wait and save for the K5?

garyk · 11-29-2010, 11:36 PM

Personally, I want excellent IQ at a decent ISO. The k-x gives me both and the k-7 really does not for me. My k-7 has been in my bag now for 8 months without use. I use the k-x. I know it sounds weird but I really like the IQ of the k-x. I have been looking at the k-5. And the images i have seen just do not cut it for me.
You make up your own mind though. I am going to pass on the k-5.

ggeorge11 · 11-30-2010, 07:49 AM

Well, that is an interesting point. One of the issues I have is, the weather proofing. I am going to look at the IQ, and read more about it.

Navajo · 12-16-2010, 09:43 AM

I have started with k-r. But I had an intention to buy k-x. The reason of my choice on k-r has been as follows;
1) Very fast AF in LV
2) Focus LED on viewfinder.
3) Both AA and LION batteries possibility.
4) Other minor upgrades on higher ISO etc.
But overall I'm very happy with the choice of k-r.

ggeorge11 · 01-29-2011, 09:40 AM

If I did not have a camera at all, and was looking at the Kx, or the Kr. I would have done the same thing. I love my Kx, and after reading all of the raves about the K5, I think the K5 will be my next camera.

hawk1500 · 01-29-2011, 11:04 AM

I went from a K-x to a K-r and the only thing I liked better on the K-x was the AA batteries out of the box. Still waiting for a good deal on those adapters (or for these Chinese knock-offs I bought to get here).

And since I got the 18-55mm and 55-300mm kit for $750, I don't feel the price difference was too much, probably less than $100 to upgrade if I can unload the 55-300mm for ~$200.

WoRaS · 01-30-2011, 03:15 AM

Currently I am owner of K-x and after some research I decided to upgrade to K-5 or K-r.

The main reason of upgrade is better FPS and better AF in K-5/K-r than K-x (according to users reports). K-x limits me during shooting fast action (planes).

Everything seems that I will buy K-r because:
1. It is smaller and lighter than K-5 (important during hiking/climbing)
2. I do not need weather proofing (based on my personal experience - I had never problems with my K-x or - before - K-m, even in bad weather or dusty places). I was shooting on beaches, dunes, forests, mountains, during small rain, snow, hard frost (-20C) with no problems at all.
3. According to users reports, AF and AF.C performance in K-5 and K-r is exactly the same.
4. K-r is cheaper than K-5, so I can buy another toy :-)
5. I don't use manual focusing, so I do not need better viewfinder.
6. I really like K-x controls, I really do not want any other controls or dials on the body (can you believe that?).

There is one thing in K-5 that it would be nice to have in K-r: sensor with amazing 14EV dynamic range. Well, you cannot have everything :-)

11-23-2010, 12:13 PM	#32
ggeorge11 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Central Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 218	Originally posted by UnknownVT Congratulations on being published. A point I'd like to highlight is the use of your Tamron 18-200 zoom - which is not held in such high regard - being basically a compromise everything. However your results show that it is more than adequate - nay, good enough to be selected for publication in a prestigious book - not just for one shot but for three including full page. I'll bet the editors didn't ask what lens you used - so there was no preconceived prejudice that it was not a prime lens - they selected on the quality of the results alone. This really shows that in the real-world most lenses for dSLRs are more than up to the task - and the resulting photograph is much more to do with the person behind the camera/lens than the equipment alone. Please don't get me wrong great lenses are still great lenses and the difference is measurable. But a monkey is not going to shoot great pictures even if it had the best dSLR and a bag full of top primes - is it? For most non-scientific usage - most lenses are really more than good enough - and the selection of these photos shows that even a lens that may lag many other primes and zooms on the test bench - gives nothing away in quality - even for prestigious publications. Well done! Thank you for the compliments! I really use the heck out of that lens, and 95% of the time get great results. I shoot most of the time AV mode, and I understand that sometime I will need a tripod. I can live with it. I also have the Tammy 90mm macro, and I just bought the Tammy 70-200 f/2.8. (i told you I was hooked!) oh and I have a sigma 135-400 so.. I guess I am addicted now also. Last edited by ggeorge11; 11-23-2010 at 04:59 PM.

11-23-2010, 10:57 AM	#31
chibiunko New Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 17	I was in the market for a new DSLR a month ago with a budget of around 800 dollars and was deciding between the K-x and the K-r. After some research, I felt that the price difference didn't warrant the slight improvements the K-R was offering. So I bought the K-x for around $450 and with the money I saved, I bought myself a Pentax DFA 50mm Macro lens which has been on my camera everyday.

