[nirvanaguy19]

Hi guys
upgrading my trusted k10d to either the k-r/k-x. i was set on the k-x but see that k-r corrects the minor flaws like selected af points not visible in VF , higher fps. DxO reports suggests k-x is slightly better at higher iso. Coming form k10d which is not really usable over 800, will i notice this small difference. Also i like that with the k-r both AA as well as custom battery can be used so thats a definite plus

---

Last edited by nirvanaguy19; 11-03-2010 at 11:54 PM.

[sjwaldron]

I think the K-r would be a better purchase moving forward if money isn't too much of a factor. Also keep in mind you would need to buy rechargeable batteries and a charger for the K-x along with the factors you mentioned like the k-x not having focus lights.

[GeneV]

Hi guys
upgrading my trusted k10d to either the k-r/k-x. i was set on the k-x but see that k-r corrects the minor flaws like selected af points not visible in VF , higher fps. DxO reports suggests k-x is slightly better at higher iso. Coming form k10d which is not really usable over 800, will i notice this small difference. Also i like that with the k-r both AA as well as custom battery can be used so thats a definite plus

I love my K-x. I put more shutter actuations on it more quickly than any SLR I've owned. That being said, I'd go for the K-r. I do really miss the AF points in the viewfinder, and, unless I read a bunch of reports from people I know here that the DxO differences really played out to be significant in the real world, that feature, alone, would make the difference to me if I were buying today.

[cabstar]

i just sold my k-x for another gx20 why?

edials
viewfinder size
IQ
shutter noize
grip

yes k-x has great iso abilities but those reasons sbove convinced me to sell

[Pablom]

sounds like a downgrade to me...

[reeftool]

I'm considering picking up the Kx as a second body just based on the price. I'm saving for a K5 and will probably spring for one later next year. I always leave my focus point set at center but my only concern was that somehow I could accidently change that setting and not know it. I would be using it almost entirely for indoor and low light shooting so it wouldn't be making kayak and backpacking trips either. Those $425 ads on the Forum front page look awful tempting. If it drops to under $400, maybe I'll jump.

[paperbag846]

The K-x or K-r would be an upgrade if you require iso 1600 + 3200.

Don't pay attention to DXOmark... their tests are more or less misleading for the average photographer. Statistically significant does not equal artistically significant .

You will likely notice it to be a "downgrade" in build quality and external features.

Between the KX and KR, I would select the K-X because they can be had for so little. I tend to buy the previous generation, though, because I believe that is where you find true value.

In fact, the K-X and K10d would make good companions. I believe the K10d would be better for iso 100-400, and the k-x would be better for ISO 800-3200.

[winglik]

sounds like a downgrade to me...

That's True. I have the K10D and "upgraded" to the K-x last year. After one year, I wasn't satisfy with the K-x, specially with the blur image.(I tried in 2 K-x Bodies) I went back to the K10D last month, Low ISO in the K10D rocks, and I never missed the K-x. Only advantage of the k-x is the high ISO. So I guess you should get the K-r for a little more money.

---

Last edited by winglik; 11-04-2010 at 07:57 AM.

[nirvanaguy19]

Thanks guys
Yep, not necessarily an upgrade but a 2nd body. the other reason for wanting a new cam is that my camera recently fell with flash attached taking out the hotshoe base along with it (flash is fine mysteriously)

looks like i will be getting a k-r next month

[songhuagao]

I think, kr is more beautiful than kx....

[ovim]

I've upgraded from K200D (pretty much the same sensor as K10D) to K-r and here's a few thoughts after a few days of light use. (I haven't used the K-x so can't compare to it):

+ Shooting in low light is much better, the high ISO performance is really good
+ FPS is much better, I think I can get something like 11 RAW shots in one burst instead of 4 with K200D (in roughly the same time too). I'm not much of a machine gunner but I think it'll come handy when shooting fast action.
+ Somewhat smaller size, although I've got quite big hands I like the small size.
+ Autofocus is improved. I mainly use vintage mf glass but I've tested the AF and it seems quicker with less small adjustments at the end.

+/- Rear LCD size and IQ is really good, although I find it annoying when it lights up (to show ISO/aperture/shutter speed if shutter button is not half-pressed) under your eyes while looking through the viewfinder. I hope there is a menu setting to change this, but haven't searched for it yet. So I kind of miss the simple top LCD.

- Button layout/size. Some of the buttons are smaller and in different places. But I'm already slowly getting used to it so I don't think it's going to be a problem for long.