[padraigr]

Hi I'm leaving the point & shoot world for the dslr world & I have been looking for quite a while & am still struggling to make a decision, but I do like what the kr offers. I want a good all rounder that is not to difficult for a novice , can give reasonable video & is particularly good at sports photography. Can anybody pass on words of wisdom about this camera particularly anybody that has personal experience of it. Many thanks

[eight08]

K-r has been great for me. I found it much easier to get a better image than my Canon. Good video(with a tripod and manual focus), good at sports (probably more a lens feature) - but burst speed is great.

Whatever you do don't look in the dedicated k-r forum. It's rough in there.

[KxBlaze]

Kr or Kx. You cannot go wrong with either. The Kx will be less expensive but with the Kr you get illuminated AF points, a dedicated AF assist lamp, a higher resolution LCD screen, faster FPS (can't remember by how much) and a few other upgrades BUT in my opinion where it matters (overall image IQ and ISO capabilities) the Kr and Kx are identical, so therefore I would go with the Kx, save a bit of $ and put that towards a lens, but like I said, you cannot go wrong either way.

[bymy141]

Hi I'm leaving the point & shoot world for the dslr world & I have been looking for quite a while & am still struggling to make a decision, but I do like what the kr offers. I want a good all rounder that is not to difficult for a novice , can give reasonable video & is particularly good at sports photography. Can anybody pass on words of wisdom about this camera particularly anybody that has personal experience of it. Many thanks

Hi,

Before you spend money on any DSLR, let me play the devils advocate here.
I do this because I have seen so many posts of new users on this and other forums complaining and being disappointed by the results of they newly purchased DSLR...
I don't know why I trow this all at you and not one of the other people seeking advise, guess you are just lucky

There are a few things you should be aware off I believe:

1) A DSLR is capable of making much better photos than a point and shoot camera mainly because of the much larger size of the image sensor.
Mostly you see the differences in: colours, dynamic range (amounts of detail in dark and light areas), noise and detail.
The fact that it is capable of making better photo's does not mean that it will.
A DSLR by default does less in camera processing: less sharpning for instance.
It preserves more detail and leaves sharpning and the like to postprocessing or the user to change the default in camera processing settings (and there are many...)
2) Lenses can be changed on DSLR's, there is a lot of quality difference here.
P&S camera's can have 16Mpixels, however most often the lenses they have, have less resolution.
You'll find phones with 12Mpixels and a tiny plastic lens; madness!
Medium or high grade DSLR lenses however can outresolve the camera sensor.
3) There is a direct relationship between the size of a lens and the size of a sensor.
I.e. in order to achieve the same maginification, zoom range etc one needs a lot bigger piece of glass on a DSLR than on a P&S camera.
It is nearly impossible to make a 25x zoom lens with a good enough aperture for a DSLR.
Prepare to invest in glass after this purchase! You'll be carrying a lot more stuff with a DSLR, many people also have a small P&S for occasional use.
Be aware, larger lenses are much more expensive to make...
4) The better the camera resolution, the more flaws you will see.
It is like looking at an old Video 8 recording on a High Def TV.
It looked ok 20 years ago, now it sucks.
Often people display the photo's of their new DSLR on the 24" computer screen, magnify it to the max and see flaws. It will still be not perfect.
5) No DSLR can beat a HD camcorder still.
Do not expect to buy one product that does both well. Never mind the sales people.
There are some camera's that do photo and video reasonably well (Lumix), but you'll still loose image quality and lens flexibility.

The most important thing IMHO to understand is the mind trick.
Besides all the important stuff like: composition, shadows, rule of third, people expect the technical output of the photo to be better. That's what they've paid for.
An DSLR is much more expensive, so it should deliver more detail, sharpness.
Many expect perfect results "out of the box", better than their old P&S.
However, better results cannot only be delivered by a better sensor and a better lens. Next to that a DSLR is a more complex machine, more can go wrong.
You should get some minimal understanding of photography to make it work.
Terms like: Shutter speed, ISO and Aperture should be not only familiar, but also you should understand the effect they have on your photos.
There is enough info on the Internet, books etc.

The full auto or scene modes on the camera can help you and if you are less experienced, use them.
Then learn to tailor it to your needs and to understand the camera in its details.

On the K-x vs K-r choice, buy the K-r, it comes with a LiIon battery and focus indicators in the viewfinder.
For me enough reason the pick the K-r.
Make sure you find yourself a pair of sharp and good lenses over time.
But most of all, try to understand what the camera does when you press the button.

Wow! This has become a much longer post than I intended when started.
Hope it did not scare you off
Buy the camera, and a book, and perhaps you'll become one of us. Hobbyists with a passion for photography

- Bert

---

Last edited by bymy141; 02-19-2011 at 05:05 AM.

