[r0ckstarr]

I think he's saying that because he wonders if your post is serious. Just like getting expensive cookware won't make you an Iron Chef, getting a more expensive camera doesn't automatically make you a better photographer. It comes off as an "Uncle Bob" statement, which anyone who has shot weddings can tell you is frustrating.

Why don't you post a couple of your submitted shots? If you need improvement in framing or exposure then even the most expensive Canikon's not going to help you. And of course, magazines and websites are going to exaggerate! That's the nature of marketing. They'll try to sell you something which is more profound than the Second Coming but then announce something better later that year. Reviews for real-life users will always be your best bet. That's why I'm not on the K-5 bandwagon yet.

I'm not saying it to be a jerk so please don't take offence. I'm saying it so you can have more realistic expectations. Throwing good money after bad is something I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Thank you. All I was saying is to get the most out of each camera, those 3 items would benefit the best. I didn't mean it rudely.

I too would be interested in seeing some of your submitted shots. Got any to post up?

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

So in the end, IQ and AF are marginally better on K-x, but it's not enough to compensate for the better built quality and handling of my K10D. Photography is a journey full of surprises.

I wouldn't say the IQ is marginally better, because if you shoot at ISO 1600, the difference is obvious. But you can't expect anything amazing to happen at ISO 100 or 200.

[pingflood]

Some of you did not seem to notice I was sacarstic. I know very well cameras are just tools and I am very satisfied with my actual lens lineup. My point is I expected the difference between the K-x and K10D IQ to be more important than that. Yes, high ISO is very much improved, but other than that I don't see the kind of differences the expert reviewers rave about.

You know, if we were to believe the reviews just about any camera is for instance at least "a stop" better than the previous, and we would all be enjoying noisefree ISO 51200 by now. It is easy to get carried away reading rave reviews and then once you get your hands on whatever it is, it is as you point out, nothing magical. Doesn't just apply to cameras! But as for cameras specifically, the giant leaps have been made (just look at the evolution between say 1995 and 2005) and by now you can't really expect some mindblowing improvements from generation to generation, just minor incremental ones. Once we got decent ISO performance (e.g. the Canon 20D which shot reasonably good ISO 1600) and were able to make nice sharp 8x10 prints, for the vast majority of people that was good enough and all the newer cameras' improvements tend to be more noticeable to pixel peepers and their like. Who cares if DXO says A is better than B if you mostly shoot at ISO 400 and print nothing larger than 8x10? Who cares about "softness" at 1:1 viewing when you aren't going to put your nose to a 40" wide print?

For photographers who aren't after something specific that the newer cameras offer (e.g. higher fps, better AF, better low light performance) upgrading really doesn't get you much.

[Deimos]

You know, if we were to believe the reviews just about any camera is for instance at least "a stop" better than the previous, and we would all be enjoying noisefree ISO 51200 by now. It is easy to get carried away reading rave reviews and then once you get your hands on whatever it is, it is as you point out, nothing magical. Doesn't just apply to cameras! ...Who cares if DXO says A is better than B if you mostly shoot at ISO 400 and print nothing larger than 8x10? Who cares about "softness" at 1:1 viewing when you aren't going to put your nose to a 40" wide print?

For photographers who aren't after something specific that the newer cameras offer (e.g. higher fps, better AF, better low light performance) upgrading really doesn't get you much.

+1

Pixel-peeping is the "magazine racing" of the camera world although it does have its uses.

When I bought my first dlsr a couple years ago I was all hung up on which reviews/features were the best, I went to my camera store and said "I'm new to slrs and heard that X, Y, Z camera was the best now..." They said, "No, all you need is a nikon d40" , "I said what about the eleventy billion AF points in the X model" , they said "you dont need it, 3 are fine".

I listend bought the d60 (replacement for the d40), and learned a lot from it over some 60,000++ shots. I am upgrading for the first time now, and I have found that only recently do I have a much better sense of what specific features and qualities I want in an upgrade. And it really has to do with what I will use and missed in my old camera from experience and not just certain selling features. I think it takes time to figure this out. If you upgrade without this sort of experience its kind of like getting in an F1 car and being told to make a winning lap time, not gonna happen, until the skill/understanding improves. I always hear people saying if Henri Cartier-Bresson were still alive he'd probably be shooting with something simple like an old D40 with 35mm prime

---

Last edited by Deimos; 10-23-2010 at 07:10 AM.

