K-x Comparometer

Eruditass · 11-17-2009, 10:54 AM

Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

Have at it. D300s is there, too.

ogl · 11-17-2009, 11:05 AM

I see K-x has better noise/resolution at all ISO, and better at ISO1600-3200.
WB is colder. I'd say K-x is better D300s in JPEG.

audiobomber · 11-17-2009, 11:22 AM

Be aware when looking at the Comparometer that photos are taken with the camera's default jpeg settings. I don't know what the NR default is for the K-x but a camera like the K20D, which has NR turned off from the factory looks like it has more noise in these tests than Nikons or Canons which have strong NR. Also some cameras have high ISO NR, which can't be turned off, and it kicks in at different ISO values. Look for detail, not just noise. It's important to compare photos at the same size too, so if two cameras have different number of pixels you should download and equalize both to a similar size.

Supernaut · 11-17-2009, 11:22 AM

Very impressing!!

deadwolfbones · 11-17-2009, 12:05 PM

It's very impressive even vs. the D700 and 5DmkII.

pxpaulx · 11-17-2009, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

It's very impressive even vs. the D700 and 5DmkII.

Looked at it against the d700 - there definitely is a difference, but you are right it does stand up to it quite well! (given the quarter on the dollar price difference)

Ogl - we agree, haha. The higher ISO kills the d300s easily - if this is default settings what can you say but wow to those images side by side? On the subject of WB, I do find the K-x cooler - but, the reality is that I have found it to actually be very representative of the actual subject. Of course, WB can be tuned to your taste and the final product is subjective - but indoors under artificial lights I find the results pretty pleasing overall.

lol101 · 11-17-2009, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

It's very impressive even vs. the D700 and 5DmkII.

I'd like to see some raw images (they must be in there somewhere) because these jpegs don't look that good to me: heavy NR (look at the red napkin, the patterns on it are completely obliterated by ISO 1600) and bad demosaïcing artifacts (look at the markings on bottle on the right: false colors everywhere)... it maybe my eyes but on my calibrated monitor, the 5DMkII (and even MkI) and D700 look quite a bit better with much less NR and no artifacts I can spot.

Edit: I found the raw and downloaded a few from various brands and models, just develop them in LR or RawTherapee with 0 NR, 0 sharpening or other corrections and then one can make a better comparison...

K-x stands its ground very well in the APS-C category (best in class?) but still is no FF (compare to D700 or original 5D for comparable resolution, 5DMkII has higher noise and higher resolution) and still has traces of NR in raw at ISO above 1600.

So the

turned to

on the raw side!

On the other hand, just look at the images at ISO 1600&3200 from k-x and 7D... clearly, resolution has a hefty price in terms of noise and it really looks like NR is mandatory to get anything decent at higher ISO, not really what I would call a "class leading performance", except if you're looking only at resolution. My choice goes to K-x for IQ.

Last edited by lol101; 11-17-2009 at 03:52 PM.

gimmepizza · 11-17-2009, 03:13 PM

I agree. I compared the K10D at 1600 to K-x at 3200, and the red cloth/napkin details are there on the K10D but not K-x. Also, on the cloth/napkin that is pink and white, two below the lower red one, the K10D shows true colors, while the K-x has substituted gray for pink, and pink for white!!! Please, oh please fix this, Pentax! The K-x was going to be my high-ISO dream come true -- but now I'm getting cold feet!

ricardobeat · 11-17-2009, 05:19 PM

god, it justs smacks the k-7 in the face. i'm almost feeling sorry for having bought it

unkabin · 11-17-2009, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by ricardobeat

god, it justs smacks the k-7 in the face. i'm almost feeling sorry for having bought it

To my eyes, comparing the K7 and Kx, the K7 is clearly better through 800 on those jpgs. At 1600, K7 starts to lose detail, and they look pretty equal. After that the K7 loses much detail to noise. I wouldn't regret that k7 choice, unless (very) high ISO is your holy grail.

rawr · 11-17-2009, 07:12 PM

FYI, Imaging Resource have also just put up an array of more than 100 test shots for the K-x:

Pentax K-x Digital Camera Samples - Hands-On Preview - The Imaging Resource!

including lots of RAW DNG's.

