[kxr4trids]

As I see it, entry level cameras are always going to lack some of the features the pro cameras have. It's not a reason to be mad at the entry level camera design. I think the Pentax K-x is missing less features than other brands entry level bodies.

I agree, and the pricetag certainly played a factor. I'm not a loyalist - if I had 7 grand to drop on a camera and lenses, I'd have a 5DII. When I purchased, it was between the T1i and the K-x.

I was looking at image quality and price. I disagree with those who said Pentax does better high ISO detail (It was very close but I would have given it to Canon), but I really do like the way older pentax glass looks. How is it with electronic white balance, a picture taken with a 40 year old lens has "40 year old character". I don't know but I could see it, so I had to have it.

If I'd done some real research instead of listening to the rabble here, I'd have realized old pentax glass can be used on Canons as easily as the K-x (would miss the FA glass though). Also, coming from film, I didn't realize all the little niggling features that I would miss because they were either unneeded on film or ubiquitous.

Additionally, all else being equal, there's a certain snob appeal to using the underdog gear.

The T2i came out 1 week after I purchased my K-x
In retrospect, especially considering it has gone up $300 in price since then, I should have sent my K-x back gotten a T2i. I can't go back in time, and at the current price it doesn't represent the same value (to me).

Notably, the T1i is an entry level camera for about 10% $ more than k-x

The T1i has 20% more pixels
The T1i can have DFS turned off
The T1i has a vertical grip
The T1i supports tethering
The T1i has mirror lock up for bracketing
The T1i has focus points
The T1i has wired remote (easy to add intervalometer)
The T1i has higher res video (but not exposure control)
The T1i has HDMI out
Canon has a FF upgrade path
Canon is not in danger of going out of business

On second thought it seems to me that on a rational basis, the *only* reasons to buy a Pentax camera is if you *can't* afford a canon or *must* use AF Pentax glass (whether for price or image quality). In which case the reason I'm bitter about the K-X is not because it is feature poor, but because I am poor.

[trevorgrout]

I disagree with kxr4trids. There is more than a 10% difference between the t1i and kx. The difference was over $250 when I bought the k-x in February. I had both and I can tell you with absolute certainty that the k-x is a better "deal" than the t1i. The t1i does *not* offer in body stabilization, in body shake reduction. I found that the k-x has far more accurate white balance than the t1i and much better high iso performance! The t1i doesn't justify the extra $200 dollars or so to me. Also, the pentax limiteds are something special....and the pictures are amazing.

The fact of the matter is that there are lots and lots of reasons to rationally choose Pentax over Canon. I have yet to find a Canon camera/lens combo as small as the k-x and da40 limited. Honestly, if you leave a camera at home because it is too big to lug around then it is a pointless waste of money. I don't have that problem since I paired the k-x and the da40 limited.

[Marc Sabatella]

If I'd done some real research instead of listening to the rabble here, I'd have realized old pentax glass can be used on Canons as easily as the K-x

Not really *as* easily.

The T1i has...

Yes, and there is an equally impressive list of advantages the K-x has over the T1i, not the least of which is SR. Personally, there isn't one thing on your list of T1i advantage I'd pay an extra nickel for, but you couldn't pay me enough to give up SR.

On second thought it seems to me that on a rational basis, the *only* reasons to buy a Pentax camera is if you *can't* afford a canon or *must* use AF Pentax glass (whether for price or image quality).

Or because only Pentax makes the glass you want (eg, DA Limiteds), or if you value SR more than the (mostly irrelevant to most photographers) things that Canon or Nikon offer that the K-x lacks, or if you prefer the ergonomics of the Pentax.

[Ira]

Oh yeah:

Just what an entry DSLR needs--10 more features and 40 more pages to the manual.

An argument can be made that if they wanted to sell a ton more cameras--and after all, isn't that what Pentax is SUPPOSED to do--they could eliminate all metering modes besides Auto Pict.

