Fairly negative review of the K-X

enoeske · 03-31-2010, 07:52 AM

Pentax K-x Review [Muscling in on Nikon and Canon]

The beginning of the article is full of negatives making one immediately think the camera is crap.
"The test camera wasn’t a nice red one as I’d imagined"
"The second dull note comes from the ordinary viewfinder and the vital shooting data on the bottom row, which is hard to read in bright light"

Obiviously a noob who doesn't even know how to use manual mode testing out this camera,
"Switching to manual turned off auto ISO, which I didn’t realise"

The bad part is that the images used are terrible and not at all indicative of the K-X performance. This is a site that I frequent pretty often but caters to a lot of beginners. There is almost half a million people subscribed to the newsletter. The facts should be laid out for this fool.

Anyone want to help correct the article over there?

Last edited by enoeske; 03-31-2010 at 08:17 AM.

Ira · 03-31-2010, 08:05 AM

"So I don’t read the manual at first because I want to know how easy the product is to use, and how intuitive the controls and navigation are. Would anyone actually read the 300 page manual? Not unless she’s stuck on a dessert island with nothing else to do."

It's hopeless:

The reviewer is a dope.

Ira · 03-31-2010, 08:11 AM

I just posted there, but it's awaiting moderation before it will appear.

LinXitoW · 03-31-2010, 08:16 AM

The High ISO shot looks fake, honestly. No matter how bad the situation, i cant get even nearly the amount of chroma(!) noise that the reviewer got.

er1kksen · 03-31-2010, 08:29 AM

Fascinating.

From the article:

"However, I was surprised that a camera with an advanced 12mp sensor couldn’t produce pictures as sharp as the old 6mp Nikon D40, which was released late in 2006."

From the comments:

"Love my D40. I don’t know what Pentax is doing but when you can’t beat an entry level camera from like 3 years ago you have problems."

I'd say this comment is pretty spot-on. If the reviewer can't get sharper photos from the high-acutance sensor/AA filter combo in the K-x, he clearly has some problems.

Incidentally, all the photos he provides as examples of poor high-ISO performance look like the jpegs I get out of the camera when I've got both highlight correction on (which increases shadow noise) and shadow correction turned all the way up (which increases noise even more) and high-ISO NR turned entirely off, as well as the sharpening all the way up. If the D40 had such options, I'm sure you could easily make just as unflattering example photos with it.

I currently find this kind of amusing.

flippedgazelle · 03-31-2010, 08:31 AM

Good Lord, one of the worst reviews from a so-called "review site" that I've ever come across.

"...I reduced the K-x shot by 50% (12mp vs 6 mp) which actually makes it look better. I have no idea how this can be, but I can only tell it as it is." Really?

I posted this comment on that site. Let's see how long it lasts...

jptreen · 03-31-2010, 11:40 AM

The moral of the story is 'if you look hard enough on the internet you're bound to find someone even dumber than Ken Rockwell'.

Ira · 03-31-2010, 11:48 AM

Well, some of us posted some great replies--and I think she's in a corner crying now.

Blue · 03-31-2010, 01:18 PM

Rice Low will probably pick this review up in short order.

séamuis · 03-31-2010, 01:35 PM

this is exactly why I have never, nor will I ever read (seriously) a review by anyone, on any camera, that isnt done by an actual photographer. a photographer who has photos to prove his/her ability and a working familiarity with the type of equipment being reviewed. ie: I wouldnt trust a person who uses large format plate cameras to give a review of the K-x any more than I would the idiot who did this one. they may be good at their craft, but would you hand over the controls of an attack helicopter to someone who is a 'pro' commercial airliner pilot?

Pentax Convert · 03-31-2010, 01:45 PM

Although this review appears to be absolute rot, and I could almost certainly do a better job in one one day by myself, though as a K-x owner I have to agree with the reviewer on one thing...in bright light the menus inside the viewfinder are very difficult, noigh on impossible to read. Otherwise the K-x a more-than-fine imaging machine...

