Any good reason to "upgrade" from K2000 to K-x?

**wedge** · 09-17-2010, 10:47 PM

I bought my K2000 early last Summer, not long before the K-x launched, and have been generally happy with it. The only complaints I have are low-light AF performance and inconsistent battery life. The former I've worked around by learning to use MF on such occasions and the latter seems to have been due to my cheap-skatedness in regard to batteries (eneloops are definitely worth the extra $$).

Anyhoo, the inevitable price drop of the K-x has me considering grabbing one (when the price drops to a comfortable level for me). It seems like spec-wise, it's 12 MP vs. 10 for the K2000. Feature-wise, it adds video (which I'd probably never use - I've got a decent compact HD video camera). Are there other differences in the specs or features that I'm not considering? I'd love something with an AF assist lamp, but doubt the K-7's price will drop low enough for me to bite the bullet.

So, in your collective opinions, should I stick with the K2000 and maybe add a new focusing screen (to aid in MF usage)? Or is the K-x enough of an improvement over it's predecessor to warrant an upgrade?

abmj · 09-17-2010, 11:10 PM

I was having the same dilemma. I bought the K2000 a couple of months before the Kx came out last year (Doh!!). I have recently just gone ahead and jumped on up to the K7 so don't need to make that other decision now but still recall the agonizing over whether or not to "upgrade" to the Kx. I don't really care that much about video. It is ok if you have it and I will probably use it occasionally but it wasn't enough to make a change. Nor was the negligible increase in MP. The big factors for me were 1. Live View, 2. the newer SAFOX VIII+ autofocus system, 3. slow sync and rear curtain flash modes and, surprisingly, 4. the in-camera orientation sensor. With my glasses, I have a hard time keeping the horizon level through the viewfinder of the K2000. I spend a lot of time in post just leveling things up.

Those would have been the features I used to decide Kx versus Km. If I hadn't bit the bullet for the K7, I think it would have been enough to go for the Kx at the new, lower price point. YMMV.

Eruditass · 09-17-2010, 11:18 PM

I had a K2000 and bought the K-x at launch. The biggest difference is the sensor and high-iso performance. I don't believe the AF is any faster in any light.

I recently got a dual split-image focusing screen and it works wonders for manual focusing. I haven't tried it out too much in super low light, but it works just fine indoors with few lights on. I do have a 1.35x KPS magnifier (another great investment, IMO). I highly recommend these two.

WerTicus · 09-18-2010, 12:00 AM

The K-x is a million miles ahead in sensor performance but otherwise its much the same.

So if you like dynamic range and high iso its great... but you may as well wait for k-r now :P

tarsus · 09-18-2010, 06:04 AM

Own both. Kx is the superior camera. High ISO is a huge step up. It does focus faster. FPS is much more useful. Buffer is larger and clears faster. Dynamic range is better. I would, however, wait and see how the Kr tests.

reeftool · 09-18-2010, 06:23 AM

If you aren't satisfied with your current camera and the new body has features you need for your style of shots, then upgrade. If not, then keep what you have. The Kx has good low light performance and a few other upgrades if you find that important.

hcarvalhoalves · 09-19-2010, 01:05 AM

You should get one while the K2000 still retains some price (if you intend to sell it), K-x won't disappoint. Because it was so popular, I believe Pentax will still offer it as entry-level model for some time.

Some people will talk about "wait and get the K-r", but I think the new K-r is one tier up already. Unless AF point indicator in viewfinder is important to you, or you like Li batteries, K-x is as good as K-r, specially considering the price drops.

RioRico · 09-19-2010, 01:48 PM

Common wisdom above. With the Kx you get high-ISO and improved sensor, and video, and in-camera processing tricks, and your choice of colors. I forget whether the K2000 has tethering and weather sealing. I'll guess that low-light performance is the Kx's main advantage. So, you get to decide how much $$$ some ISO-12k is worth to you.

The good news: the Kx is at an entry-level price. The bad news: the Kx is still an entry-level camera, albeit the best of class. When I did my dSLR research and analysis a couple years ago, I chose the K20D precisely because it WASN'T entry-level, so I wouldn't feel a need to 'upgrade' anytime soon.

Ask yourself: What do I want to do that I can't do with what I have? If you REALLY WANT to shoot in situations that require an extra few f-stops, then go for the Kx.

**wedge** · 09-21-2010, 05:16 PM

Thanks for all the sound advice. Methinks I'll stick with the K2000 for the time being and see what happens to the prices of the K7 once the K5 is released. While the K-x seems to have some significant advantages, I think I'd rather wait until it's feasible to make the bigger step up to the K7.

dlacouture · 09-21-2010, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by wedge

Feature-wise, it adds video (which I'd probably never use - I've got a decent compact HD video camera).

