K-x upgrade?

Omestes · 03-16-2012, 03:43 PM

The Buddha was on the timer. The picture looks better in person than on the version on the site. As for the hummingbird, he (she?) must have known I had a new toy to play with. I managed to get a couple of shots within 1:1 range of him too, but sadly most of those have a bit of movement, or a bit of spotty focus since I was shooting in the shade mostly wide open, he was also partially obstructed by a wall (i.e. a big cloudy grey blur).

I like your fix! It really brings him out.

How did you get that dof on the dragonfly? So far, outside of the tripod, that is my biggest bugbear. Though I've noticed that I get the same odd highlights that you got on his "nose" when going for bugs. Is that just how bugs render, or is that some strange issue? I've only noticed it on bugs.

Marc Sabatella · 03-16-2012, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by Omestes

@Crewl1: I feel like I'm beginning to feel the resolution of the k-x's sensor hitting me in the face, and it seems hard to get things to be quite as crisp and sharp as I like (shooting with a F100 2.8 Macro). I know I have a couple non-camera limitations; skill, bad tripod, SR when handheld. But it still seems, when digging down a bit that I'm not getting the nice crispness I see in the images of other, such as the guy in the video you linked.

and yet, you are are judging this based on an image in a cideo that has already been downsidezed to under 1MP? here *absolutely no possible way* that the difference between his images and yours has anything whatsoever to do with the camera. In approximate order of importance, it is:

1. Technique
2. Technique
3. Tehcnique
4. Technique
5. Technique
6. Technique
7. Technique
8. Lens
9. Technique
10. Technique

Camera quality is somewhere around 78 or 79 on this list, and that's only if you are actually printing large enough to not be throwing away pixels as it is (larger than 8x10"). Otherwise, it is around 1324th.

**luftfluss** · 03-16-2012, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Omestes

The Buddha was on the timer. The picture looks better in person than on the version on the site. As for the hummingbird, he (she?) must have known I had a new toy to play with. I managed to get a couple of shots within 1:1 range of him too, but sadly most of those have a bit of movement, or a bit of spotty focus since I was shooting in the shade mostly wide open, he was also partially obstructed by a wall (i.e. a big cloudy grey blur).

I like your fix! It really brings him out.

How did you get that dof on the dragonfly? So far, outside of the tripod, that is my biggest bugbear. Though I've noticed that I get the same odd highlights that you got on his "nose" when going for bugs. Is that just how bugs render, or is that some strange issue? I've only noticed it on bugs.

I shot f/16 on teh dragonfly, his head was small enough to mostly fit. The lights on his "nose" are from the flash. They would have been reduced if I had used a diffuser or, if I were a serious macro shooter, a ring flash.

Usually, when I shoot macro - and for me it's mostly bugs - I sit. It's more stable, plus IMO I get a more appealing angle.

Tonto · 03-16-2012, 07:05 PM

If you MUST get another body I would recommend the K7 IF you are keeping the Kx. Use the Kx when you want higher ISO and a smaller body to carry round. Kx and DAL 55-300 is a great low weight combo and the ISO allows faster shutter speeds.

If you are REPLACING the Kx get the K5, its pretty much the best of both K7 and Kx/Kr but you do loose small size (K-01 Maybe?)

Omestes · 03-16-2012, 07:39 PM

If I upgrade I'm probably going to end up giving the Kx to my girlfriend, she's been lusting after cameras every time we hit up an electronics store. All she has though is an old (OLD!) film Nikon, and I figure it would be nice to share lenses (we live together). I did pick up a DA 55-300, and I love it, especially since I can keep a Raynox in my pocket and have an instant ghetto macro while hiking. Carrying the FA100 2.8 around is a bit cumbersome, and my F35-70 3.5 "Macro" doesn't have much reach and sports some pretty odd bokeh in macro.

In a perfect world I'd keep both. But I doubt the girlfriend would stand for me hoarding cameras.

