[Deniz]

Hello there I'm soon to be one of the Pentax users. After spending two and an almost half years with my Fuji S5700, I finally can own a DSLR. I've been researching for Pentax cameras for a while and they are seem to have better performance, yet lower prices, than Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras. I had dediced to buy the K20D until the K-X came up. Now, I'm living the dilemma. K-X sure has a way better ISO performance but images that taken with K20D looks sharper and better. Also there is a significant price gap of over 300 $ between those two. I know the body is not major issue, but lenses are and I can buy one more or two lenses with that 300 $ so buying a K-X is kind of a more efficient act. But again there is something about the camera that I don't like: the size of it! I'm a tall and big guy with big hands and let's say Canon 40D and 5D have the perfect size for my hands. The K-X looks like a really small camera and I don't like the idea of having a DSLR that is so tiny, I've been using a small camera for too long now. I really don't know which camera is better for me.

[Diffusion]

Difficult decision. In general, yes, buying a K-x and getting a faster first zoom (17-50/2.8, 17-70/2.8-4.5, etc..) would be a good idea.
I am 6'2" myself and have very long hands, and I find the K-x good to use. With a longer zoom, most of the camera weight is held by the zoom hand anyway, and you only manipulate the camera with your right hand.
I think the biggest difference is how much do you need to be able to adjust during everyday photography. If the predominat number of shots is low-light, somewhat "snapshots", then the K-x is the one.
I do not think that the K20D is significantly sharper from pictures I have seen. But it will give more freedom to move towards a pro-style of picture taking.

[Marc Sabatella]

I think the differences in IQ due to the camera will pale in comparison to the differences due to the lens, or photographer technique. Either camera is capable of producing far better images than most beginning DSLR photographers will be able to get from it with their lenses and skill sets. I'd put IQ dead last in importance in making this decision.

[Ash]

There's mind-numbing discussion all around about how the K-x's low ISO performance is not so great, but in real world situations anyone would be hard-pressed to see significant differences, even at full-size.

Forget it and concentrate on your own needs in the camera - if the K-x suits you well, and you can put up with how the camera feels in your big hands, and that you won't have an OEM grip to put on it, then just go for it. The K-x is the envy of many and has so many pluses to it it's amazing for it even to be an entry-level model.

[Rondec]

The most important thing is not the technical details, but how the camera works for you. A camera that doesn't fit you well is one that you won't take with you, enjoy using and won't get good photos from. On the other hand, you can get good photos from a point and shoot in the right setting. Sounds to me like you should get the K20. The difference in high iso between the two cameras is maybe one stop, so that is not the thing to focus on.

[Deniz]

Well, it seems like my concerns were true. Today I tried a Nikon D5000 and it was too small for my hands and I felt like I'm still using a SLR-like. Then I learned that the K-x is even smaller than the D5000. It's just so bad, K-x is like the perfect machine for me with it's price, quality and high ISO performance but it's just too small..

[pxpaulx]

While smaller than the d5000, it has a deeper grip and will probably be a better fit than that camera for sure. I have big hands, and am just as at home with the kx as the k20 with grip.

[Pentaxor]

welcome to the forum Deniz!
the question you got to answer yourself is do you really need High ISO that badly? how often do you plan on shooting or using High ISO at 6400? I highly doubt that you would shoot past ISO 1600 90% of the time. most of us here, dont even shoot past ISO 800 on a normal given day. if the need arises, High ISO at 3200-4000 is only used 10% of the time but that is seldom unless you are really into night photography.

[Parallax]

The absolute deal breaker for ANY camera for me would be lack of focus correction ability.
I have 2 K20s and I had a K10. All of my lenses need some degree of correction on both bodies. The corrections are different for both and in opposite directions. My conclusion is that no lens or camera has an EXACTLY accurate focus point, so having the ability to correct that is absolutely essential for an obsessive/compulsive like me.

welcome to the forum Deniz!
the question you got to answer yourself is do you really need High ISO that badly? how often do you plan on shooting or using High ISO at 6400? I highly doubt that you would shoot past ISO 1600 90% of the time. most of us here, dont even shoot past ISO 800 on a normal given day. if the need arises, High ISO at 3200-4000 is only used 10% of the time but that is seldom unless you are really into night photography.

The reason most of us don't shoot past 800 is because we can't. I dislike the noise I see even at 800 with the K20d and ISO 1600 with the K100. Are they still usable? Of course, but the Kx at 3200 is more pleasing to look at. Up until the K-x, I have always shot at the lowest possible ISO.

To the OP... The most important question is, What do you like to shoot and where do you do a lot of your shooting?

I came from the Fuji bridge cams too. And I came to pentax for the ability to use old lenses and a more usable Hi ISO for my kid shots. Now with the Kx it is even more usable IMHO.

The absolute deal breaker for ANY camera for me would be lack of focus correction ability.
I have 2 K20s and I had a K10. All of my lenses need some degree of correction on both bodies. The corrections are different for both and in opposite directions. My conclusion is that no lens or camera has an EXACTLY accurate focus point, so having the ability to correct that is absolutely essential for an obsessive/compulsive like me.

I have to smile when I hear this story... My story is absolutely the opposite. My two favorite AF lenses on my K100d were the DA 40 ltd and the Tamron 28-75. When I got my K20 (with focus correction) My DA 40 was way outside the limits of correctability, and my Tamron all of a sudden was off at one end or the other. I could adjust for the 75mm end and the 28 was off or visaversa...

