[Taobat]

I am just about to get my first DSLR and I think the k-x makes the most sense of all the current models.

The continued reality of Moore's Law means that any high end system will be eclipsed by an entry level system in the near future, so it makes sense to buy the cheapest system that can support your needs. The K-x seems to have amazing IQ and high ISO performance, and generally impressive capabilities and functions at a remarkable price.

So now that I am getting close to buying, I am second guessing this approach and thinking about the K-r...

I was weighing up features and prices at B&H and I saw the k-x with the 18-55 and 55-300 for just twenty dollars less than the K-r with the 18-55 only.

From what I have seen, both the 50-200 and 55-300 kit lenses are capable of producing great photographs and the general advice seems to be to spend on glass, not bodies--so this would argue in favor of the K-x.

Is there a rational argument for the k-r, given a tight budget?

I shoot at concerts, and in low light, indoors and out. I intend to do some bird/wildlife shooting as well as landscapes and street photography...

I have been using (and still love) a canon G9 (35mm equivalent zoom of 35-210mm). I used to shoot film with a Canon A-1 and Minolta XD-11.

I would appreciate any thoughts or advice you have on the choice twin lens k-x versus k-r with 18-55.

Thanks!

[BirdDude007]

I have had my K-x for a week now and was actually considering the K-r but due to a communication gap between my wife and I I ended up with the K-x, she told me though that I could always send it back and exchange it for a K-r if I want.
After a day playing around with this awesome camera I realized I really don't want to part with it for a K-r, especially for another $200~$300, the extra options in that kind of upgrade really don't justify the extra money, instead I got the lenses I wanted and still saved money. I really don't need the focus light in the viewfinder, and I actually like the fact that I can access AA batteries anywhere and at anytime when I have my batteries go dead.
To me this camera is actually a step above the K-r and I am very happy I got it instead.
either camera is awesome, but after owning the K-x for a week now I know you will be satisfied.

[Pablom]

considering the minor (to me) upgrade the k-r is to the k-x I would choose the k-x kit but only with the 55-300. I own the 50-200 and it's fine will use it only when I really need the reach and not for it's quality, also it can be had very cheap separately.

edit: the k-r looks way cooler though

[wll]

I don't think the extra money is worth it. If it was weather sealed and had a battery grip option, then heck yes, even with the same feature set. But no battery grip and no weather sealing just does not justify the extra $

I love the little K-x, it is one heck of a little performer ... and you can't beat the price.

I'm looking for another with low shutter clicks at around $350 if I can find one .


wll

[Ira]

Depending on what you shoot, I think the K-r's faster focus and how that allows for much faster AF-C shooting makes it worth the extra money.

[clockwork247]

Depending on what you shoot, I think the K-r's faster focus and how that allows for much faster AF-C shooting makes it worth the extra money.

yep, i tried out both, the k-r is worth the extra money

[Taobat]

Clockwork247, Ira -- can you give some more detail on how the difference in AF speed is felt in your shooting? What is it in that difference that would be worth more than the additional flexibility of the 55-300?

Right now the responses are 3-2 in favor of the K-x and BirdDude007 makes a pretty compelling argument for the k-x.

The "Show us your best K-x shots" thread also testifies in favor of the K-x.

I would love to know more about why you find the AF-C performance and other K-r improvements worth the substantial difference in price.

[RolloR]

Get the latest generation device, you won't regret it It will satisfy your soul.

However if you're the practical type and can live with justifying the purchase all the time, get the "better bang for the buck!"

[FHPhotographer]

Taobat, I second that request, I'd really appreciated the input from folks who have used both. Data isn't nearly as important as comments from experienced and thoughtful users.

My instinct is to go for the Kx with a prime like the DA 40mm to get the best possible IQ/size package. I'd prefer, however, to not have to buy the 18-55 kit to get the Kx; I know it's only about $60 or so in the kit, and I can eventually sell it, but every dollar going to a lens I don't want is a dollar not going to a lens I do want,
Brian

[KxBlaze]

The Kr and Kx should produce almost exactly the same IQ so are the new features worth the extra $ to you? Personally I do not think they are worth it and would much rather have the Kx (what I have). I have said this many times before and I still believe it, the Kx 18-55 and 55-300 kit is the best entry level camera kit on the market including the Kr.

[clockwork247]

Clockwork247, Ira -- can you give some more detail on how the difference in AF speed is felt in your shooting? What is it in that difference that would be worth more than the additional flexibility of the 55-300?

Right now the responses are 3-2 in favor of the K-x and BirdDude007 makes a pretty compelling argument for the k-x.

