[magkelly]

When I first sat down to ponder which camera I wanted to have as my first pro body I really made a point of considering some of the images I've seen here before I made a choice. Definitely down the line I'd like a weather resistant body but looking at some of the pics taken here, many with a humble *ist like mine I saw a lot of really impressive pics done with some very old cameras, cameras that supposedly are not nearly as technologically superior as the new line up.

Now I don't seriously think I could take my *ist and make it my first camera. It's so old that I'd likely kill it pretty quick trying to do pro work with it. My *ist is my learner DSLR, not my idea of what I need to get started doing business, but I actually do think the specs on a K-x are more than excellent enough to do a lot of what I'd be doing as a pro.

I actually think my *ist is a pretty great little camera. To me going from that to a K-x is likely going to be like going from a VW to a Ferrari. Looking at the -K-x specs I can't even imagine not being able to do what I want to do with it.

Would I like a K-5? Sure I would. But I am also aware that for me and my needs a K-5 might just be overkill. It all comes down to what you actually need. I think most photographers tend to get caught up in tech mania once in a while. It's often hard not to look at the top of the line camera and not want it simply because it is the top. But I always fee that what I have to ask myself before going there and actually spending the $$$ is "Do I just want that or do I really need that?" I've actually learned that I can get by with using less most of the time. I may "want" this or that but often I can make do with something less expensive or less new and get close to the same results anyway.

I really like expensive Belgian chocolate pralines but I don't always grab a box of $30 a lb chocolates just because I have the yen. I can get near the same buzz from a $2.99 package of Rocher hazelnut balls and usually that is what I settle for. Doesn't mean I don't still get the Neuhaus and Godiva catalogs and drool over the pics a lot though, cause I do. But usually when it comes to chocolates priced like that I'll settle for two pieces in a bag once in a great while as a special treat.

I'm definitely looking forward to having a K-x. For it's class I don't think I could ask for more. I think it's an excellent starter pro camera actually but then again I'm not going to be shooting the Indy races either...

---

Last edited by magkelly; 03-08-2011 at 11:28 AM.

[eddie1960]

I really like expensive Belgian chocolate pralines but I don't always grab a box of $30 a lb chocolates just because I have the yen. I can get near the same buzz from a $2.99 package of Rocher hazelnut balls and usually that is what I settle for. Doesn't mean I don't still get the Neuhaus and Godiva caelogs and drool over the pics a lot though, cause I do. But usually when it comes to chocolates priced like that I'll settle for two pieces in a bag once in a great while as a special treat.

I'm definitely looking forward to having a K-x. For it's class I don't think I could ask for more. I think it's an excellent starter pro camera actually but then again I'm not going to be shooting the Indy races either...

A very sane way of looking at things. BTW though the studio down the street uses that insane camera i think most people would rent it for the shoot and return it. there are lots of options for this type of thing. I rarely need lighting for what i do but it comes up occasionally. i just rent the lights when i need them, if my style changes and i need them more i'll shell out

As for the chocolate, i'm married to a Godiva manager, after a while you just don't want to see chocolate anymore

[RonHendriks1966]

I think the K-5 wins. My guess is that it is better then the K-7.

We had a sunny day with our local carnaval parade and made this one with DA21mm.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/20195454/Son%20-%20optocht/K5D_0112A.jpg

[eddie1960]

I think the K-5 wins. My guess is that it is better then the K-7.

We had a sunny day with our local carnaval parade and made this one with DA21mm.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/20195454/Son%20-%20optocht/K5D_0112A.jpg

lol
i think that would be a no brainer

but for me k7 won on price, i'll wait a while for a 5 (or the next i tend to skip a generation or 2 every time)

Very impressive shot Ron

[sterretje]

Under the "Decision process of a buyer" In the DSLR review section of this site it states:
"K-x does not have a top professional image quality, and has some disadvantages but for sure is a competitive camera at its level."

Read more at: Pentax K-x Review | Pentax DSLR Cameras | PentaxForums.com

I am curious as to why the reviewer stated that the k-x doesn't have top professional image quality. I want to know why they say this? I appreciate all the comments thus far and the consensus seems to be that image quality is a function of lenses/picture taker not so much the actual dslr.

Hi trevorgrout, also read (in the same article) what might explain the verdict:

In general by using default settings you would get an image quality close to what is actually seen with an eye, although there is room for improvement. On the positives is that images are extremely sharp and in general colors are satisfying most of the times. However the main thing that can be noticed through several photos is that the camera does wrong on its exposure metering. Additionally sometimes it is felt that outdoor photos are not so warm enough using the automatic settings - thus slight post processing might be needed.

[magkelly]

As for the chocolate, i'm married to a Godiva manager, after a while you just don't want to see chocolate anymore

I actually ran the Godiva counter p/t in my local dept store when I was 16 for the Christmas season. Later I also worked the Neuhaus counter p/t at Macy's in NYC for a while I was there.

I had more free chocolates thrown at me than most people could stomach but it NEVER got to the point where I felt I didn't want it. I am a total chocolate ADDICT and have been since before I could remember otherwise. I don't think there is a 12 step group on the planet that could help me in terms of that addiction!

I've learned not to eat but a piece or two a day. My waistline can't take more than that, but I actually have a daily chocolate allotment. I can't stay on any diet that doesn't at least allow me 100 cals a day of something chocolate. Even if it's just a little Jello pudding I "have" to have my chocolate fix. If I can keep it to a couple of pieces or a jello or something I consider that doing well but chocolate is the one substance on earth that I just cannot be trusted with.

I literally cannot work around chocolate and not eat it to the point where it makes me sick. Even when that happens? I still want it. Chocolate might as well be brown cocaine because it totally owns me!