I always find this kind of comment quite strange... It makes me wonder how lens dealers can still manage to sell fast lenses, when everybody seems to be satisfied with hyperfocal kit lens quality...

The Kx will have one huge advantage over your camcorder : it can produce some creamy bokeh videos you will never have with a sub-5k$ cam. It really add something to the footage, a real movie-like quality that set it apart from the usual everything-in-focus family recording...

uchinakuri · 09-21-2010, 06:33 PM

I don't have the K2000, so I can't really compare, but I do have the K-x. While the high ISO ability of the K-x might be better, the K-x still retains the problem of trying to focus in low light situations.

**wedge** · 09-21-2010, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by dlacouture

I always find this kind of comment quite strange... It makes me wonder how lens dealers can still manage to sell fast lenses, when everybody seems to be satisfied with hyperfocal kit lens quality...

The Kx will have one huge advantage over your camcorder : it can produce some creamy bokeh videos you will never have with a sub-5k$ cam. It really add something to the footage, a real movie-like quality that set it apart from the usual everything-in-focus family recording...

To be honest, I do very little videography at all. And for those rare occasions that I do, what I already have does what I need. I'm not saying that having video capability in a DSLR is going to drive me away from it, it's just not a selling point.

tarsus · 09-21-2010, 09:53 PM

I have not found the Kx to have a "problem" focusing in low light.

dlacouture · 09-21-2010, 11:55 PM

Regarding low-light focusing, I find my Kx better than my late K10 and K20... But below the K7...

vsl3-e · 09-22-2010, 02:09 AM

If you dont go over ISO 800 too often, and you dont need liveview, i dont see the k-x as much of an upgrade. I guess it would be wiser to wait till the price of the K-r settles. In the meanwhile enjoy the vibrant colours and filmlike grain of that great 10mp CCD sensor.

09-17-2010, 10:47 PM	#1
wedge Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Montco, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 154	Any good reason to "upgrade" from K2000 to K-x? I bought my K2000 early last Summer, not long before the K-x launched, and have been generally happy with it. The only complaints I have are low-light AF performance and inconsistent battery life. The former I've worked around by learning to use MF on such occasions and the latter seems to have been due to my cheap-skatedness in regard to batteries (eneloops are definitely worth the extra $$). Anyhoo, the inevitable price drop of the K-x has me considering grabbing one (when the price drops to a comfortable level for me). It seems like spec-wise, it's 12 MP vs. 10 for the K2000. Feature-wise, it adds video (which I'd probably never use - I've got a decent compact HD video camera). Are there other differences in the specs or features that I'm not considering? I'd love something with an AF assist lamp, but doubt the K-7's price will drop low enough for me to bite the bullet. So, in your collective opinions, should I stick with the K2000 and maybe add a new focusing screen (to aid in MF usage)? Or is the K-x enough of an improvement over it's predecessor to warrant an upgrade?

09-21-2010, 11:55 PM	#14
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	Regarding low-light focusing, I find my Kx better than my late K10 and K20... But below the K7... Last edited by dlacouture; 09-22-2010 at 02:33 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K200D to K-x: upgrade, downgrade, or "sidegrade"?	ChooseAName	Pentax DSLR Discussion	19	07-19-2010 09:36 AM
Any reason to not upgrade to a K-x from K2000?	crossover37	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	04-12-2010 03:53 AM
K2000/K-m "banding" problems?	shuttervox	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	02-14-2009 10:05 PM
"Hunger for a DA50-135?" or "The DA50-135 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

09-17-2010, 11:10 PM	#2
abmj Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Central California Posts: 600	I was having the same dilemma. I bought the K2000 a couple of months before the Kx came out last year (Doh!!). I have recently just gone ahead and jumped on up to the K7 so don't need to make that other decision now but still recall the agonizing over whether or not to "upgrade" to the Kx. I don't really care that much about video. It is ok if you have it and I will probably use it occasionally but it wasn't enough to make a change. Nor was the negligible increase in MP. The big factors for me were 1. Live View, 2. the newer SAFOX VIII+ autofocus system, 3. slow sync and rear curtain flash modes and, surprisingly, 4. the in-camera orientation sensor. With my glasses, I have a hard time keeping the horizon level through the viewfinder of the K2000. I spend a lot of time in post just leveling things up. Those would have been the features I used to decide Kx versus Km. If I hadn't bit the bullet for the K7, I think it would have been enough to go for the Kx at the new, lower price point. YMMV.