GeneV · 03-31-2010, 01:57 PM

I have been blown away with how good the K-x is at ISO 1600. I would really have to try in order to take an ISO 1600 photo that looked as bad as the one shown in this review. I'm at a loss to know what is going on there. I'm wondering whether that is a shadow from an ISO 1600 photo that she lightened up about 3 stops.

er1kksen · 03-31-2010, 02:01 PM

I do feel obligated to mention that most status displays inside viewfinders of cameras I've used (k20D, 40D, E-330) weren't particularly easy to read with bright light coming through the finder either.

er1kksen · 03-31-2010, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

I have been blown away with how good the K-x is at ISO 1600. I would really have to try in order to take an ISO 1600 photo that looked as bad as the one shown in this review. I'm at a loss to know what is going on there. I'm wondering whether that is a shadow from an ISO 1600 photo that she lightened up about 3 stops.

My theory: Highlight correction ON, Shadow Correction all the way up, sharpening and contrast all the way up, high ISO NR OFF. Pick a contrasty scene where the shadow correction will boost the shadows a lot, and that's what you get.

séamuis · 03-31-2010, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by er1kksen

My theory: Highlight correction ON, Shadow Correction all the way up, sharpening and contrast all the way up, high ISO NR OFF. Pick a contrasty scene where the shadow correction will boost the shadows a lot, and that's what you get.

so the reviewer set the camera up to fail? even without reading the manual? I couldnt imagine it comes setup like that from the factory. my K-7 certainly wasnt.

03-31-2010, 07:52 AM	#1
enoeske Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Surprise, Az Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,136	Fairly negative review of the K-X Pentax K-x Review [Muscling in on Nikon and Canon] The beginning of the article is full of negatives making one immediately think the camera is crap. "The test camera wasn’t a nice red one as I’d imagined" "The second dull note comes from the ordinary viewfinder and the vital shooting data on the bottom row, which is hard to read in bright light" Obiviously a noob who doesn't even know how to use manual mode testing out this camera, "Switching to manual turned off auto ISO, which I didn’t realise" The bad part is that the images used are terrible and not at all indicative of the K-X performance. This is a site that I frequent pretty often but caters to a lot of beginners. There is almost half a million people subscribed to the newsletter. The facts should be laid out for this fool. Anyone want to help correct the article over there? Last edited by enoeske; 03-31-2010 at 08:17 AM.

03-31-2010, 08:31 AM	#6
flippedgazelle Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: NJ, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,270	Good Lord, one of the worst reviews from a so-called "review site" that I've ever come across. "...I reduced the K-x shot by 50% (12mp vs 6 mp) which actually makes it look better. I have no idea how this can be, but I can only tell it as it is." Really? I posted this comment on that site. Let's see how long it lasts... Last edited by flippedgazelle; 03-31-2010 at 08:37 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
BY way of Intro--fairly new K-x'er	Wormtographer	Welcomes and Introductions	2	08-07-2010 09:52 AM
Wow... That's fairly conclusive...	GingeM	General Talk	31	07-13-2010 01:31 PM
FAIRLY new in Phoenix...	mdaaug58	Welcomes and Introductions	3	01-22-2010 05:15 AM
Fairly new K20D owner	Aquadan005	Welcomes and Introductions	4	05-30-2009 04:35 AM

03-31-2010, 08:05 AM	#2
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	"So I don’t read the manual at first because I want to know how easy the product is to use, and how intuitive the controls and navigation are. Would anyone actually read the 300 page manual? Not unless she’s stuck on a dessert island with nothing else to do." It's hopeless: The reviewer is a dope.

03-31-2010, 08:11 AM	#3
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	I just posted there, but it's awaiting moderation before it will appear.