[mysticcowboy]

Kr or Kx. You cannot go wrong with either. The Kx will be less expensive but with the Kr you get illuminated AF points, a dedicated AF assist lamp, a higher resolution LCD screen, faster FPS (can't remember by how much) and a few other upgrades BUT in my opinion where it matters (overall image IQ and ISO capabilities) the Kr and Kx are identical, so therefore I would go with the Kx, save a bit of $ and put that towards a lens, but like I said, you cannot go wrong either way.

I respectfully disagree. The focus confirmation point in the viewfinder on the Kr is worth the difference to me. Also continuous shooting speed is faster with the Kr. Sport shooting is an area where that makes a difference.

[Ash]

There of course is the added stop of high ISO performance the K-r offers on the K-x. Actually the K-r proves to be excellent value for money taking these differences into account.

[rparmar]

Or save more money and get a top-level SLR in the K20D. Better build and ergonomics than the K-x or K-r. Way cheaper than the equivalent recent cameras (K-7, K-5). Perfect unless video is a priority.

[3drives]

I respectfully disagree. The focus confirmation point in the viewfinder on the Kr is worth the difference to me. Also continuous shooting speed is faster with the Kr. Sport shooting is an area where that makes a difference.

I bought the K-r, and not K-x just for this feature alone. K-x is 100 benjamins cheaper, if only I was a semi-pro and not a noob, I guess I would have bought the K-x.

[RioRico]

Just about any dSLR can be used as a P&S. Just stay in Green mode. But even in Green mode, a dSLR still requires knowledge and practice. Many P&S users will be disappointed by their first few thousand shots because marketed 'equivalences', aren't equivalent at all.

The main difference is depth-of-field, or DOF, the range of distances that are acceptably sharp. Shorter lenses have thicker DOF. P&S's, with their tiny sensors, have very short lenses, much shorter than almost any SLR lens. A typical correctly-focused P&S shot will seem much sharper than an equivalent dSLR shot if displayed at the same size and distance. (And as mentioned, P&S JPG engines do a lot of sharpening, whatever the user may actually want.)

So then the new dSLR buyer will bitch, "My kit lens sucks!" and will spend hundreds of bucks for an 'upgrade' that has the same problems. Unhappiness and bitterness ensue. Oh, the grief...
____________________________________________________

Just about any dSLR can be used as a P&S. That includes K20D, Kx, Kr, K7, K5, whatever. But the Big Guys (K20D, K7, K5) have more controls on the outside, so changing settings is a bit more straightforward. Any dSLR is a complex beast that may take a long time to master. I got my K20D about 2.8 years ago and am still learning new tricks.

The Kx and Kr are splendid cameras and I wouldn't mind having one also. But my research that led me to the K20D turned me against starting with a 'beginner's' camera, because they foster the desire to 'upgrade'. I am no longer employed. I can't afford annual upgrades. I got my K20D because I wanted something that would satisfy me for a long time. I am still happy, even without video. If you are in a financial position for regular upgrades, then ignore my cheapness.

As hinted above, buying any dSLR means you are marrying its lens system. Lenses typically last much longer than dSLRs. On my K20D, I use lenses made before 1910. I can use virtually any Pentax lens ever made since 1958. (There are maybe three exceptions.) I expect to still be using my lenses (currently around 190) when I finally *do* upgrade from my K20D. Some people are happy using on 1 or 2 or 4 lenses. I know one guy with over 1500. Once LBA (Lens Buying Addiction) infects you, you are doomed.
____________________________________________________

Back to your question: Should you get a Kr? Absolutely. It's better than the competition in price/performance. Just be aware that like any dSLR, it's not perfect; and don't be dismayed by the learning curve. Good luck!

[kari]

There of course is the added stop of high ISO performance the K-r offers on the K-x. Actually the K-r proves to be excellent value for money taking these differences into account.

Nonsense, they are the same. The K-x is even a tiny little bit ahead in high ISO according to DxoMark, but I don't think anyone will notice the difference.

[cats_five]

I'd suggest that before you go for Pentax - or Nikon or Canon - you go somewhere you can handle the contenders. Different cameras are different shapes, sizes and weights, and the viewfinders vary as well. The most important thing is you get a camera you like the feel of - if you don't you will probably start to hate it.

All the main makes produce a range of cameras all capable of producing beautiful results if used with thought and care. I got some terrific pictures out of my Olympus E510, by learning it's limitations and working withing them, but it took a bit of practise and (eventually) a copy of Photoshop. I switched to a K7 because the viewfinder is better than on the E510 and it is a bit less inclined to blow the highlights.

[gp1806]

The Pentax K-R and K-X can not be used as a P&S for flash pictures. Flash pictures suck in Auto Pict mode. Try it if you don't believe me. Go into a dimly lit room and and take a flash picture in Auto Pict mode of your subject walking or moving - Blurry. The camera chooses a very poor combination of shutter speed and ISO and f/stop. Real crap, but it is consistent crap. You must get out of Auto Pict mode to get a good flash shot, Tv works. My K200D and My K100Ds did not act this way. They could be used as a P&S, and that's the only way my wife will use it. Wifey was so disappointed in the K-R flash pics at Christmas time, she went back to her Canon P&S.