09-17-2010, 11:18 PM	#3
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	I had a K2000 and bought the K-x at launch. The biggest difference is the sensor and high-iso performance. I don't believe the AF is any faster in any light. I recently got a dual split-image focusing screen and it works wonders for manual focusing. I haven't tried it out too much in super low light, but it works just fine indoors with few lights on. I do have a 1.35x KPS magnifier (another great investment, IMO). I highly recommend these two.

09-18-2010, 12:00 AM	#4
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	The K-x is a million miles ahead in sensor performance but otherwise its much the same. So if you like dynamic range and high iso its great... but you may as well wait for k-r now :P

09-18-2010, 06:04 AM	#5
tarsus Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Mount Shasta Posts: 185	Own both. Kx is the superior camera. High ISO is a huge step up. It does focus faster. FPS is much more useful. Buffer is larger and clears faster. Dynamic range is better. I would, however, wait and see how the Kr tests.

09-18-2010, 06:23 AM	#6
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,553	If you aren't satisfied with your current camera and the new body has features you need for your style of shots, then upgrade. If not, then keep what you have. The Kx has good low light performance and a few other upgrades if you find that important.

09-19-2010, 01:05 AM	#7
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	You should get one while the K2000 still retains some price (if you intend to sell it), K-x won't disappoint. Because it was so popular, I believe Pentax will still offer it as entry-level model for some time. Some people will talk about "wait and get the K-r", but I think the new K-r is one tier up already. Unless AF point indicator in viewfinder is important to you, or you like Li batteries, K-x is as good as K-r, specially considering the price drops.

09-19-2010, 01:48 PM	#8
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Common wisdom above. With the Kx you get high-ISO and improved sensor, and video, and in-camera processing tricks, and your choice of colors. I forget whether the K2000 has tethering and weather sealing. I'll guess that low-light performance is the Kx's main advantage. So, you get to decide how much $$$ some ISO-12k is worth to you. The good news: the Kx is at an entry-level price. The bad news: the Kx is still an entry-level camera, albeit the best of class. When I did my dSLR research and analysis a couple years ago, I chose the K20D precisely because it WASN'T entry-level, so I wouldn't feel a need to 'upgrade' anytime soon. Ask yourself: What do I want to do that I can't do with what I have? If you REALLY WANT to shoot in situations that require an extra few f-stops, then go for the Kx.

09-21-2010, 05:16 PM	#9
wedge Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Montco, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 154 Original Poster	Thanks for all the sound advice. Methinks I'll stick with the K2000 for the time being and see what happens to the prices of the K7 once the K5 is released. While the K-x seems to have some significant advantages, I think I'd rather wait until it's feasible to make the bigger step up to the K7.

09-21-2010, 06:17 PM	#10
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	Originally posted by wedge Feature-wise, it adds video (which I'd probably never use - I've got a decent compact HD video camera). I always find this kind of comment quite strange... It makes me wonder how lens dealers can still manage to sell fast lenses, when everybody seems to be satisfied with hyperfocal kit lens quality... The Kx will have one huge advantage over your camcorder : it can produce some creamy bokeh videos you will never have with a sub-5k$ cam. It really add something to the footage, a real movie-like quality that set it apart from the usual everything-in-focus family recording...

09-21-2010, 06:33 PM	#11
uchinakuri Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 57	I don't have the K2000, so I can't really compare, but I do have the K-x. While the high ISO ability of the K-x might be better, the K-x still retains the problem of trying to focus in low light situations.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-21-2010, 07:23 PM	#12
wedge Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Montco, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 154 Original Poster	Originally posted by dlacouture I always find this kind of comment quite strange... It makes me wonder how lens dealers can still manage to sell fast lenses, when everybody seems to be satisfied with hyperfocal kit lens quality... The Kx will have one huge advantage over your camcorder : it can produce some creamy bokeh videos you will never have with a sub-5k$ cam. It really add something to the footage, a real movie-like quality that set it apart from the usual everything-in-focus family recording... To be honest, I do very little videography at all. And for those rare occasions that I do, what I already have does what I need. I'm not saying that having video capability in a DSLR is going to drive me away from it, it's just not a selling point.

09-21-2010, 09:53 PM	#13
tarsus Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Mount Shasta Posts: 185	I have not found the Kx to have a "problem" focusing in low light.

09-22-2010, 02:09 AM	#15
vsl3-e Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Bratislava, Slovakia Photos: Albums Posts: 116	If you dont go over ISO 800 too often, and you dont need liveview, i dont see the k-x as much of an upgrade. I guess it would be wiser to wait till the price of the K-r settles. In the meanwhile enjoy the vibrant colours and filmlike grain of that great 10mp CCD sensor.