[kittykat46]

I'm angry why doesn't pentax learn from the k20d to k-7 mistake..

it seems that this time they did it again, the predecessor has better image quality at least in low light.. and more dynamic range..

what was improved then? ISO range? bullshit!

it's diffucult to trust them..

so why would one make a new camera with worse image sensor, and try to sell it more expensive.. while I already sold my kx, now I have mixed feelings about my choice..

I don't think the K-R is worse than the K-X. The difference is probably within the testing tolerance.
Colour depth K-R is "slightly" better - nothing significant
I looked at the detailed graphs for Dynamic Range, Colour Depth, SNR - no difference worth talking about.
The K-R is basically equal to the K-X in sensor performance, with better AF, faster FPS, better quality Video, visible focus select points, hand held HDR.
Whether that's worth the extra price is up to the buyer.
Interesting that this reviewPentax K-r Review - Conclusion | PhotographyBLOG
considered the K-R as significantly cheaper than equivalent spec.ed competition.

I noticed that both cameras are significantly better than the Canon 7D in the things dXOmark tests for
- and the 7D is not even considered the competition since it costs 2.5 x more than the K-R.

I already placed my order for the K-5 , but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the K-R to someone who was looking for a highly capable entry-level dSLR.

[ogl]

DxOMark - Pentax K-r

almost identical to K-x!

I'm very sceptical about all this DXO info...

But

there is a difference in measured and manufacturer ISO, by the way...
k-r has ISO close to real base ISO - 100, 200, 400, 800.
K-r has ISO740, K-x has ISO714...for example.


But max. resolution of K-r and K-x is the same
4288 x 2848

Why k-r has 4352 x 2868 and k-x had 4309 x 2868

K-r has 12 fps...


Portrait (Color depth) 22.9 bits vs 22.8 bits
Landscape (Dynamic range) 12.4 vs 12.5 Evs

This datas are the same (within the margin of error)

[Adam]

I really think they measure what they measure. The reality is that crop cameras, even good ones start losing dynamic range around iso 900 and full frame cameras around 1800. The numbers being thrown around sound like bigger differences than they are. These are quarter stop differences or less that are talked about -- not really visible in real shooting.

Right, but they're saying that the K-r's sensor is essentially worse than the K-x's, instead of being a lot better. Unless this simply isn't the case, something must be wrong somewhere.

[falconeye]

I'm angry why doesn't pentax learn from the k20d to k-7 mistake..

it seems that this time they did it again, the predecessor has better image quality at least in low light.. and more dynamic range..

what was improved then? ISO range? bullshit!

it's diffucult to trust them..

so why would one make a new camera with worse image sensor, and try to sell it more expensive.. while I already sold my kx, now I have mixed feelings about my choice..

DxO basically measured the same performance. Nothing to complain about as it never was marketed otherwise.

The difference can be explained by a minor difference in chip size (note the 1.50 vs. 1.52 difference) and measurement/sample variation. However, I don't know if that's accurate though. DPR lists no such difference. Note though that DxO must do precision measurements for their lens profiles. So maybe, that's correct and valuable info.

I don't think I'm understanding the Sports Low-light ISO score.

K-r: 755
K-x: 811
D3100: 919

I don't base my purchases on DxOMark, I'm just trying to understand how they're relaying their info. Is a higher value supposed to be better? Or is the SNR 18% chart that they have a better measurement?

I endorse much of what DxO does but not their scores. Always go by the charts, using the print normalization tab.

FWIW, the Low Iso is no low iso value. It is based on a 30dB SNR threshold where many people don't even see it's not iso 100 anymore. A 24 dB threshold would be more what we call low iso. The chart contains it all. But don't forget DR and color depth charts.

I agree, just pointing out the discrepancies people often site between 100% crops at high ISO of these cameras vs these scores. And of course, sharpness isn't compared on DxO

DxO uses a physical model how noise builds up. It is mostly correct as far as raw data prior to demosaicing is concerned. They check their model which is why they don't like Pentax raw NR. But having said this, their noise evaluation honors sharpness in the most accurate way currently found on the web. That's an inherent property of their method (Dirac shaped cross correlation).

