Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-09-2009, 02:20 AM   #1
Forum Member

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Utah
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 94 review of Pentax k-x

Pentax K-x, digital cameras, digital photography, photography, digital slr, camera recommendation, price comparison, photographic companies, camera companies, digital camera best prices,

Seems that they like it...but they mention a (severe?) battery issue (I have Pentax k-m, and almost always get between 800-1000 shots on a set of eneloop batteries). I find it (these supposed battery issues) hard to believe.

11-09-2009, 05:33 AM   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,333
They aren't the only ones though. Will here on the forum has had issues with eneloops. I had really questioned sticking with AA batteries in a camera that does live view and video. It seems like different people's results are all over the place.
11-09-2009, 06:04 AM   #3
Inactive Account

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
Heh. Coffs Harbour golf course.
11-09-2009, 07:53 AM   #4
Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 128
They say in this that the kx has the same body as the k7... that cant be right. they say the k7 is stainless steal and plastic

11-09-2009, 07:58 AM   #5
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Pilsen, Czech Republic
Posts: 224
They don't mention what AAs they used (just rechargable NiMH).
11-09-2009, 08:05 AM   #6
Veteran Member

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada
Posts: 2,014
They say that Pentax lens range is smaller than competition (read Nikon and Canon, not Olympus and Sony), but they forget to mention that most of the Pentax lenses are designed for digital, not carry-over from the film era, and they forget to mention that Pentax prime range is unsurpassed by the competition.
11-09-2009, 08:19 AM   #7
Veteran Member

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Umeň, Sweden
Posts: 755
QuoteOriginally posted by flyer Quote
They say that Pentax lens range is smaller than competition (read Nikon and Canon, not Olympus and Sony), but they forget to mention that most of the Pentax lenses are designed for digital, not carry-over from the film era, and they forget to mention that Pentax prime range is unsurpassed by the competition.
...and also that the K-mount is backwards compatible all the way back to 1975, so if you're willing to look at the used market, your options are a lot better than with almost any other camera. But of course, the target market for the K-x is people who REALLY CARE about being able to buy $2000+ tilt-shift and 70-200/2.8 lenses. I guess.
11-09-2009, 12:34 PM   #8

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,393
Not a bad review, but limited in scope.

I found the results in the 'Imatest resolution vs ISO setting' chart interesting. As they say:

[RAW] Resolution remained relatively high throughout the test camera's sensitivity range with a surprisingly small difference revealed between the ISO 200 and ISO 12800 settings.
Indeed - from ISO 200 to ISO 12800, resolution only seems to decline by about 10%, which is quite remarkable. It matches what they found for the Nikon D90 and D5000, and indeed, it seems a better result than the Canon 7D they recently reviewed.

This confirms my own experience - with the K-x you retain image sharpness and detail no matter how high you go up the ISO scale.

I am not sure whether I also agree that the out of camera JPG's are considerably softer than the RAW output. It doesn't match my experience, where JPG's seem to visually render quite sharp OOC, but I suppose haven't pixel peeped or measured that in detail.

But I am confused about how they obtained the JPG's - were they JPG's out of camera, or were their JPG's derived from their processing of the DNG RAW files? I mean, did they shoot RAW+, and get simulataneous DNG's and JPG's OOC, or did they produce the JPGs via a secondary process of their own?

As they say 'we had to conduct our resolution tests on DNG.RAW files, which were converted into 16-bit TIFF format with Adobe Camera Raw', it's clear that the DNG's went through this workflow, but did the JPG's as well? That process may have had an impact on the JPG's resolution - I'd expect OOC JPG's to be better than JPG's derived via a three stage conversion out of camera.

It's interesting that they said pretty much the same thing when they reviewed the Nikon D5000: '[D5000] JPEG image files recorded resolution levels slightly below expectations in our Imatest tests.' Perhaps it's the Sony sensors that powers both not doing a great job on JPGs?.

And once again, that battery issue. If they were sensible reviewers, they would have reviewed it under the three different types of batteries the camera takes, and then offered comments on their experience of each. As it is, they seem to base their experience of camera power management on one set of old no-name NiMh's they shoved into the camera, and had initial problems with. Not very useful.

I also wish they would make their charts and tables larger, or link them to larger versions. They are so hard to read.

11-09-2009, 01:05 PM   #9

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,393
Some additional comments after looking at their reviews of the 7D and the Nikon D5000.

In reviewing the 7D, they say
Patchy autofocusing may be one reason we were unable to reach the resolution levels we expected our Imatest tests when shooting JPEG files
Huh? Shouldn't they be doing stuff like manually focussing on a test target in order to measure resolution? I mean your resolution tests should measure resolution, not autofocus, and not be dependent on what focus scheme you used. Seems a poor methodology.

Now for some amazing stuff.

If the resolution results for different cameras are comparably derived, in comparing the K-x with the D5000, the K-x resolution scores simply blow the D5000 out of the water, especially for RAW.

In no score at any ISO does the D5000 exceed about 2200 lph in resolution.

However the K-x scores for RAW centre look like they exceed about 2600 lph at 200 ISO and never fall below 2200 lph even at 12800 ISO.

Indeed looking at the resolution scores for the 18MP Canon 7D, it's resolution scores are almost identical to the K-x - at 100ISO the 7D has about 2600 lph and at 12800 has about 2250lph, just like the K-x.

This is very weird.

If it's true - ie you have the 12MP K-x outresolving the 18MP 7D - something is very right with the K-x camera sensor and the Pentax kit lens !!!! Or something is not very right with their testing methods.

Last edited by rawr; 11-09-2009 at 01:15 PM.

  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
battery, camera, companies, k-x, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, photography, review, review of pentax
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K-R Review BigCTM Pentax K-r 2 11-01-2010 10:01 AM
Pentax K7 Review Brad Ovard Welcomes and Introductions 8 04-21-2010 10:21 PM
New Pentax K-x Review 100meters Pentax News and Rumors 11 02-24-2010 04:44 AM
DP Review modifies K2000 Review jeffkrol Pentax News and Rumors 8 02-05-2009 07:44 PM
Photography Review K10D Review benjikan Pentax DSLR Discussion 29 03-04-2007 12:34 PM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:18 PM. | See also:, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]