[SylBer]

Here is a picture of my wife which finished third in the B&W portion of my local photoclub. Only natural light was used for this photo. By the way, our son is now 19months old.

[k54]

I'd return the camera because there's clearly something wrong with it. Canon and Nikon guarantee better pictures - just set it to P and frame the shot with the kit zoom. For even better photos, upgrade to L-glass or the good Nikkor stuff.

Pentax is doomed I tell you. DOOMED!

Tongue firmly in cheek...

I disagree, I'm a Nikon and Pentax user. I made shots for both D90 and Kx at the same time with same lighting and subjects.

I'm happier with my Kx shots than the D90. the D5000 was worse in indoor dim no flash situations. I used the D700 as against the Kx and I don't see any difference.

I'm a K1000 film SLR user since 1977 and I go manual or AV mode most of the time and I can say that my Kx can do anything I want with a very short learning curve.

And REMEMBER it is not the camera, it is the one behind the camera holding the shutter like it is not the gun but the one holding the trigger of the gun, it is not the car but the driver handling the car......

BTW using the 18-55 kit lens of D90 and Kx, the Kx is faster in AF than the D90 contrary to what others are saying....

[k54]

3 step process to getting better pictures from both camera's:

1. Stop using Auto Mode.
2. Learn to use Manual Mode.
3. Shoot RAW and learn to PP.


Otherwise, go get a P&S.

You're right. I do 1 and 2 but I don't PP so that I will rely on my skills.

I do F/8 most of the time on my Kx and center weighted. That's when I get good sharp photos.

I don't like the 11 or 5 point AF when AF is needed, it is not sharp. I just use the 18-55 and 55-300 kit lens and sometimes my M 50/2 manual lens for portrait.

I'm happy with what the Kx can do for me for the budget. If I have money I will go for K5 and give my Kx to my son.

My Kx brought back how I shoot my K1000 in the past that I find it hard for my Nikon bodies.....

I may add that mastering the AV and TV mode is also great when the user have difficulty in M mode. The feel is bit like K1000 with some extra assistant or tools...

[k54]

I think he's saying that because he wonders if your post is serious. Just like getting expensive cookware won't make you an Iron Chef, getting a more expensive camera doesn't automatically make you a better photographer. It comes off as an "Uncle Bob" statement, which anyone who has shot weddings can tell you is frustrating.

Why don't you post a couple of your submitted shots? If you need improvement in framing or exposure then even the most expensive Canikon's not going to help you. And of course, magazines and websites are going to exaggerate! That's the nature of marketing. They'll try to sell you something which is more profound than the Second Coming but then announce something better later that year. Reviews for real-life users will always be your best bet. That's why I'm not on the K-5 bandwagon yet.

I'm not saying it to be a jerk so please don't take offence. I'm saying it so you can have more realistic expectations. Throwing good money after bad is something I wouldn't wish on anyone.

Don't get offended on their advice. It is because that you were not happy with your Kx that I too was surprised with your complaint.

I am a Kx user since March 2010 from a Nikon D80 (personal use), D5000 (office use) , and D90 (office use). I also used a D700 on a photographer's seminar.

I can say that I am very happy with what I can do with my Kx not just because of the price but also bring back my K1000 days experience into digital with a very short learning curve and simple buttons to press especially on M, AV, and TV mode as compared to the Nikon bodies that I sometimes become lost in the menus.

I am happy using the "underdog" Kx and being able to do what the expensive cameras and brands can do.

Just practice with it on different lighting and situations. You will be happy with it once you know or learn more about your camera.....

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I disagree, I'm a Nikon and Pentax user. I made shots for both D90 and Kx at the same time with same lighting and subjects.

Looks like you missed the "tongue in cheek" explanation of the comment you responded to.

[jboyde]

Thank you. All I was saying is to get the most out of each camera, those 3 items would benefit the best. I didn't mean it rudely.

I too would be interested in seeing some of your submitted shots. Got any to post up?

No worries. I take no insult to it.
I posted a few up in the gallery section here. You can look here and here. Both are from the K7 but the K10 and K20 are winners too. I even use my K200 when I shoot in parades. Am I prepared or what?!