[Ira]

A. The T1i has 20% more pixels
B. The T1i can have DFS turned off
C. The T1i has a vertical grip
D. The T1i supports tethering
E. The T1i has mirror lock up for bracketing
F. The T1i has focus points
G. The T1i has wired remote (easy to add intervalometer)
H. The T1i has higher res video (but not exposure control)
I. The T1i has HDMI out

A. 20% more pixels isn't a deal breaker when you get to this level.

B. Who cares?

C. Who cares again?

D. .0001% of people who shoot use tethering, and no, I didn't screw up the decimal points. It's a non-issue for 99.999999% of shooters.

E. You're actually using mirror lock-up and shooting in an exposure mode other than manual? Strange. One would think manual is the way to go, and that maybe depending on what you're shooting, you want to choose the bracketing for yourself, and not depend on some simple +1 and -1. In fact, if I was shooting something where I wanted to lock up the mirror, I would want to manually bracket like crazy anyway.

F. Focus points are an annoyance for many people, including those of us with eyes who can actually look in the viewfinder to confirm focus. In addition, did you hear the fact that the K-x is an entry level DLSR? And like I said above, certain features just make a camera too scary and complicated for some people. Again, not another deal-breaker.

G. As we wall know, THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of people use wired remote on their Canons, not to mention intervalometers. (Insert sarcasm here.) Again, features that would be nice to have, but let's get real here.

H. The vast majority of DSLR users don't buy a DSLR for video capabilities.

I. I myself don't see the purpose for this at all.

I think you're a little confused about the process that manufacturers go through to develop a new model. It's not about what you and I think would be best--because who the hell cares what we think?

It's about what the MAJORITY of people interested in that price point think.

It's called business, and while it's real easy to criticize, in the end, does it really mean anything?

[kxr4trids]

Not really *as* easily.



Yes, and there is an equally impressive list of advantages the K-x has over the T1i, not the least of which is SR. Personally, there isn't one thing on your list of T1i advantage I'd pay an extra nickel for, but you couldn't pay me enough to give up SR.



Or because only Pentax makes the glass you want (eg, DA Limiteds), or if you value SR more than the (mostly irrelevant to most photographers) things that Canon or Nikon offer that the K-x lacks, or if you prefer the ergonomics of the Pentax.

Actually if you read where you quoted me, in parentheses, I addressed the desire to use Pentax glass for IQ reasons.

I would argue that the desire for in body SR is an economic one, in that you don't continue to pay for it with every lens you purchase. I'm not saying it's a bad argument, just that it is an economic one.

ETA: acknowledge in body SR can be used with old glass. Not sure of that value, but definitely should be in the plus column for the k-x

[extravagrant]

I agree, and the pricetag certainly played a factor. I'm not a loyalist - if I had 7 grand to drop on a camera and lenses, I'd have a 5DII. When I purchased, it was between the T1i and the K-x.

I was looking at image quality and price. I disagree with those who said Pentax does better high ISO detail (It was very close but I would have given it to Canon), but I really do like the way older pentax glass looks. How is it with electronic white balance, a picture taken with a 40 year old lens has "40 year old character". I don't know but I could see it, so I had to have it.

If I'd done some real research instead of listening to the rabble here, I'd have realized old pentax glass can be used on Canons as easily as the K-x (would miss the FA glass though). Also, coming from film, I didn't realize all the little niggling features that I would miss because they were either unneeded on film or ubiquitous.

Additionally, all else being equal, there's a certain snob appeal to using the underdog gear.

The T2i came out 1 week after I purchased my K-x
In retrospect, especially considering it has gone up $300 in price since then, I should have sent my K-x back gotten a T2i. I can't go back in time, and at the current price it doesn't represent the same value (to me).

Notably, the T1i is an entry level camera for about 10% $ more than k-x

The T1i has 20% more pixels
The T1i can have DFS turned off
The T1i has a vertical grip
The T1i supports tethering
The T1i has mirror lock up for bracketing
The T1i has focus points
The T1i has wired remote (easy to add intervalometer)
The T1i has higher res video (but not exposure control)
The T1i has HDMI out
Canon has a FF upgrade path
Canon is not in danger of going out of business

On second thought it seems to me that on a rational basis, the *only* reasons to buy a Pentax camera is if you *can't* afford a canon or *must* use AF Pentax glass (whether for price or image quality). In which case the reason I'm bitter about the K-X is not because it is feature poor, but because I am poor.

