Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-06-2011, 03:42 PM   #16
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: adelaide
Photos: Albums
Posts: 89
Google snapsort and use their compare function,might at least give you some information to think about.Also just google Kx vs K5.

05-06-2011, 03:43 PM   #17
hcc
Pentaxian
hcc's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,531
QuoteOriginally posted by crossover37 Quote
Hcc - I know quite a bit about photography and all I know is that my images looked really grainy compared to my Kx. I shot pictures of my nieces at my parents' house last week and my results with the Kx were great, noise wasn't really an issue. That's what I noticed right away with my K7.

I can't always use large apertures because I take group shots too and can't scoot back sometimes. I always use my f2.8 lens or f1.4 lens.
Crossover37: I wonder if there is a pb with your K-7 settings or even with the camera itself. Many Pentaxians consider the K-7 a much better camera than the K-x at ISO100 and even ISO200.

Personally I do not have any (fine) grain until ISO 600-800 and I never PP these shots until ISO800. I shoot 14Mp 2 starts JPEG and/or RAW+. I add that I switch off all in-camera processing and I prefer to PP on computer.

I may help if you post some examples for discussion in the Forum especially by experienced K-7 users.
05-06-2011, 03:49 PM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 214
Original Poster
Peasant - I'll check it out thanks

hcc - I always shoot Raw so I do my post processing after. I'll post some pictures comparing the two cameras shot in the same outdoor location. I'll have them up later tonight.

Last edited by crossover37; 05-06-2011 at 05:03 PM.
05-06-2011, 04:36 PM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,795
QuoteOriginally posted by crossover37 Quote
I bought the K7 and I had a Kx (still have it) and I loved everything about the K7 except for the high iso. I took test shots with the Kx and K7 and felt the Kx had about a stop and a half to 2 stops of better ISO performance using Raw (which is what I shoot in always).* After bringing the camera to my parents’ house to take pictures of the nephews and nieces, I realized the image quality when using High ISO was bad and a lot of detail is lost because of the noise.* I even used ISO 560 and noticed grain which was almost invisible with the Kx. I can't keep the K7, the image quality degrades so much when I bump up the ISO.* It sucks because I loved the K7 so much.

So here's my dilemma now. Is the K5 worth the upgrade from the Kx since the ISO performance is similar? (according to what i saw on DPReview). If all I will be gaining is external controls, a couple more features, and more MP, is it worth getting the K5 instead of buying 2 nice lenses?* I had a previous thread about whether to get the K7 and 50-135mm f2.8 but now my question is should I buy the K5 or get two great lenses for my Kx. I bought a Sigma 50-150 f2.8 and I was thinking of buying another lens if I keep the Kx (my current lenses are the Kit Lens 18-55mm, FA 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 28-75mm f2.8). Will the K5 make my images look that much better with my current lenses compared to the Kx? I shoot portraits mostly.

My concerns are clients will think my camera is not "professional" enough if I keep the Kx.* Some people I photograph have more expensive cameras than I do and I know that's not the issue but in their eyes it might be (even though I have better lenses and more gear, and know how to use it). The final results are what matters but I’m wondering if people will think “hey, you’re charging money for portraits and you’re using a entry-level camera). It's tough decision.

So what do you all think? Get the K5 (I found one for $1339 at Amazon, body only) with my current lens line up, or keep the Kx and keep my Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 and the 43mm f1.9? (I would sell my 50mm f1.4) I got the Sigma for $660 so I'm trying to keep my total spending to no more than $1350.
What size are you printing? What are you using for RAW processing?

While I agree the K-x is 1-stop better than the K-7 I have never had any issue with ISO800 when properly exposed and processed.

Show us some images with EXIF data intact. I would be interested to see whats going on.

I would recommend you buy better glass. By the time people see your gear you already have the job and if your pictures are good then they will have forgotten about the gear you used. If you are worried about gear perception then I recommend Canon or Nikon. As a long time Canon shooter I can tell you that the grass is always greener, and nobody really cares what gear you use. If some one says something about you camera tell them that you you normally don't use your Leica S2 for simple portrait work, but when you do you charge significantly more.

There are several very successful professional photographers using cameras that are not as capable in low light as the K-7. Jay Dickman Photographer
Jay was using the Olympus E-3 for his National Geographic work a while back. I'm not sure if he has "upgraded" to a E-5 or not, but neither of those 4/3 sensors are as good as the lowly K-7.

The K-7 is definitely not the ideal camera for all types of photography, but there are a lot of people doing a lot of really good work with a lot less.

The ultimate question is can you justify the cost from a cash flow stand point. How much more money will you make with a K-5? How many more jobs will you land because you have a K-5?

Post some K-7 images and let's see what the issue is.

05-06-2011, 05:03 PM   #20
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,484
QuoteQuote:
My concerns are clients will think my camera is not "professional" enough if I keep the Kx.* Some people I photograph have more expensive cameras than I do and I know that's not the issue but in their eyes it might be (even though I have better lenses and more gear, and know how to use it). The final results are what matters but I’m wondering if people will think “hey, you’re charging money for portraits and you’re using a entry-level camera). It's tough decision.
I guess camera appearance may say something (though I don't know what) but your results speak for themselves. What the K5 brings to my table is the fantastic handling of the K7 (which I loved within its limits), the high ISO ability (I barely use a flash for most shots), and the dynamic range. That is where I think the camera REALLY shines. Some here may remember this photo from when I first got the camera.