The "Show us your best K-x shots" thread also testifies in favor of the K-x.


I would love to know more about why you find the AF-C performance and other K-r improvements worth the substantial difference in price.

there's a video on the forum that compares the 2 unit so you can see it yourself, the k-r just feels faster and because it zoom on to what it's focusing you know what you are focusing for sure, that won't happen with the k-x.

they use the same sensor so IQ should be the same

IMO the K-R is worth 100 over the k-x, if you have to get it for 100 more then get the k-x (that's just my opinion on the price).

[Ira]

There's a shooting mode called AF-C, which is continuous autofocus. So if you're aiming at a skier and hold the shutter button all the way down and keep it down, it will trip the shutter as soon as it locks in the first focus, and will take as many shots for as long as you hold the shutter down.

According to everything I've read, the K-r's autofocus speed is far superior to the K-x, allowing you to get a lot more pulls of the trigger than with the K-x for action shooting. So you'll get 3 shots with the K-x and 6 with the K-r. (The math is for an example only.)

In addition, there's something called HDR--high dynamic range. Your camera has a built-in HDR function, which isn't fantastic on the K-x, but the camera takes 3 shots of the same image at different exposures and processes them into one image, the resulting image with an exposure range that's hard to explain. (It's damn cool.)

The RIGHT way to do HDR is on a tripod, and simply take several images of a non-moving subject and "assemble" it later on your computer. (Since you're taking several shots, the subject can't be moving.) However, many of us just like to screw around and try to do HDR now and then handheld. It is my understanding, and I might be wrong, that the K-r's faster AF gives you HDR advantages as well.

As already mentioned, image quality and clean high ISO is going to be fairly comparable, with the K-r supposedly having an edge in at least ISO. However, this edge isn't big enough for you to really notice.

Mind you, I'm writing all of this as a K-x owner. I DO way prefer the convenience of AAs over proprietary batteries, and didn't even know that the K-r took proprietary until I read this thread. But if you buy yourself an extra pack or two, with good planning you're good to go.

Look--you'll be happy with both cameras. But I don't think I would downgrade to the K-x just to get the 55-300 NOW. For me personally, I would put my lens money/budget towards a good prime anyway, like the new 35, which you'll find is a much more useful walkaround lens than the 55-300.

And if you do concerts and birding, I would probably go for a quality, fast prime anyway over the 55-300. I never shot with the 55-300, but I'm pretty sure you can find a faster 300 prime.

Good luck!

[BirdDude007]

My wife has picked up my camera these last few days and has been playing around with it and is really taking a liking to it, now she is talking about maybe get herself one. I told her that if she got one she could get whatever she wanted, but she likes THIS one, she even says that she would be happy to take this one for herself and I can uprade to something nicer........but you know what? I really like this camera too and if I got another one then I would most likely get another just like it, and that way I can give her the new one and even get it in her choice of colors. And if I do I will get differentlenses than I have with my K-X that way her and I will have plenty of lenses to share.
Now the hard part.......teaching her photography lol.
Honestly dude, get what ever one you feel comfortable with, after all it is YOU that has to live with it, there are folks out there that like all the bells and whistles and those of us who sort of resort to "old school" and get the simple things, all in all if you compare the same photograph taken by an average photographer on a wide range of cameras you are going to pretty much get the same image, remember you always have Photoshop, that's where I do my magic.
Even though I think you are making a wise decision by getting the K-X you still cannot go wrong with the K-r

[kari]

I've never once been in a situation where the K-x AF speed failed me. It's usually the lens that is the problem (55-300 with it's long focus throw especially) rather than the camera. Putting it on 5-points AF-C works great for shooting birds in flight,

[Hypocorism]

The continued reality of Moore's Law means that ...

Is there a rational argument for the k-r, given a tight budget?

There sure was a rational argument against K-r, and still pro for K-x; that is, up until about 14 days ago... then suddenly retailers around the planet began discounting K-r's like they fell off the back of a truck! (An obvious case where Pentax the mfgr/marketer was tuning into consumer sentiment.)

And believe me, it's worth the small bit extra. Fwiw I have both and paid almost same price at their respective discounting cycle phase of purchase.
Although K-x deals are currently very appealing, it's only firesale style bundle-pricing really and there's more to (underlying, long term) 'value' than getting more "things" for the same $$$, in this equation anyway.

Re: that metaphor you used about Moore's Law? I give you all cred for that, it was poignant here.
K-r is what K-x should have been, and then some, it actually has a few features that are normally exclusive to good Pro class cameras Btw.
(Just look out for the short run razor-slashed deals and be ready to jump, you won't be sorry.)

.R.