Something tells me that you'd be complaining no matter what you bought.

[Marc Sabatella]

Actually if you read where you quoted me, in parentheses, I addressed the desire to use Pentax glass for IQ reasons.

Right, but I added another reason for wanting to use Pentax glass - because others don't offer anything like it. It's not that Canon has pocketable primes in 15, 21, 40, and 70mm but they don't have such good IQ - Canon doesn't offer such lenses *at all*.

I would argue that the desire for in body SR is an economic one, in that you don't continue to pay for it with every lens you purchase.

It's also an availability issue - I don't care how much money you have; Canon will not sell you a stabilized normal or wide angle prime. It's also a size/weight issue.

ETA: acknowledge in body SR can be used with old glass. Not sure of that value

It's enormous, as it greatly increases both the price and lens availability advantages for Pentax.

[paperbag846]

ETA: acknowledge in body SR can be used with old glass. Not sure of that value, but definitely should be in the plus column for the k-x

The value would be in the 1000's of dollars for people who don't need autofocus to get a good shot. In-body SR is the sole reason I have been able to get some great pictures in low light with my cheap 28mm 2.8 A. Without it, the image simply would have been too dark.

You're argument "people who can't afford Canon" should read more like "people who don't feel like paying 2X the money". I strongly believe a good photographer can take any system and get good pictures with it. Am I a good photographer? Not yet. But it's a skill issue, not something I can fix by throwing money around.

The K-X in the right hands could look just as good as a Canon 5D as long as you aren't printing your pictures on the sides of trucks. I know this because my pro friend has taken the same shot side by side with both camera. It's all skill, and people who are comfortable with that are comfortable with Pentax.

I still want FF, but only because I don't want wide angle to be prohibitively expensive.

Your claims reek of fanboyism.

[future_retro]

I agree, and the pricetag certainly played a factor. I'm not a loyalist - if I had 7 grand to drop on a camera and lenses, I'd have a 5DII. When I purchased, it was between the T1i and the K-x.

I was looking at image quality and price. I disagree with those who said Pentax does better high ISO detail (It was very close but I would have given it to Canon), but I really do like the way older pentax glass looks. How is it with electronic white balance, a picture taken with a 40 year old lens has "40 year old character". I don't know but I could see it, so I had to have it.

If I'd done some real research instead of listening to the rabble here, I'd have realized old pentax glass can be used on Canons as easily as the K-x (would miss the FA glass though). Also, coming from film, I didn't realize all the little niggling features that I would miss because they were either unneeded on film or ubiquitous.

Additionally, all else being equal, there's a certain snob appeal to using the underdog gear.

The T2i came out 1 week after I purchased my K-x
In retrospect, especially considering it has gone up $300 in price since then, I should have sent my K-x back gotten a T2i. I can't go back in time, and at the current price it doesn't represent the same value (to me).

Notably, the T1i is an entry level camera for about 10% $ more than k-x

The T1i has 20% more pixels
The T1i can have DFS turned off
The T1i has a vertical grip
The T1i supports tethering
The T1i has mirror lock up for bracketing
The T1i has focus points
The T1i has wired remote (easy to add intervalometer)
The T1i has higher res video (but not exposure control)
The T1i has HDMI out
Canon has a FF upgrade path
Canon is not in danger of going out of business

On second thought it seems to me that on a rational basis, the *only* reasons to buy a Pentax camera is if you *can't* afford a canon or *must* use AF Pentax glass (whether for price or image quality). In which case the reason I'm bitter about the K-X is not because it is feature poor, but because I am poor.