I'm dubious on the K-01. It might be great, but I'll wait until Pentax has a bit more experience with serious mirrorless cameras (the K-02?). And while the review here was generally positive, I'm still a little iffy on it. Also the placement of the green button is... I actually use it, a lot, and would get rather annoyed quickly at not being able to hit it quickly and easily. I actually wouldn't mind the Kx being a bit bigger, but then again I have huge hands (my pinky and ring finder hang off the bottom of the Kx's grip).

@Marc Sabatella: You've got a good point. I've pretty much decided to put off getting an upgrade for now. I might put it off for my yearly self-xmas present, though... I figure that I have some free money right now, I might as well spend it, but I'll save up a bit since it isn't a terrible emergency. If, though, I could hit up B&H and buy a bucket of technique, I would in a second. I've been pixel peaking on a friend's site/Flickr feed, whose been trying to break through as a paid art photographer. She shoots a fair amount of flower macros, and she managed to get very crisp shots, much crisper than anything I've managed.

Once my tripod hits, I'm going to go for a very long hike, and not go home until I'm happy with my shots.

MegaPower · 03-22-2012, 09:25 PM

I agree adding the K7 to Kx or change it to K5.
IMO, K7 is actually better in lower ISO. Kx can only do ISO200(extended to 100) but it can do better higher ISO.
K5 will cover the low and high ISO with a better DR.

I like to have two body so I use K7 + Kx combination.
With the K7, I have a Metz 50 so it will fit the need for low-light situation.

**luftfluss** · 03-27-2012, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by MegaPower

I agree adding the K7 to Kx or change it to K5.
IMO, K7 is actually better in lower ISO. Kx can only do ISO200(extended to 100) but it can do better higher ISO.
K5 will cover the low and high ISO with a better DR.

I like to have two body so I use K7 + Kx combination.
With the K7, I have a Metz 50 so it will fit the need for low-light situation.

I don't know where you get your information, but the K-x has a superior sensor to the K-7 at every ISO, including (and especially) DR. In fact, the K-x has greater DR at ISO 400 than the K-7 does at ISO 80!

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Kx upgrade to K7 or Kr, why or why not?	KxBlaze	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	04-06-2011 10:43 AM
Upgrade or not	Uggy	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	12-05-2010 07:14 PM
Upgrade ?	BigBassMan	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	3	11-23-2010 06:01 PM
which upgrade from a Km?	needtime2scrap	Pentax DSLR Discussion	14	10-19-2010 07:00 AM
Upgrade Advice: Upgrade Lenses or Camera	krs	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	07-17-2009 05:24 AM

03-16-2012, 03:43 PM	#16
Omestes Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Phoenix, AZ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 207 Original Poster	The Buddha was on the timer. The picture looks better in person than on the version on the site. As for the hummingbird, he (she?) must have known I had a new toy to play with. I managed to get a couple of shots within 1:1 range of him too, but sadly most of those have a bit of movement, or a bit of spotty focus since I was shooting in the shade mostly wide open, he was also partially obstructed by a wall (i.e. a big cloudy grey blur). I like your fix! It really brings him out. How did you get that dof on the dragonfly? So far, outside of the tripod, that is my biggest bugbear. Though I've noticed that I get the same odd highlights that you got on his "nose" when going for bugs. Is that just how bugs render, or is that some strange issue? I've only noticed it on bugs.

03-16-2012, 05:13 PM	#17
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Omestes @Crewl1: I feel like I'm beginning to feel the resolution of the k-x's sensor hitting me in the face, and it seems hard to get things to be quite as crisp and sharp as I like (shooting with a F100 2.8 Macro). I know I have a couple non-camera limitations; skill, bad tripod, SR when handheld. But it still seems, when digging down a bit that I'm not getting the nice crispness I see in the images of other, such as the guy in the video you linked. and yet, you are are judging this based on an image in a cideo that has already been downsidezed to under 1MP? here absolutely no possible way that the difference between his images and yours has anything whatsoever to do with the camera. In approximate order of importance, it is: 1. Technique 2. Technique 3. Tehcnique 4. Technique 5. Technique 6. Technique 7. Technique 8. Lens 9. Technique 10. Technique Camera quality is somewhere around 78 or 79 on this list, and that's only if you are actually printing large enough to not be throwing away pixels as it is (larger than 8x10"). Otherwise, it is around 1324th.