I picked up the K-x last week and the DA 40 and Tammy are back to being spot on! So apparantly the only camera that needed the tweaks with my lenses was the on that could be tweaked!!! And it would not work with those lenses! I should say that all my other AF lenses worked fine with all three cameras. Go figure!

[Parallax]

The reason most of us don't shoot past 800 is because we can't. I dislike the noise I see even at 800 with the K20d and ISO 1600 with the K100. Are they still usable? Of course, but the Kx at 3200 is more pleasing to look at. Up until the K-x, I have always shot at the lowest possible ISO.

To the OP... The most important question is, What do you like to shoot and where do you do a lot of your shooting?

I came from the Fuji bridge cams too. And I came to pentax for the ability to use old lenses and a more usable Hi ISO for my kid shots. Now with the Kx it is even more usable IMHO.




I have to smile when I hear this story... My story is absolutely the opposite. My two favorite AF lenses on my K100d were the DA 40 ltd and the Tamron 28-75. When I got my K20 (with focus correction) My DA 40 was way outside the limits of correctability, and my Tamron all of a sudden was off at one end or the other. I could adjust for the 75mm end and the 28 was off or visaversa...

I picked up the K-x last week and the DA 40 and Tammy are back to being spot on! So apparantly the only camera that needed the tweaks with my lenses was the on that could be tweaked!!! And it would not work with those lenses! I should say that all my other AF lenses worked fine with all three cameras. Go figure!

Luck of the draw. This is a chart of the corrections needed for my lenses. The lenses must be off by some bit as well as the bodies, or the correction would be the same for all lenses. I considered that I may be doing something wrong either in the calibration, or interpretation of the image, but there is a difference of exactly 6 between the two bodies for every lens. I don't think anybody, not even I, could screw up 10 tests (5 lenses, two bodies) that consistently. I must add though that even in the worst case (17-70 on body #2) you can not see a problem even without the adjustment applied without some fairly critical pixel peeping. It is also interesting that my DA 40 and 18-55 ALII is -3 on one and +3 on the other, and the FA31 has a very similar differential. That would suggest that they are in fact focused properly and the bulk of the errors are with the bodies with some error in the other two lenses. It is also conceivable to me that Pentax may take a little more care in positioning the sensor when building a camera that does not allow adjustment.

Focus Adjustment

Camera 1
Lens
17-70__ 0
18-55__ -3
FA 31 Ltd__ -4
DA 40 Ltd__ -3
DA 55-300__ -5

Camera 2
Lens
17-70__ +6
18-55__ +3
FA 31 Ltd__ +2
DA 40 Ltd__ +3
DA 55-300__ +1

[Pentaxor]

I came from the Fuji bridge cams too. And I came to pentax for the ability to use old lenses and a more usable Hi ISO for my kid shots. Now with the Kx it is even more usable IMHO.

Gus, Fuji cams were great. it's too bad that they have to discontinue their dSLR production and stop at the S5pro line due to poor sales. what I love about that Fuji line is the DR and usability with my then Nikkor lenses which I use simultaneously with a D80. bridge cams are also nice except past 400 (I have the older models and I dunno if they are much better nowadays, I hate the shutter lag and slow operation time btw). except for the NOISE, I like the rendering of the Fujis. that is why I used my D80 only as a second body as opposed to the S5pro. if Fuji continued it's dSLR development, who knows they could had achieved far better than the k-x or D700 could produce. super-ccd could appear costly though.

[Marc Sabatella]

Realistically, the vast majority of SLR's (digital or film) sold over the history of AF have *not* had the adjustment feature, and yet people managed to take good pictures with them. Absolutely no way should anyone consider the lack of such a feature - a feature that didn't even exist before a year or two ago - to be a "deal breaker".

[Parallax]

Realistically, the vast majority of SLR's (digital or film) sold over the history of AF have *not* had the adjustment feature, and yet people managed to take good pictures with them. Absolutely no way should anyone consider the lack of such a feature - a feature that didn't even exist before a year or two ago - to be a "deal breaker".

Nor should lack of auto focus, lack of WB adjustment, lack of light metering capability, or lack of a digital sensor, for that matter. People managed to take many fine pictures before the advent of any of those features too, Marc. Different people have different priorities. To say that "Absolutely no way should anyone consider the lack of" {insert feature here} is certainly not the advice I would give. My advice is to buy the camera that has the feature combination that is most important to the person buying the camera.

[Marc Sabatella]

Point taken. I'm am just trying to be sensitive to the fact that this is a beginner's forum, and people coming here may have no idea how to prioritize these things. Taking this extremely new, rare, high end feature that may or may not make a slight difference in some pictures taken with some lenses (but will never make the slightest difference in most pictures taken with msot lenses, including the kit lenses) and lumping it in with AF and the like is misleading. Perople who already know all about focus adjustment and the cases where it might matter already know how to prioritize it for them, but newcomers shouldn't, in my opinion, get the impression feature is on par with AF itself in importance.

It's fine that some disagree and will advise otherwise, but strongly worded advice (eg, "absolute deal breaker") in one direction that is not countered with equally strongly worded advice in the other direction is advice the newcomer will take as gospel without bothering to learn the facts, and that's just not good. As long as the newcomer is aware that this is a new, rare, and high end only feature that some value a lot and others think is not necessary at all for msot people, they are then free to investigate further and decide for themselves.