Originally posted by locke07 So I'm now kind of leery of buying the K-r. I didn't realize there were a set of issues that it had over the K-x and since the K-x is cheaper that just makes more sense then.
I wouldn't dismiss the K-r out of hand because of one person in this thread that says the K-x is "much better". There are objective, and a lot more subjective, differences. I implore you to do more research beyond just a few responses from one thread.
I own the K-r and have not had the AF and exposure problems mentioned. By most accounts I have read, the K-r has improved AF over the K-x (esp. in speed).....and any exposure issues are easily rectified with adjustments of a wide variety of settings. Depending on conditions, most any camera will have exposure issues with some of those conditions.....and that's why there are things like highlight and shadow correction, exposure compensation, lens hoods, filters, etc.
Or, better yet.....instead of relying on a default exposure on an auto setting, a photographer can learn how to use ISO, aperture, and shutter speeds to get the exposure that works best for the scene.
No dissing on the K-x or the k200D, but the K-r is a great camera. The front focus issues (if that's what was meant by AF problems), while significant....are isolated to a particular kind of lighting and have future remedies. And a few of the other features the K-r has that the other two do not.....while insufficient to make it vastly superior......are substantial enough to distinguish it for purchasing IMHO.
So keep reading and evaluating.....and take into account the potential issues of the K-r by all means. Just don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Any camera can make the water a bit murky.