Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home

Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-17-2010, 12:44 PM   #16
Veteran Member

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,296
As far as I can see, it's a software upgrade and a hardware downgrade, on most points.

QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
It's definitely an upgrade. The rear LCD as a status display is a great replacement for the top LCD.
I don't get this - if it's such a great replacement, why don't all higher end cameras ditch the top LCD? I like my top LCD.

The only reason I can think of is to bring down the size, but some people already complain about the K-7 size.

07-19-2010, 02:57 AM   #17
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Deventer, NL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 113
Well, high-end cameras have backlit top LCDs, I feel the non-backlit top LCD on my DS is often handy and sometimes (in dark conditions) really annoying. I wouldn't mind having a really useful LCD, but this crippled entry level top LCD is hardly ideal. But then again, with the two, the lowlight strength of the K-x would mean I wouldn't bring the DS to dark situations anymore, so that works out.

Also, I think 'software upgrade' is a misnomer. I'd say it's a electronic upgrade, and a mechanical (or user interface) downgrade.
07-19-2010, 05:58 AM   #18
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,819
The K-x is certainly an upgrade for shooting in low light, and this has turned out to be a major advantage in my use. The conventional wisdom is that you gain one stop, which is not insignificant, but it feels like a bit more in actual use. Having now taken the K-x through more than 8,000 actuations, I find myself more comfortable at ISO 3200 on the K-x than I ever was at ISO 1600 on the K10d (same sensor as the K200d). It isn't just the sensor, but I have the sense that low light AF and exposure is slightly better.

Of course, there are probably many other reasons for my added comfort with the K-x high ISO which have nothing to do with whether it is an upgrade, including better technique after 3 more years of experience using a DSLR. I rarely pushed film and never purchased a film rated at ISO 1600 or more in my 30+ years of film-only shooting (I have now), so high ISO shooting techniques were something that needed to be learned.
07-19-2010, 07:38 AM   #19
Veteran Member
VaughnA's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,363
For my uses the Kx was an upgrade from my K20D. I've posted this many times but my photos are better with the Kx. I can shoot at higher ISO's with less noise and I love the small body. I don't miss the focus indicator and have gotten used to the lack of LCD. I do miss the dual dials and Tav but I've learned to use the K-x effectively. It gives you 1-2 stops (at least) over the K20D in low light. And even in well lit situations I can run a narrow aperture and high shutter speeds that I couldn't before. That really helps with the longer lenses when getting birds & insect shots.

07-19-2010, 09:36 AM   #20
Veteran Member
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I find myself more comfortable at ISO 3200 on the K-x than I ever was at ISO 1600 on the K10d (same sensor as the K200d). It isn't just the sensor, but I have the sense that low light AF and exposure is slightly better.
I know the AF *has* been tweaked for better low light performance since the K10D or K200D, but would be very surprised if there were any significant different in exposure given a controlled test. Low light exposure tends to be tricky and inconsistent, because often while the overall light levels are low, there is often a very large difference between light and shadow, often with mall light sources (eg, lamps) directly within the frame. So exposure tends to be all over the map on any camera depending on the ratio between light and shadow in the specific scene and *where* the light areas are. That makes it hard to really judge differences between cameras, since there is already so much variation according to the scene.

Not really all that relevant to me anyhow, since I use M mode exclusively and control my own exposures using center-weighted metering for advise, and there's almost *no* chance that the center-weighted metering would have changed at all.

Anyhow, as for high ISO performance, it's important to keep in mind that while the K10D and K200D have the same sensor, the supporting hardware (the way in which the basic signal is amplified to implement high ISO) is quite different, and by all accounts it is significantly better on the K200D. So while the improvement may be more than a stop at that level between the K-x and K10D, it's probably less between the K-x and K200D. I don't have a K-x to compare directly, but when I've shot side-by-side with a K-x user and compared RAW files, or looked at "Comparometer" shots, my impression is that K-x ISO 3200 is not quite as good as K200D 1600 - suggesting the different at this level is under a stop. And actually, comparing at ISO 1600 directly, I'm not so sure the K-x is any better at all - I often *prefer* the K200D images (definitely the case on the Comparometer still life test, as well as a similar sample from dpreview). However, ISO 6400 on the K-x is quite similar to ISO 3200 (push processed equivalent) on the K200D - meaning there is indeed around a full improvement at that level. Suggesting the gap starts to open up sometimes after 1600 and widens the higher you go.

So when I think in terms of eventually getting a camera with the K-x sensor, my impression regarding images quality is that there would be little or no win shooting at ISO 1600 as I often do. *However*, I would be much less reluctant to shoot at ISO 6400 than I currently am to shoot two stops underexposed and push process. Meaning that in a situation while I might currently shoot 1/20" at ISO 1600 and *hope* to freeze action - or push to 1/45" for the equivalent of ISO 3200 - I'd be more inclined to actually try shooting 1/90" at ISO 6400 and hopefully end up with more keepers just on account of motion blur.

  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, k-x, k200d, photography, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Upgrade" from K10D to K-x? lavascript Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 04-21-2010 08:06 AM
Consumer Reports Magazine picks K200D as "Best Buy" Nubi Pentax News and Rumors 8 11-25-2009 06:18 PM
K200D and D-BG3 - "grip gap" or mixed batteries? CalendarGuy Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 2 02-04-2009 04:39 AM
"Hunger for a DA*50-135?" or "The DA*50-135 as a bird lens!" or "Iron age birds?" Douglas_of_Sweden Post Your Photos! 4 08-13-2008 06:09 AM
Best "standard zoom" upgrade? moxfyre Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 28 04-01-2008 03:46 PM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:52 PM. | See also:, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]