[BBear]

I wouldn't be so sure about the K10D offering better imaging qualities at ISO 100... the K-x is fantastic at ISO 100, with so much clean detail in the shadows I thought I had died and gone to heaven when I first opened a file. Whatever sensor design improvements give the K-x such good high ISO performance certainly applied to the rest of the ISO range as well.

Not sure if I completely agree with this. I currently have BOTH K10D & Kx (besides a K100D Super).


For normal day life, everyday shooting, the very compact Kx is mostly the choice for me, and along with the 40mm Pancake or 35 FA, it is very compact and it is great to carry it around. It is the perfect camera for everyday shooting.


BUT, whenever I am doing "professional" work (I do get some paid projects now and then) the K10D is usually the choice, UNLESS I need high ISO (Kx is in a totally different league here, not a secret).


For some reason, I also noticed the low ISO on the K10D to be somehow more vivid. It is very weird, because at first I thought something was not set correctly on the Kx, but then I realized the K10D does offer some very good quality ISO100 shots. The colors are better on the K10D. The Kx somehow does not render "Pentax Colors" like the K10D, using the same lenses.

Not sure why. Maybe is it the CCD x CMOS techology difference? Dont ask me, but I have notice that.


I think the main advantage for the Kx is indeed high ISO and size. If the OP needs either, then you have the winner. But if NOT, then definitely the K10D (or even the K20D) would be a nice option. But be careful, I never use ISO above 400 on the K10D.. it is that BAD... while I safely use 1600 on the Kx.

[cutlerjay]

Thanks again, everyone. I am a little upset that the k10d has such poor ISO, but with the kind of photography I do, I've only needed ISO above 400 on my k-x once (shooting an owl in my backyard in the evening.) So I don't need a ton of ISO anyways, except for football games..... How is the k10d for a sports camera? I took my k-x to my high schools homecoming football game and couldn't get a single clear picture after the dark had settled in. (part of that was because i had to use a 200mm MF lens since my 300mm tamron's aperture failed.) I've read reviews that say the k10d's AF is extremely slow, but others say it is fast. any input?
thanks a bunch

[BethC]

I wouldnt' really say it's fast! I had my K10 at my sons midget football games this weekend. got to stand on the sidelines and shoot. It was awesome (Well, except for the fact that I was not allowed to yell for my team while down there. I'm a rather quiet person, but football brings out the crazy in me) anyway, there were times when I definetly missed the shot I was gonig for because of the slow focus. but trust me, I took around 300 pictures and there are plenty clear shots as well. So it can be done. As well as with other cameras, probably not, but I've been using it wtih my sons sports for 4 years now and have plenty of great shots.

I have used ISO 800 on many many paid shoots. I find if you nail exposure, WB and everythign else, ISO 800 is useable. Recently had to shoot at ISO 1600 on a paid job, had to turn to B n W to be acceptable to show client and it's one of the shots they actually bought! So while I don't think it's near as good as the Kx and as the Kr and K5 will be, I think it gets a worse rap than it should. I am on a brand new computer so I'm not sure I have any examples of high ISO shots from my K10 but I can sure try if you are interested.

[tarsus]

I have shot both cameras professionally and I would not trade the Kx for the K10D under any circumstances. Please excuse me, but with in-camera controls and software there is no such thing as the Kx not rendering "Pentax colors." I will note, however, that with good glass, RAW and careful processing I shot and published K10D pictures of concerts at ISO 1600.

[er1kksen]

For some reason, I also noticed the low ISO on the K10D to be somehow more vivid. It is very weird, because at first I thought something was not set correctly on the Kx, but then I realized the K10D does offer some very good quality ISO100 shots. The colors are better on the K10D. The Kx somehow does not render "Pentax Colors" like the K10D, using the same lenses.

Not sure why. Maybe is it the CCD x CMOS techology difference? Dont ask me, but I have notice that.

It's probably just due to whatever color-filter array they're using on the pixels these days. Some have noted that Nikon's D3-type sensor family has a different red rendering due to using different color filter materials that absorb less light (thereby increasing sensitivity). Given the huge gains we've seen in light sensitivity in these latest Sony CMOS sensors, I wouldn't be surprised if they've seen similar changes to the color filters, which would affect color rendering.

Of course this has very little to do with Pentax or "pentax colors" and a lot more to do with Sony's sensor designs.

I did find my low-ISO K-x files a little unsatisfying at first (previous use: Oly E-330, Canon 40D, Pentax K20D) but now that I've learned to work with them properly I like the colors and rendering (and I must mention, again, the fantastic shadow DR) of K-x RAW files better than any other camera I've used. I just don't feel "limited" by the sensor's quality like I have with previous cameras. It just gives me what I want.

