[Navmaxlp]

Hi all, new to the forums here. A little background on myself as a photographer. When I was in high school, I took a photography course and loved it. Took some photos for the school newspaper and yearbook. Time went on and I kept shooting but, never really had a lot of money for film and felt a bit defeated since it was so expensive for me. I started with a Minolta SLR and loved it. Unfortunately, during my time in the Navy, I lost it. I'm sure it still exists somewhere in Rota Spain. If you see it, let me know. I'd love it back. I then picked up a Cannon SLR. I liked it a lot but never really felt too comfortable with it. Truthfully, I always yearned for the Pentax k1000 that I learned with back in high school which brings me to where I am today. In the age of the digital camera, with digital SLRs now being affordable and dark rooms being a thing of the past, I want to jump back into photography.

My decision is between the Kx and the Kr. I know, I know, a lot of people have asked this question and I've read a lot of answers on them. My question is more specific. I know the kr has a lot of filters that are able to be applied real time while shooting. An example of this is the fish eye effect you can add without using a fish eye lens. I know the AF is improved on the Kr and I know the AF focusing indicator is added as well. I never used a focus indicator before so I probably won't miss it and the slower AF is something I think I can live with as one of my cameras was manual focus anyway and the one AF camera I had was really slow. I mean the Minolta was bought in 1991 and the Cannon was bought in 1997. However, I don't want to lose too much functionality by not going with the Kr. I always lusted after some of the cool things cameras could do with the right equipment (e.g fish eye effect). I'm wanting to play around and try as much out as I can and experiment while improving my skills.

Just for info, the photography I'll be doing will all be recreational. I have no aspirations of selling my photos or becoming a professional. I like macro and artistic photography and will be taking photos of family, pets and friends as well. Some low end sports (e.g my nephews football games) and some portrait stuff are possibilities as well.

It would be easy for me to just say I want the Kr and be done with it but, while I don't really have a budget, the finance committee (my wife) has to approve all purchases and exceeding the $500 mark is a hard sell. I can get the Kx with the 18-55 mm and the 50-300 for $650 and the same with a 50-200 mm for just under $600. This would be a great start for me. The Kr would just come with the kit lens and would still be more expensive at $730.

I'm torn. I love the look of the Kr more than the Kx. I know that really has nothing to do with the operation of the camera nor any affect on the pictures I take but, when shelling out so much cash, I tend to take everything into account. I'd love all the upgrades of the Kr and would like to have as many options as I can get my hands on. However, I don't want to pay for something I'm not going to use. I'm not a photo newb by any means but, I'm also no where near experienced.

So I turn to this community for advice and help. Spend the money on the Kr, or go with the lesser, albeit great valued, Kx? My photography fate is in your able and knowledgeable hands.

[Adam]

There are lots of added gimmicks in the K-r (such as the filters you're describing, but from my experience, they're next to useless, as better effects can be accomplished through photoshop) as well as some useful features (superimposed AF points, AF assist, the improved AF, larger buffer/FPS, larger/sharper screen, etc.)

I'd say that all these small improvements really add up, but the camera is still essentially the same: one e-dial, no top lcd, no weather-sealing, same viewfinder, same resolution, comparable image quality.

Here's a complete comparison of the technical specs:
Pentax K-x vs. Pentax K-r - Pentax Camera Comparison - PentaxForums.com

For someone like you, I think you'd be happy with the K-x just as much as the K-r, as you'll be able to be just as creative with your photos. However, it sounds like you're really interested in the K-r, and if you're going to "love" it because of the nicer body and added features, then I'd go ahead and drop the extra $220 for it.

$799 for the K-r with two lenses: Pentax K-r Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm and 50-200mm 14650
$586 for the K-x with two lenses: Pentax K-x Digital SLR with 18-55mm and 50-200mm Zoom 16201 B&H

You mentioned that the K-r has focus confirmation while the K-x doesn't: I don't think that's correct. All Pentax DSLRs have focus confirmation with both a beep and a VF icon.

[psychdoc]

I maybe wrong but if you read what you wrote there are a few times in your post where you talk about being in 'love' with the Minolta and 'yearning' for the feel of the Pentax k1000 etc. In other words you maybe the type who will use your camera more if you 'love' it. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, loving the equipment can be beneficial in terms of frequency of usage. The more frequently you use the camera the more likely you are to love the hobby.

With the above in mind, it seems to me that you have fallen for the Kr. I dont have one but it seems to me that if you were to get the kx you would not be so excited. Its good to be excited about your hobby. The technical advantage maybe less than you think with one over the other but if I were in your position and I could swing it I would get the Kr purely on this basis.

Happy Hunting. And practice for a few nights what you are going to say to your wife

[Navmaxlp]

For someone like you, I think you'd be happy with the K-x just as much as the K-r, as you'll be able to be just as creative with your photos. However, it sounds like you're really interested in the K-r, and if you're going to "love" it because of the nicer body and added features, then I'd go ahead and drop the extra $220 for it.

I maybe wrong but if you read what you wrote there are a few times in your post where you talk about being in 'love' with the Minolta and 'yearning' for the feel of the Pentax k1000 etc. In other words you maybe the type who will use your camera more if you 'love' it. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, loving the equipment can be beneficial in terms of frequency of usage. The more frequently you use the camera the more likely you are to love the hobby.

With the above in mind, it seems to me that you have fallen for the Kr. I dont have one but it seems to me that if you were to get the kx you would not be so excited. Its good to be excited about your hobby. The technical advantage maybe less than you think with one over the other but if I were in your position and I could swing it I would get the Kr purely on this basis.

Happy Hunting. And practice for a few nights what you are going to say to your wife

Wow, you both make it hard to be frugal hahaha. You both also make strong points. I had never thought about it this way. I'm starting to think the Kr might be the right choice. And you better believe I'll be practicing for the conversation with the wife. I'm writing the script in my head as I type. Thanks guys.

[jolepp]

In your situation I'd go for the k-x and the double kit which is a steal, really; while the extra features of the k-r are nice to have the k-x is missing nothing essential in comparison. Also, the k-x in fact has a set of the digital filters, such as the fish-eye (see below).

[njwujian]

I think the autofocus indicator (red spot)is useful on K-r, but even if there is no indicator on K-x, you can select the spot autofocus and AF.S, also you can select the focus, but just one spot, I use my K-m like this way.
I feel just this feature is better than K-x, and the others , I think the K-r is very similar with K-x.
just few improvement from K-x

[jolepp]

...
just few improvement from K-x

Also hi-res display and improved AF performance (the k-x AF is allright in phase detect mode, that is, when looking trough the viewfinder, though).