11-23-2010, 01:43 PM	#33
UnknownVT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,812	Originally posted by ggeorge11 Thank you for the compliments! I really use the heck out of that lens, and 95% of the time get great results. I also have the Tammy 90mm macro. The Tamron 18-200 has a great range - I have often thought of getting it over my two "kit" zooms 18-55 and 50-200 - because inevitably there are occasions when I wished I had the other lens on the camera! Now the Tamron 90mm Macro is very highly regarded - do you see much difference on a general shot between that and the 18-200?

11-23-2010, 04:55 PM	#34
ggeorge11 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Central Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 218	Being the Tamron 90mm is of better quality, it does turn out some awesome pics! But I have been so happy with the 18-200, I have kept the 90mm to just macros, and flowers, and the colors have always been spot on. The only argument I have about the 18-200 is it is soft at 200. That is why I have the 70-200 now. But I just went to Perdanales state park, and shot over 90% with the 18-200 again. I shoot at night with the 18-200 here are some samples. for the price, I can't say enough good about the lens. All of these were shot at 100 ISO and f/5 with a 6 second shutter speed. w/ focal length of around 48-55 mm I try to shoot as low an ISO as possible to keep the noise down. feel free to go to my shutterbug site and see some of the macro and 18-200 shots to compare also. Texas in Pixels- Joseph K. George \| SmugMug even with this setting it picked up the bugs around the lights

11-29-2010, 03:25 AM	#35
garyk Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 488	I'm really interested in the k-r. I have the k-7 and the k-x walks all over it... I would like a backup. The k-r looks pretty interesting.

11-29-2010, 07:15 AM	#36
ggeorge11 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Central Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 218	I am interested on how the Kx, walks on the K7? Because I am lookng at the K7 for my main camera. I look at the stats, and read about some noise at higher ISO. But I go out of my way to shoot below 2000 ISO. I also like the weather proofing. I would hate to buy one and be dissapointed. So I should wait and save for the K5?

11-29-2010, 11:36 PM	#37
garyk Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 488	Personally, I want excellent IQ at a decent ISO. The k-x gives me both and the k-7 really does not for me. My k-7 has been in my bag now for 8 months without use. I use the k-x. I know it sounds weird but I really like the IQ of the k-x. I have been looking at the k-5. And the images i have seen just do not cut it for me. You make up your own mind though. I am going to pass on the k-5.

11-30-2010, 07:49 AM	#38
ggeorge11 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Central Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 218	Well, that is an interesting point. One of the issues I have is, the weather proofing. I am going to look at the IQ, and read more about it.

12-16-2010, 09:43 AM	#39
Navajo New Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Istanbul Posts: 14	I have started with k-r. But I had an intention to buy k-x. The reason of my choice on k-r has been as follows; 1) Very fast AF in LV 2) Focus LED on viewfinder. 3) Both AA and LION batteries possibility. 4) Other minor upgrades on higher ISO etc. But overall I'm very happy with the choice of k-r.

01-29-2011, 09:40 AM	#40
ggeorge11 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Central Texas Photos: Albums Posts: 218	If I did not have a camera at all, and was looking at the Kx, or the Kr. I would have done the same thing. I love my Kx, and after reading all of the raves about the K5, I think the K5 will be my next camera.

01-29-2011, 11:04 AM	#41
hawk1500 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 270	I went from a K-x to a K-r and the only thing I liked better on the K-x was the AA batteries out of the box. Still waiting for a good deal on those adapters (or for these Chinese knock-offs I bought to get here). And since I got the 18-55mm and 55-300mm kit for $750, I don't feel the price difference was too much, probably less than $100 to upgrade if I can unload the 55-300mm for ~$200.

01-30-2011, 03:15 AM	#42
WoRaS Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Krakow Posts: 54	Currently I am owner of K-x and after some research I decided to upgrade to K-5 or K-r. The main reason of upgrade is better FPS and better AF in K-5/K-r than K-x (according to users reports). K-x limits me during shooting fast action (planes). Everything seems that I will buy K-r because: 1. It is smaller and lighter than K-5 (important during hiking/climbing) 2. I do not need weather proofing (based on my personal experience - I had never problems with my K-x or - before - K-m, even in bad weather or dusty places). I was shooting on beaches, dunes, forests, mountains, during small rain, snow, hard frost (-20C) with no problems at all. 3. According to users reports, AF and AF.C performance in K-5 and K-r is exactly the same. 4. K-r is cheaper than K-5, so I can buy another toy :-) 5. I don't use manual focusing, so I do not need better viewfinder. 6. I really like K-x controls, I really do not want any other controls or dials on the body (can you believe that?). There is one thing in K-5 that it would be nice to have in K-r: sensor with amazing 14EV dynamic range. Well, you cannot have everything :-)