Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Has it really been determiend the K-x cannot use the focus screens designed for the other pentamirror-based Pentax cameras?
Nope, untrue.
Katzeye makes one :) Originally posted by rawr It's not buried very far
:
- press down on ISO button on 4-way controller with thumb;
- use scroll wheel to select ISO with thumb;
- hit OK button with thumb.
It's pretty quick to access. I do it one-handed on the K-x without removing my eye from the viewfinder.
Having said all that, front AND rear dials would be great on the K-x, of course.
ITA - changing ISO is a 2 second process, and I didn't even realize you could use the edial rather than the 4-way buttons. Now it'll be even faster - excellent :P
Originally posted by axl just few notes from me:
Improved AWB: no sound photog will use AWB, when in matters us custom or preset and tweak it, besides K-x leans towards magenta hue while K10 more towards yellow/cyan, I prefer K10 but that's personal.... and I shoot RAW, always.
=no real advantage IMO
Metering with manual, I'll give you that, it's improved but you can't install split screen, and the VF is smaller and dimmer, although you can use LV (which I really dislike on DSLRs) and besides, if you know your lenses, metering won't be huge issue, especially in M mode...
= no real advantage IMO
Increase in FPS: I never felt need for more than 3fps. But K10 has bigger buffer (9RAW/unlimited JPGS vs 5RAW/17 JPGs). If you want K-x to match the buffer performance, it only shoots 2fps!
= no real advantage IMO
Much better high ISO: well, I'm not going to argue on that one. K-x is way better. On the other hand, it's native ISO is 200 so you are loosing stop of light when trying to do long exposures ("expanding ISO to 100 lowers the dynamic range AFAIK) and in good light, up to 400 K10 easily delivers as much detail as K-x
= the high ISO is a big advantage, but if you need low ISO, I'd keep K10D
The rest of it is really personal opinion, but dual wheels are way better arrangement than single. Size and weight, maybe for smaller hands or average hands, but I have quite large palms with long fingers and find K-x rather uncomfortable. With K10 I use the grip at all times to gain the handling I'm after. It gets heavy but I'm more than willing to compromise there, and the LEDs. Well if you use center AF only then OK, but if you have 11 to choose from, why should you be stuck at one and/or having to look at LCD everytime you need to change your focusing point....
so night and day? hardly IMO.
K-x is great camera, but from my POV they sacrificed a lot to keep the price at the level... Now if was body of K100 with guts of K-x, I'd be much happier....
"Is he using the same wind we are using?"
I'm not sure you and I had similar quality K10s and K-x's - my experience is similar to that of the previous poster. My K-x is head and shoulders over my K10. In not a single way was my K10 a better picture taking machine for me, with the exception of weather sealing.
AWB is so accurate on the K-x that the only time I go manual on WB is under sketchy indoor light. Sure you can adjust it in RAW, but why worry about it? AWB won't accidentally give me an entire day's worth of photos outdoors under tungesten settings, resulting in RAW tweaks on every single one. Since I shoot in RAW+JPG, having accurate AWB for the 'snapshot' quality photos I take interspersed with more serious ones I'll definitely edit in RAW is very handy.
Yes, you can install a split prism, as noted above. Yes, the viewfinder is smaller, but I noticed no difference in dim/bright from my K10 to my K-x.
Yes, the 100 ISO is a pulled 200 ISO, however I have yet to notice any highlight clipping in properly exposed ISO100 photos I've taken. I'm sure it's possible to force it, but it's not a guaranteed outcome. But much more importantly to me, is my ISO 200 photos on the K-x look better than my ISO 100 photos did on the K10 - better clarity, smoothness, contrast and more accurate color. Whatever small losses there may be technically at ISO 100 is more than made up for by the ability to go to ISO 3200 or 6400 or 128,000 and still have excellent photos.
I do wish the K-x had 2 edials, simply for the extra programability, but I've found that in ergonomic practice, I do better with EV+E-dial than with a front edial (right index on button, right thumb on edial). However one prefers either layout over the other, you can't argue that one layout is better than another, just that the functionality of what's available is more or less limited. I have small hands - 1 edial and a small chassis work great for me. I won't claim either layout is better, just that one will be more functional than the other, depending on who you are. Plenty of men on this forum love shooting with their K-x, seems like Pentax nailed a sweet spot for how small you could make the camera and still have it be usable. Unlike the original Rebels, which even women complained had too shallow of a grip :P
Back when people first started debating this, someone here said, the K10 may be twice the camera, but the K-x gives me 4 times the usable pictures. I agree - what defines 'better camera' if you're going to leave out the actual photographic outcome? You have to balance pro-body features with pro-photo outcome in order to claim "better."