Having seen sample photos from the K-r and nothing their unmatched clarity, I can only conclude that this scoring is complete and utter BS, unless, of course, a mistake was made somewhere.

Adam, I heard you're preparing your own test report (K-5). Let's hope you don't get the feedback my eyes don't believe it's you who posted it...

[Adam]

Adam, I heard you're preparing your own test report (K-5). Let's hope you don't get the feedback my eyes don't believe it's you who posted it...

I probably won't be doing the tests, but do you care to enlighten me on why the scores are low for the K-r? Is the IQ simply not better? My assumptions at the moment are just based on the kickass test shots I've seen people post.

I don't have a copy of the K-r yet, as B&H has ducked out with their demo program. Did you get a chance to play with one?

[falconeye]

I probably won't be doing the tests, but do you care to enlighten me on why the scores are low for the K-r? Is the IQ simply not better? My assumptions at the moment are just based on the kickass test shots I've seen people post.

One better develops an eye for kickass or flawed test shots. That's why DxO is so important. It restores sanity! The same I try to do in my blog, btw...

[rawr]

This datas are the same (within the margin of error)

I agree with ogl on this one. None of the results (except for the fps!) are significantly different from the K-x.

Hopefully the K-5 result, when DXO get around to assessing it, will really kick ass though.

[JohnBee]

Having seen sample photos from the K-r and nothing their unmatched clarity, I can only conclude that this scoring is complete and utter BS, unless, of course, a mistake was made somewhere.

I think the biggest issue seem to arise from the overall scores values.

However so far DxoMark seems to of be accurate in all that I've seen(even if its not pretty). I can't say that I'd base a purchasing decision on it, but I'm happy to have it.

Personally, I think the K-r will be okay.
After all, it still works out to be a significant upgrade in many ways.
And it's not like the K-x was a bad formula either from what I can see(why ruin a good thing?)

Anyways, I'm holding my angst for the K-5.
But above I'll trust my lying eyes in the end.
Even if I am completely biased

[WerTicus]

Why would anyone expect the K-r to perform significantly better than the K-x it is the same sensor. The measurements showing its slightly worse could well be caused by a different capacitor they used somewhere....

[Adam]

Why would anyone expect the K-r to perform significantly better than the K-x it is the same sensor. The measurements showing its slightly worse could well be caused by a different capacitor they used somewhere....

Well that would explain things- guess I haven't done my K-r homework

[audiobomber]

Why would anyone expect the K-r to perform significantly better than the K-x it is the same sensor.

Ned Bunnel said it's a different sensor.

[opiedog]

pixel pitch is a tad smaller - that could account for something

[glanglois]

Ned Bunnel said it's a different sensor.

Different does not mean better in every respect.

If the sensor can off-load images faster, allowing an increase in fps, it may be said to be "better" (in some eyes) than another.

Or it could have been a new design that give the same results but provides better yields in manufacturing, or produces less heat, or is easier to mount in the carrier, etc. Different to Sony does not automatically mean better for everyone.

We really should get our minds around subjects other than (in addition to) noise/resolution/DR at high ISOs.

[audiobomber]

Different does not mean better in every respect.

If the sensor can off-load images faster, allowing an increase in fps, it may be said to be "better" (in some eyes) than another.

Or it could have been a new design that give the same results but provides better yields in manufacturing, or produces less heat, or is easier to mount in the carrier, etc. Different to Sony does not automatically mean better for everyone.

We really should get our minds around subjects other than (in addition to) noise/resolution/DR at high ISOs.

The statement that is attributed to Ned Bunnel says better IQ:

The sensor in the K-r is new. Yes, it’s 12MP like K-x’s, but it is a new design and photographers will see an improvement in IQ because of this.
Speaking to Pentax at PhotoPlus Expo in New York | Enticing the Light

I don't see the justification for saying "better IQ" from the published DXO results or the comparison posted here https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/120126-k-r-vs-k-x-...so-flower.html.

[ogl]

I don't see the justification for saying "better IQ" from the published DXO results or the comparison posted here https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/120126-k-r-vs-k-x-...so-flower.html.

:ugh: I think that IQ shows us the final photo, not DXO's numbers