I don't really disagree with the list, extra features are a nice thing to have

However DPreview even said in it's T2i test that the Kx was the star of the show when it came to high ISO performance

Canon EOS 550D / Rebel T2i Review: 14. Photographic tests (Noise): Digital Photography Review

If I had to go back to square one I might go with the T2i. I'm definitely happy with Pentax's bang for the buck though. It's the reason why I stayed with them, canon's lens prices are pretty steep, and then you compound that with the fairly expensive bodies and you have a checkbook nightmare

When you level the price playing field though you'd be hard pressed to find anything as good as the Kx for 550, I still remember going through pages and pages of reviews for the entry level DSRL's from all brands and time after time the Kx came out on top. I couldn't imagine spending 550 on something from canon or nikon and not getting a glorified piece of junk, even if does technically take pictures (admittedly unreasonable and biased opinion), but you know it would be feature stripped and basically a push for the higher end models (which I still lust for, anyone have a spare 7D laying around? )

[Muse]

I've had my K-X a couple of months now. My first adventure into DSLR, but not my first with Pentax. I used to use a K-1000 SLR. I love the K-X. The manual is kind of overwhelming in size at first, but user very user friendly. I also like the fact it uses re-chargeable AA batteries.

I received my K-x only 5 days ago, haven't had the chance to shoot much yet. It's my first DSLR. I'm super impressed with the manual. For a product that was designed and manufactured in Asia (or one that isn't!), the English is entirely excellent, is my definite impression. You can download the manual, and even if and when you buy the camera and get the printed version, the PDF will be possibly your preferred version, since you can go instantly from link to link and back again.

I also am high on the K-x for its use of AA NiMH batteries. I dislike rechargeable Li-ions and avoid them when possible.

K-x has a massive amount of features from what i can see. Deciding to buy one is the hardest thing!!

It took me over 2 years to finally make my decision on my first DSLR!

[Muse]

The T2i came out 1 week after I purchased my K-x
In retrospect, especially considering it has gone up $300 in price since then, I should have sent my K-x back gotten a T2i.

There's a post that nudged me over the edge more than any other thing to finally buy the K-x a couple of weeks ago (the 2 lens kit including the 55-300mm zoom), a customer review at Amazon.com by a guy who bought a T2i, returned it and got a K-x:

The post I'm referring to is by Edgar in Indy, and there are right now 14 comments in response to his post. First link is to the OP, the next to the comments. The specific review is titled "The Pentax K-x is a giant killer!"

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Pentax K-x Digital SLR with 2.7-inch LCD and 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL Lens (Black)

Then Comments at:
Amazon.com: Edgar_in_Indy's review of Pentax K-x Digital SLR with 2.7-inch LCD ...

He explains in the posts here the reasons he is much higher on the K-x than the T2i. I suggest reading not only his review but his additional posts in the comments section.

[PointLookout]

If you've read about this issue, then presumably you've read the *hundreds* of existing posts on the subject. A small number of people find it a big deal - the small minority who know all about the different ways of focusing and long ago have decided that using dots in the viewfinder is the only way they can possibly be satisfied. Most people are not already married to that method and find it no big deal at all.

(bold mine)

Good point. I set the AF point to center and leave it - easy enough! Just remember that the actual area of focus is larger than a tiny phantom bullseye in the middle of the viewfinder's center brackets.

Like many others, I did lots of research and determined that the K-x offered the most features for the money. It's really a great camera - I don't think you'll be disappointed should you take the plunge!

Oh - one other thing to consider is the K-x's smallish size. It's perfect for me, and I have little hands. If you have big paws, you may need to start finger yoga classes.

[Muse]

Oh - one other thing to consider is the K-x's smallish size. It's perfect for me, and I have little hands. If you have big paws, you may need to start finger yoga classes.

I have what I believe are larger than average hands. Most "Large" gloves are too small for me. My fingers aren't fat, but they're long. My right hand has a maximum span of 10", the left maybe 10.25". So far, I don't find the K-x too small. I'm a DSLR newbie, so unlike people who are used to the Canons/Nikons, all of which are bigger, I am used to nothing. The K-x feels great dangling from my hand. I doubt that I'll start thinking it's somehow too small.

[shinabk]

The Kx is my first DSLR and I absolutely love it. Pretty much my only complaints so far are the lower res lcd screen and how quickly live view eats my batteries.