I thought about applying to run a Godiva store in SF while I was there. As much as I needed a job then and as much as I was qualified for it I decided in the end it just wasn't a good idea. That much temptation I just cannot handle.

[eddie1960]

one good thing about it is when i do eat chocolate i only eat a small amount of high quality (though it may not be Godiva we have an amazing little indie chocolatier a block from the house and here price is less than the staff price on Godiva lol)
and chocolate in small qty should be on every diet the small reward makes it much easier to stay on the diet, and good (particularly Dark) chocolate is good for you (lots of anti oxidants ...that's what i tell myself anyway)

[K57XR]

Under the "Decision process of a buyer" In the DSLR review section of this site it states:
"K-x does not have a top professional image quality, and has some disadvantages but for sure is a competitive camera at its level."

Read more at: Pentax K-x Review | Pentax DSLR Cameras | PentaxForums.com

I am curious as to why the reviewer stated that the k-x doesn't have top professional image quality. I want to know why they say this? I appreciate all the comments thus far and the consensus seems to be that image quality is a function of lenses/picture taker not so much the actual dslr.

Trevor - I think the reviewer was mostly referring to Medium format or Full-Frame flagships (Pentax 645D, Canon 1 DS, Nikon D3x, etc.). Asking why a K-x doesn’t have equal or better IQ against these animals would be analogous to asking why a V8 Toyota Camry cannot produce equal or more horsepower than a Mercedes AMG.

Can a K-x produce better pictures? At the hands of the right photographer/driver, yes, I believe it can. If you’re an auto-sports fan then you can look at it this way; if you put Mike Tyson behind the wheel of a 500 horsepower MBZ-AMG against Michael Schumacher behind the wheel of a V8 Toyota Camry, despite the AMG’s superiority it will have little or no chance of beating that Camry on the track….Sorry to get a little off topic there….but I’m sure you get the point.

What is the difference between a Full-Frame and an APS-C sensor as far as IQ? Maybe this will help:EOS 5D vs. EOS 20D - Full Frame vs. APS-C Sensors - Bob Atkins Photography

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I am curious as to why the reviewer stated that the k-x doesn't have top professional image quality.

Ask Haris Eliades - he appears to be the author. If you look up the name, you should be able to find a way to contact him.

[normhead]

The problem with this whole process is if you go back a few years ago and looked at what was accepted for use as a "professional" digital camera, almost any good camera made today qualifies. Professional is not a static set of criteria. But one of the selling points of the "studio" photographer has always been " you have a camera at home , everybody does. but mine is so much better than yours you'll like the pictures a lot more". Justified or not there is always going to be some hype about what is a "professional camera". When I was in school we did our studio classes with an 8 x 10 film camera. both the lens plane and film plane were adjustable. Each image was crafted to the n th degree. Because you couldn 't just burst shoot until you got one you liked. However, many of us even at that time preferred the more candid look of a 35 mm camera. We learned the "burst" mode you got when you advanced the film like a banshee while holding down the shutter release. The first mode was "professional" and the second was what you did for fun.

To be honest, the pictures I post done with my k20D are not what would have been considered professional images. No one in those days would have considered a 35 mm a professional camera. ANd when I look at the work my cousin the wedding photographer used to do, with his hasselblad, canvas up to 32x48, I'm pretty sure you need to go to a 645D to get the resolution the printers want. The guy I found prints at 300 dpi. You'd need 6000 x 9000 for a 20x30. If you don't send him a 300 dpi photo, he increases the photo resolution to 300 dpi. I shouldn't have to tell you what effect that has on image quality.

So there are still reasons for using a medium format camera. There are still people who craft photos with full control of their lighting in a studio setting, and a 35 mm or smaller camera still has limitations that will limit a professional. It's not just the camera that limits the professional.

But as to what a professional camera is.. that's a question that can be debated endlessly. It's not a completely useless debate. There's lots of good info there. Way back when I was in school it was pointed out many pros kept cheap cameras in heir cars for convenience. There isn't a digital camera I know of today that will allow the image control you had with an 8x10 film camera with rotating front and back film planes and that huge glass you usd to examine the image on. It was just a different style of shooting images. From that standpoint maybe none of them are professional. Everyone wants to be Ansel Adams, but no one has equivalent gear. But maybe a professional camera is just a camera a pro might use. ANd there's absolutely no reason for thinking a pro would never for any reason own and use a K-x, or any camera capable of taking a decent image. After all, if it was all about the camera everybody would be a famous photographer, just for laying out a pile of cash. And how can you discuss the history of photography without a chapter on Andy Warhol polaroids with some of the worst IQ ever?

[HEEGZ]

Hi,

I was wondering if I had the K-5 and the k-x with the exact same gear...(da40 limited). All thing being equal would the k-5 produce a better quality image than the k-x? The camera review on this site states that the "K-x does not have a top professional image quality"


Sooo, does the k-5 have better image quality all things being equal when compared with the k-x? If so, why? Example pictures would be great to illustrate your reasoning.

Thanks
Trevor

If I ever bought a K-x it would only be to put the 40 limited on it. I think the combination of the lens and the small, light body will yield awesome candid images and street photos. For me that combo is all about size, and it beats the K-5 there. Otherwise the K-5 will obviously be the better body, but it will never be as small and light as the K-x and a 40mm ltd.

[trevorgrout]

I agree the da40 with the k-x is one sleek setup....I had a family member get me a really nice lowepro backpack to store camera and lenses....Although it is really nice, I can't bring myself to bring it with the da40/k-x combo....it can practically fit in my jacket pocket!!!