I am terribly disappointed that new K-r is not offered in color combo that I wanted. I think they need more colors. I am not sure what they were thinking. I hope they do better in that department with K-5, or else I am going to buy more lenses.

[JoepLX3]

I am terribly disappointed that new K-r is not offered in color combo that I wanted. I think they need more colors. I am not sure what they were thinking. I hope they do better in that department with K-5, or else I am going to buy more lenses.

For which color do you want to pay how much more?
- I Japan you will be able to get the whole K-x color selection on K-r

[VaughnA]

I sold my K20D and bought a K-x and haven't regretted it or really missed it except for one thing that should be as common on Pentax cameras as the green button. Why can't they add it to the K-r or even K-x firmware, maybe an option for P mode....

Sing in your best Sting/Dire Straits voice.

I want my TAv

[er1kksen]

I sold my K20D and bought a K-x and haven't regretted it or really missed it except for one thing that should be as common on Pentax cameras as the green button. Why can't they add it to the K-r or even K-x firmware, maybe an option for P mode....

Sing in your best Sting/Dire Straits voice.

I want my TAv

I miss TAv too. They could take care of it by enabling user-defined auto-ISO in manual mode. You can already do this with most Nikons, and it operates pretty much identically to TAv.

[aleonx3]

I miss TAv too. They could take care of it by enabling user-defined auto-ISO in manual mode. You can already do this with most Nikons, and it operates pretty much identically to TAv.

That is "floating ISO" in Nikon world; but I like "TAv" mode better.

[audiobomber]

I sold my K20D and bought a K-x and haven't regretted it or really missed it except for one thing that should be as common on Pentax cameras as the green button. Why can't they add it to the K-r or even K-x firmware, maybe an option for P mode....

Sing in your best Sting/Dire Straits voice.

I want my TAv

I have a K20D and K-x. I'm very happy to have both but I would never give up the K20 for a K-x (or a K-r). The ISO difference is highly exaggerated. It's under one stop, easily made up for with a faster lens.

[er1kksen]

I have a K20D and K-x. I'm very happy to have both but I would never give up the K20 for a K-x (or a K-r). The ISO difference is highly exaggerated. It's under one stop, easily made up for with a faster lens.

This has been discussed to death, but it really depends on what you do with your image files... having owned a K20D and currently owning a K-x, it's true that they're not very far apart in an exposure biased more to the right side of the histogram if you don't try to manipulate the data much. It's in the shadows and manipulation of darker exposures that the K-x pulls ahead, sometimes by quite a bit more than a stop. Even at base ISO there's tangibly more to work with in the shadows of a K-x file than there were with K20D files, making it easier to expose for highlight preservation without losing the shadows.

[audiobomber]

This has been discussed to death, but it really depends on what you do with your image files... having owned a K20D and currently owning a K-x, it's true that they're not very far apart in an exposure biased more to the right side of the histogram if you don't try to manipulate the data much. It's in the shadows and manipulation of darker exposures that the K-x pulls ahead, sometimes by quite a bit more than a stop. Even at base ISO there's tangibly more to work with in the shadows of a K-x file than there were with K20D files, making it easier to expose for highlight preservation without losing the shadows.

First of all, I try not to use hightISO and I will use flash when it's appropriate to do that. Secondly, I expose correctly 99% of the time, so I don't have to push the exposure. The K20 has lower noise at ISO 1600 with the FA 35 at f/2 than the K-x at ISO 3200 and DA 40 at f/2.8. Aside from the high ISO difference, the K-x is very compromised for handling compared to a K20. The K20 image is more 3D too, IMO.

[er1kksen]

First of all, I try not to use hightISO and I will use flash when it's appropriate to do that. Secondly, I expose correctly 99% of the time, so I don't have to push the exposure. The K20 has lower noise at ISO 1600 with the FA 35 at f/2 than the K-x at ISO 3200 and DA 40 at f/2.8. Aside from the high ISO difference, the K-x is very compromised for handling compared to a K20. The K20 image is more 3D too, IMO.

Avoid high ISO and use flash when appropriate: all well and good, but sometimes just not possible. I'd rather have the high ISO capability and not need it than need it and not have it.

Exposing correctly: have you noticed that the human eye/brain combination processes the dynamic range of a scene differently than a digital sensor? The "correct exposure" is the exposure that captures all of the data that you are trying to capture. That data can then be rendered later in a manner that most closely resembles the scene you saw. Sometimes that means a very underexposed-looking RAW file in the interest of preserving highlight detail. We're not shooting chromes anymore.

Lower noise from the K20D in that specific situation: again, depends on the photographic situation. If the scene has many shadows, the K-x will start to show its strengths. There are far too many different conditions that could apply to this comparison for it to really be valid.

Handling differences: certainly. The ergonomics of the K20D are something I truly miss. The 4.7fps and improved AF are nice to have at times, however. Anyways, it's not terribly relevant to comparisons of sensor quality.

"3D Look:" I'm not even gonna go there...

[JoepLX3]

Don't we have electronic experts on this forum? With my physics background I would come to the following "theory":

• Changing ISO on a camera is like changing the gain on an amplifier
• Good High ISO performance requires good noise control at input
  • Because bad noise control at input will be amplified by amplifier resulting in high noise levels at High ISO setting
• Dynamic range is determined by ADC (X-bits Analog to Digital Converter) and noise level as function of ISO setting
  • Bad noise control at input will be amplified by amplifier resulting in high noise levels, limiting effective dynamic range, especially at High ISO setting
  • Good noise control at input enables larger effective dynamic range also at Low ISO settings

Why only a rat race to High ISO performance and not Low ISO (<< 100) like in the old film days?
- You will need more fast lens, more light or a Tripod, so not an application for everybody...

[audiobomber]

Why only a rat race to High ISO performance and not Low ISO (<< 100) like in the old film days?
- You will need more fast lens, more light or a Tripod, so not an application for everybody...

Yes, it's odd that no DSLR has low ISO like the old ASA 25. I can only assume that there isn't enough demand.

[JoepLX3]

Technically it is difficult to run in two directions at the same time, High + Low ISO performance...

[thibs]

Is there any official statement about HDR auto align ?
Can't find yet the K-r manual..

[audiobomber]

Technically it is difficult to run in two directions at the same time, High + Low ISO performance...

Right, and consumer demand is for taking photos in the darkwithout flash. It's still surprising to me that no one makes a camera for landscape shooters with a range like ISO 25-1600.

[er1kksen]

Well, improving sensor characteristics at high ISO generally lead to even cleaner images with greater DR at low ISO, and you can always add a decent ND filter to a "normal range" camera... so selling a specialty low-ISO camera probably would not prove profitable for any manufacturer.