FullertonImages · 11-17-2009, 07:17 PM

It definitely destroys the D90 ad 50D at all ISOs, and beats the D300s pretty badly as well. It's sharper at lower ISOs, and has less noise at higher ISOs. I have one of these at the moment, and am constantly blown away by it's performance. I was going to get a k-7, but now I think I'd rather have one of these. K-7 has a lot of features I want, but the IQ/ISO on the K-x is just amazing.

ogl · 11-17-2009, 10:48 PM

LR 3.0 beta - RAW to jpeg 100% quality

http://s49.radikal.ru/i125/0911/5a/9ad558505b11.jpg
K-x
WB 4900
blacks 0
NR OFF (in LR too)
ISO1600
default sharp 25@1.0 with details 25

http://s39.radikal.ru/i083/0911/0c/de44dd54f675.jpg
D300s
the same parameters

http://s44.radikal.ru/i106/0911/ee/570c4e6c3050.jpg
K-x with WB 5550 (as shot)

D300s is a bit worse in terms of noise at ISO1600, but looks sharper.

K-x is better at ISO3200. But softer.
http://s60.radikal.ru/i170/0911/da/4db1a7893c98.jpg

I'd say 3200 is much better. K-x is better at ALL ISO than D300s

D300s at ISO3200
http://rapidshare.de/files/48699013/D300ShSLI3200_NR_OFF.jpg.html

Eruditass · 11-17-2009, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by ogl

LR 3.0 beta - RAW to jpeg

http://s49.radikal.ru/i125/0911/5a/9ad558505b11.jpg
K-x
WB 4900
black 0
NR OFF (in LR too)
ISO1600
default sharp

http://s39.radikal.ru/i083/0911/0c/de44dd54f675.jpg
D300s
the same parameters

http://s44.radikal.ru/i106/0911/ee/570c4e6c3050.jpg
K-x with WB 5550 (as shot)

D300s is a bit worse in terms of noise, but looks sharper.

K-x is better at ISO3200. But softer.
http://s60.radikal.ru/i170/0911/da/4db1a7893c98.jpg

intensity far too great

ogl · 11-17-2009, 11:55 PM

D300s ISO1600

K-x ISO1600

K-x at 3200

D300s at 3200

11-17-2009, 10:54 AM	#1
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	K-x Comparometer Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page Have at it. D300s is there, too.

11-17-2009, 11:05 AM	#2
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	I see K-x has better noise/resolution at all ISO, and better at ISO1600-3200. WB is colder. I'd say K-x is better D300s in JPEG. Last edited by ogl; 11-18-2009 at 01:21 AM.

11-17-2009, 10:48 PM	#13
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	LR 3.0 beta - RAW to jpeg 100% quality http://s49.radikal.ru/i125/0911/5a/9ad558505b11.jpg K-x WB 4900 blacks 0 NR OFF (in LR too) ISO1600 default sharp 25@1.0 with details 25 http://s39.radikal.ru/i083/0911/0c/de44dd54f675.jpg D300s the same parameters http://s44.radikal.ru/i106/0911/ee/570c4e6c3050.jpg K-x with WB 5550 (as shot) D300s is a bit worse in terms of noise at ISO1600, but looks sharper. K-x is better at ISO3200. But softer. http://s60.radikal.ru/i170/0911/da/4db1a7893c98.jpg I'd say 3200 is much better. K-x is better at ALL ISO than D300s D300s at ISO3200 http://rapidshare.de/files/48699013/D300ShSLI3200_NR_OFF.jpg.html Last edited by ogl; 11-17-2009 at 11:42 PM.

11-17-2009, 11:55 PM	#15
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	D300s ISO1600 K-x ISO1600 K-x at 3200 D300s at 3200 Last edited by ogl; 11-18-2009 at 12:01 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New K-7 Comparometer images	PentaxPoke	Pentax DSLR Discussion	18	07-30-2009 06:41 PM

11-17-2009, 11:22 AM	#3
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Be aware when looking at the Comparometer that photos are taken with the camera's default jpeg settings. I don't know what the NR default is for the K-x but a camera like the K20D, which has NR turned off from the factory looks like it has more noise in these tests than Nikons or Canons which have strong NR. Also some cameras have high ISO NR, which can't be turned off, and it kicks in at different ISO values. Look for detail, not just noise. It's important to compare photos at the same size too, so if two cameras have different number of pixels you should download and equalize both to a similar size.

11-17-2009, 11:22 AM	#4
Supernaut Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: West Coast , Sweden Posts: 467	Very impressing!!

11-17-2009, 12:05 PM	#5
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	It's very impressive even vs. the D700 and 5DmkII.