03-31-2010, 08:16 AM	#4
LinXitoW Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 50	The High ISO shot looks fake, honestly. No matter how bad the situation, i cant get even nearly the amount of chroma(!) noise that the reviewer got.

03-31-2010, 08:29 AM	#5
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Fascinating. From the article: "However, I was surprised that a camera with an advanced 12mp sensor couldn’t produce pictures as sharp as the old 6mp Nikon D40, which was released late in 2006." From the comments: "Love my D40. I don’t know what Pentax is doing but when you can’t beat an entry level camera from like 3 years ago you have problems." I'd say this comment is pretty spot-on. If the reviewer can't get sharper photos from the high-acutance sensor/AA filter combo in the K-x, he clearly has some problems. Incidentally, all the photos he provides as examples of poor high-ISO performance look like the jpegs I get out of the camera when I've got both highlight correction on (which increases shadow noise) and shadow correction turned all the way up (which increases noise even more) and high-ISO NR turned entirely off, as well as the sharpening all the way up. If the D40 had such options, I'm sure you could easily make just as unflattering example photos with it. I currently find this kind of amusing.

03-31-2010, 11:40 AM	#7
jptreen Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: "around" Posts: 116	The moral of the story is 'if you look hard enough on the internet you're bound to find someone even dumber than Ken Rockwell'.

03-31-2010, 11:48 AM	#8
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Well, some of us posted some great replies--and I think she's in a corner crying now.

03-31-2010, 01:18 PM	#9
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Rice Low will probably pick this review up in short order.

03-31-2010, 01:35 PM	#10
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	this is exactly why I have never, nor will I ever read (seriously) a review by anyone, on any camera, that isnt done by an actual photographer. a photographer who has photos to prove his/her ability and a working familiarity with the type of equipment being reviewed. ie: I wouldnt trust a person who uses large format plate cameras to give a review of the K-x any more than I would the idiot who did this one. they may be good at their craft, but would you hand over the controls of an attack helicopter to someone who is a 'pro' commercial airliner pilot?

03-31-2010, 01:45 PM	#11
Pentax Convert Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Newcastle upon Tyne Photos: Albums Posts: 57	Although this review appears to be absolute rot, and I could almost certainly do a better job in one one day by myself, though as a K-x owner I have to agree with the reviewer on one thing...in bright light the menus inside the viewfinder are very difficult, noigh on impossible to read. Otherwise the K-x a more-than-fine imaging machine...

03-31-2010, 01:57 PM	#12
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	I have been blown away with how good the K-x is at ISO 1600. I would really have to try in order to take an ISO 1600 photo that looked as bad as the one shown in this review. I'm at a loss to know what is going on there. I'm wondering whether that is a shadow from an ISO 1600 photo that she lightened up about 3 stops.

03-31-2010, 02:01 PM	#13
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	I do feel obligated to mention that most status displays inside viewfinders of cameras I've used (k20D, 40D, E-330) weren't particularly easy to read with bright light coming through the finder either.

03-31-2010, 02:04 PM	#14
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Originally posted by GeneV I have been blown away with how good the K-x is at ISO 1600. I would really have to try in order to take an ISO 1600 photo that looked as bad as the one shown in this review. I'm at a loss to know what is going on there. I'm wondering whether that is a shadow from an ISO 1600 photo that she lightened up about 3 stops. My theory: Highlight correction ON, Shadow Correction all the way up, sharpening and contrast all the way up, high ISO NR OFF. Pick a contrasty scene where the shadow correction will boost the shadows a lot, and that's what you get.

03-31-2010, 02:07 PM	#15
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	Originally posted by er1kksen My theory: Highlight correction ON, Shadow Correction all the way up, sharpening and contrast all the way up, high ISO NR OFF. Pick a contrasty scene where the shadow correction will boost the shadows a lot, and that's what you get. so the reviewer set the camera up to fail? even without reading the manual? I couldnt imagine it comes setup like that from the factory. my K-7 certainly wasnt.