It was under-exposed by at least 4 stops. I don't think I could have pulled this out of any other (Pentax) dSLR without massive amounts of noise. There is some NR going on here but not very much. Of course, I'm not passing this off as a great photo but it serves quite well to demonstrate how much information the K5 sensor actually collects.

The 43 is a fantastic lens that I'm rediscovering after not using it regularly for a couple years. It's a great lens on any camera and if the FL fits you, I'd say go for it whenever you're ready.

Your mileage of course, may vary.

Ggeorge11, Thank you very much!


Last edited by JeffJS; 05-06-2011 at 05:14 PM.
05-06-2011, 06:05 PM   #21
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Buy better glass and spend more time learning how to get more out of the kit you own. A new body is not a magic bullet.
05-06-2011, 06:25 PM   #22
Veteran Member
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,797
Hate to say it but I told you if you have a k-x you wouldn't be happy with the k-7.
If you get the k-5 you won't miss the k-x.
The k-5 has the iq you love from the k-x and the controls and build quality of the k-7.
05-06-2011, 06:28 PM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 214
Original Poster
Thanks. Ya I think that the lenses will help more. I think I'll keep the Kx and keep my Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 and buy the 43mm f1.9.

I do portraits so hopefully the 43mm f1.9 will work out well for that. I'm gonna sell my 50mm f1.4 to make up for the cost of the 43mm f1.9.

05-06-2011, 06:46 PM   #24
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: adelaide
Photos: Albums
Posts: 89
QuoteOriginally posted by crewl1 Quote
Hate to say it but I told you if you have a k-x you wouldn't be happy with the k-7.
If you get the k-5 you won't miss the k-x.
The k-5 has the iq you love from the k-x and the controls and build quality of the k-7.
+1,000,000 and you might end up finding the 43 a tad short for portraits.
05-06-2011, 07:28 PM   #25
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by peasant Quote
you might end up finding the 43 a tad short for portraits.
Depends a lot on one's style and desired approach. FA43 is nice but FA77 is nicer for portraits IMO. However if you can get only one the FA43 might be more versatile. Great for landscapes for example -- very sharp and high quality for stitching panos.
05-06-2011, 07:44 PM   #26
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 218
To get the noise down, I use Noiseware Professional edition. It really does a great job! I am keeping it on the system. well worth the price.
05-06-2011, 08:06 PM   #27
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,684
QuoteOriginally posted by crossover37 Quote
I took test shots with the Kx and K7 and felt the Kx had about a stop and a half to 2 stops of better ISO performance using Raw (which is what I shoot in always).
Clearly you've made up your mind not to like the K-7, but you should realize there's something wrong with your noise reduction technique. The K-x is one stop better at high ISO, not 1.5 or 2. This is well known. If you're using Pentax Digital Camera Utility, it displays raw photos with the camera's internal noise reduction setting. Some other raw convertors do the same. The K-x noise reduction setting is very aggressive, and it starts at ISO 800. Try shooting both cameras with NR turned off to level the playing field.
05-06-2011, 08:19 PM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,795
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Clearly you've made up your mind not to like the K-7, but you should realize there's something wrong with your noise reduction technique. The K-x is one stop better at high ISO, not 1.5 or 2. This is well known. If you're using Pentax Digital Camera Utility, it displays raw photos with the camera's internal noise reduction setting. Some other raw convertors do the same. The K-x noise reduction setting is very aggressive, and it starts at ISO 800. Try shooting both cameras with NR turned off to level the playing field.
I agree. I think the OP needs to spend a little more time with the camera and do some more testing. Up to 800 ISO I think you will have a hard time telling the difference between the K-x & K-7 at normal viewing distance. 100% crops of shadow areas and the K-x wins, but I have never made much money selling those.

K-x is a really good camera, and more than capable of professional results. If you already have one then I would not see much need to in getting a K-7.... Unless you need the AF/build quality/controls.
05-06-2011, 08:46 PM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,834
crossover37, how do you shoot and process your images?

I ask this because another option to abandoning your K-7 (and working with previously shot K-7 images of yours too) maybe to use a better RAW processor to process your K-7 shots, like Lightroom 3.4 or DXO Optics Pro 6.5. Both can do wonders for improving the apparent output of the K-7, in combination with common Pentax lenses.

I'd certainly download the latest versions of both and give them a try on your high-ISO K-7 RAW images if you haven't already used them, and see if they produce improvements. I'd particularly recommend giving DXO a try, since it's noise reduction is a little more aggressive than LR3's defaults (making sure once you install the trial to also download and install the various lens modules that may apply to your setup as well).

This might at least buy you some time. Both programs will also be useful on your K-x and any future K-5 shots too.
05-06-2011, 08:50 PM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,834
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
The K-x noise reduction setting is very aggressive, and it starts at ISO 800.
Wat? This is so technically wrong, on both counts.

Let's not be nasty about the K-x just to make the K-7 look better. Or vice versa.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, f2.8, iso, k5, k7, kx, lens, lenses, photography, portraits, sigma
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thought experiment with depth of field...want to help? arpaagent Photographic Technique 9 09-18-2009 07:08 AM
a thought benjikan General Talk 3 07-01-2009 12:23 AM
Just a worrying thought Torphoto Photographic Technique 10 06-03-2009 02:46 AM
Wow! I thought I had bought a good camera system racinsince55 General Talk 11 06-13-2008 04:19 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:03 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top