11-17-2009, 12:47 PM	#6
pxpaulx Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 2,867	Originally posted by deadwolfbones It's very impressive even vs. the D700 and 5DmkII. Looked at it against the d700 - there definitely is a difference, but you are right it does stand up to it quite well! (given the quarter on the dollar price difference) Ogl - we agree, haha. The higher ISO kills the d300s easily - if this is default settings what can you say but wow to those images side by side? On the subject of WB, I do find the K-x cooler - but, the reality is that I have found it to actually be very representative of the actual subject. Of course, WB can be tuned to your taste and the final product is subjective - but indoors under artificial lights I find the results pretty pleasing overall.

11-17-2009, 01:59 PM	#7
lol101 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Garennes sur Eure France Photos: Gallery Posts: 899	Originally posted by deadwolfbones It's very impressive even vs. the D700 and 5DmkII. I'd like to see some raw images (they must be in there somewhere) because these jpegs don't look that good to me: heavy NR (look at the red napkin, the patterns on it are completely obliterated by ISO 1600) and bad demosaïcing artifacts (look at the markings on bottle on the right: false colors everywhere)... it maybe my eyes but on my calibrated monitor, the 5DMkII (and even MkI) and D700 look quite a bit better with much less NR and no artifacts I can spot. Edit: I found the raw and downloaded a few from various brands and models, just develop them in LR or RawTherapee with 0 NR, 0 sharpening or other corrections and then one can make a better comparison... K-x stands its ground very well in the APS-C category (best in class?) but still is no FF (compare to D700 or original 5D for comparable resolution, 5DMkII has higher noise and higher resolution) and still has traces of NR in raw at ISO above 1600. So the turned to on the raw side! On the other hand, just look at the images at ISO 1600&3200 from k-x and 7D... clearly, resolution has a hefty price in terms of noise and it really looks like NR is mandatory to get anything decent at higher ISO, not really what I would call a "class leading performance", except if you're looking only at resolution. My choice goes to K-x for IQ. Last edited by lol101; 11-17-2009 at 03:52 PM.

11-17-2009, 03:13 PM	#8
gimmepizza Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 42	I agree. I compared the K10D at 1600 to K-x at 3200, and the red cloth/napkin details are there on the K10D but not K-x. Also, on the cloth/napkin that is pink and white, two below the lower red one, the K10D shows true colors, while the K-x has substituted gray for pink, and pink for white!!! Please, oh please fix this, Pentax! The K-x was going to be my high-ISO dream come true -- but now I'm getting cold feet!

11-17-2009, 05:19 PM	#9
ricardobeat Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Brazil Posts: 376	god, it justs smacks the k-7 in the face. i'm almost feeling sorry for having bought it

11-17-2009, 07:08 PM	#10
unkabin Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Moorhead, MN Posts: 176	Originally posted by ricardobeat god, it justs smacks the k-7 in the face. i'm almost feeling sorry for having bought it To my eyes, comparing the K7 and Kx, the K7 is clearly better through 800 on those jpgs. At 1600, K7 starts to lose detail, and they look pretty equal. After that the K7 loses much detail to noise. I wouldn't regret that k7 choice, unless (very) high ISO is your holy grail.

11-17-2009, 07:12 PM	#11
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	FYI, Imaging Resource have also just put up an array of more than 100 test shots for the K-x: Pentax K-x Digital Camera Samples - Hands-On Preview - The Imaging Resource! including lots of RAW DNG's.

11-17-2009, 07:17 PM	#12
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	It definitely destroys the D90 ad 50D at all ISOs, and beats the D300s pretty badly as well. It's sharper at lower ISOs, and has less noise at higher ISOs. I have one of these at the moment, and am constantly blown away by it's performance. I was going to get a k-7, but now I think I'd rather have one of these. K-7 has a lot of features I want, but the IQ/ISO on the K-x is just amazing.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-17-2009, 11:07 PM	#14
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207 Original Poster	Originally posted by ogl LR 3.0 beta - RAW to jpeg http://s49.radikal.ru/i125/0911/5a/9ad558505b11.jpg K-x WB 4900 black 0 NR OFF (in LR too) ISO1600 default sharp http://s39.radikal.ru/i083/0911/0c/de44dd54f675.jpg D300s the same parameters http://s44.radikal.ru/i106/0911/ee/570c4e6c3050.jpg K-x with WB 5550 (as shot) D300s is a bit worse in terms of noise, but looks sharper. K-x is better at ISO3200. But softer. http://s60.radikal.ru/i170/0911/da/4db1a7893c98.jpg intensity far too great