[Steve Beswick]

Well, I have zero experience with the k-x except for handling one in the store, which was enough to tell me that I should stick with my K10.

For those who say that the high ISO on the K10 is terrible, I have two things to say:

1. What is your reference point? I'd say it is fairly decent for a DSLR from 2006.

2. Most of the damage is done in the in-camera processing, not by the sensor. Notice the attached photo, shot raw on my K10, ISO 800, 2 stops under exposed, and then quick & dirty level corrected in post. I have spent no more than 30 seconds on this file outside the camera. There has been zero noise reduction applied to this shot. Yes, at 100% it is very noisy, but for a 5x7 it would be fine, and it would probably be okay for an 8x10.

(ignore the bright spot on the lower right hand corner. It is the reflection of a lamp on the window I was shooting through.)

[BBear]

Of course this has very little to do with Pentax or "pentax colors" and a lot more to do with Sony's sensor designs.

Well,

I don't get that technical so I cant even try t explain the reason, but I am saying this from a person that currently has BOTH cameras : at low ISO, the colors don't match and the K10D seems to have that "Pentax colors popping" a lot more than the Kx.

And yes, I shoot (only) RAW.

I go even further, when I use both cameras simultaneously and after importing on Lightroom and sorting by time of click, I can, most of the times, tell which camera was used on the shot by just looking at the colors.

At the end of the day, both cameras deliver what I am looking for, it is just that it feels like the Kx files need a bit more work, to really pop.

[opiet70]

thanks for your replies everybody. i think i'll probabally go with the k10d. I love the k-x, but the k10 has more of what i'm looking for. how waterproof is the k10d? safe enough to shoot in pouring rain?
thanks

I've had the K10D at the bottom of a waterfall taking pictures for several hours and had it out in the rain multiple times. When matched with a WR lens you are in good shape. I have never had issues with water getting into the body.

However, WR is not weather proof. As such, I have a waterproof cover I bought also for downpours - also camouflage for when I need to be sneaky with the waterfowl . Don't drop it in water or do things like that and you should be fine.

[er1kksen]

All I'm saying is that the color difference has more to do with Sony than Pentax (and the chromal filter array Sony is using). I do agree that K-x files need a little more work to "pop," so to speak, but I feel that the results are absolutely worth it, and that's probably got more to do with personal preference than anything else. I just really like the colors and rendering from Sony's latest CMOS sensors.

[winglik]

I went from the K10D to K20D and then the K-x, I actually like the K10D more.

[cutlerjay]

Are all of the DA* lenses weather sealed?

[Andi Lo]

For some reason, I also noticed the low ISO on the K10D to be somehow more vivid. It is very weird, because at first I thought something was not set correctly on the Kx, but then I realized the K10D does offer some very good quality ISO100 shots. The colors are better on the K10D. The Kx somehow does not render "Pentax Colors" like the K10D, using the same lenses.

Not sure why. Maybe is it the CCD x CMOS techology difference? Dont ask me, but I have notice that.

I noticed it too; I think that K-x is really a nikon body with K-mount

Regarding iso 100, I always thought that K10 is better as well, although K-x is certainly not "worse", but I highly prefer K10d's iso100.

Above 200 and under 800 I still seem to prefer K100 above K10 and K-x though...

[Clicker]

Remember you have the K200D as an option if it's within your budget.

[lesmore49]

I have a K10D and a KM (K2000).

The K10D is a very rugged camera...takes great pix and I love the fact that I can adjust a lot of things without going to the options list.

The KM and I would think the KX...are entry level, not as rugged....but more modern and have better ISO range.

If you use a camera hard...the K10D might be the one for you...if you want higher ISO performance and lighter, but not as rugged a body....maybe the KX.

Also any K10D you buy will be used...while you can get a new KX....if it's in the budget.

[deathdream]

i wouldnt suggest k10d if u dont really need weather sealing. its an old body and suffering from slow af, autowb. i didnt use k-x that much but all my experiences from k100ds and k10d says u have to process em alot xD
at the moment i own k10d and 77 ltd, i only like the bokeh lens gives. pretty poor af performance(inaccurate sometimes , slow , noisy, not even focusing when light is poor).
so if u want a body that requires alot of manual settings go for k10d. jpegs out of camera wont make u happy, raws will take time to process, even if u shot raw u ll need to tune white balance alot in kelvin values...