03-16-2012, 06:23 PM	#18
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619	Originally posted by Omestes The Buddha was on the timer. The picture looks better in person than on the version on the site. As for the hummingbird, he (she?) must have known I had a new toy to play with. I managed to get a couple of shots within 1:1 range of him too, but sadly most of those have a bit of movement, or a bit of spotty focus since I was shooting in the shade mostly wide open, he was also partially obstructed by a wall (i.e. a big cloudy grey blur). I like your fix! It really brings him out. How did you get that dof on the dragonfly? So far, outside of the tripod, that is my biggest bugbear. Though I've noticed that I get the same odd highlights that you got on his "nose" when going for bugs. Is that just how bugs render, or is that some strange issue? I've only noticed it on bugs. I shot f/16 on teh dragonfly, his head was small enough to mostly fit. The lights on his "nose" are from the flash. They would have been reduced if I had used a diffuser or, if I were a serious macro shooter, a ring flash. Usually, when I shoot macro - and for me it's mostly bugs - I sit. It's more stable, plus IMO I get a more appealing angle.

03-16-2012, 07:05 PM	#19
Tonto Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wellington Posts: 969	If you MUST get another body I would recommend the K7 IF you are keeping the Kx. Use the Kx when you want higher ISO and a smaller body to carry round. Kx and DAL 55-300 is a great low weight combo and the ISO allows faster shutter speeds. If you are REPLACING the Kx get the K5, its pretty much the best of both K7 and Kx/Kr but you do loose small size (K-01 Maybe?)

03-16-2012, 07:39 PM	#20
Omestes Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Phoenix, AZ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 207 Original Poster	If I upgrade I'm probably going to end up giving the Kx to my girlfriend, she's been lusting after cameras every time we hit up an electronics store. All she has though is an old (OLD!) film Nikon, and I figure it would be nice to share lenses (we live together). I did pick up a DA 55-300, and I love it, especially since I can keep a Raynox in my pocket and have an instant ghetto macro while hiking. Carrying the FA100 2.8 around is a bit cumbersome, and my F35-70 3.5 "Macro" doesn't have much reach and sports some pretty odd bokeh in macro. In a perfect world I'd keep both. But I doubt the girlfriend would stand for me hoarding cameras. I'm dubious on the K-01. It might be great, but I'll wait until Pentax has a bit more experience with serious mirrorless cameras (the K-02?). And while the review here was generally positive, I'm still a little iffy on it. Also the placement of the green button is... I actually use it, a lot, and would get rather annoyed quickly at not being able to hit it quickly and easily. I actually wouldn't mind the Kx being a bit bigger, but then again I have huge hands (my pinky and ring finder hang off the bottom of the Kx's grip). @Marc Sabatella: You've got a good point. I've pretty much decided to put off getting an upgrade for now. I might put it off for my yearly self-xmas present, though... I figure that I have some free money right now, I might as well spend it, but I'll save up a bit since it isn't a terrible emergency. If, though, I could hit up B&H and buy a bucket of technique, I would in a second. I've been pixel peaking on a friend's site/Flickr feed, whose been trying to break through as a paid art photographer. She shoots a fair amount of flower macros, and she managed to get very crisp shots, much crisper than anything I've managed. Once my tripod hits, I'm going to go for a very long hike, and not go home until I'm happy with my shots.

03-22-2012, 09:25 PM	#21
MegaPower Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Hong Kong / Irvine, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 636	I agree adding the K7 to Kx or change it to K5. IMO, K7 is actually better in lower ISO. Kx can only do ISO200(extended to 100) but it can do better higher ISO. K5 will cover the low and high ISO with a better DR. I like to have two body so I use K7 + Kx combination. With the K7, I have a Metz 50 so it will fit the need for low-light situation.

03-27-2012, 05:15 PM	#22
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,619	Originally posted by MegaPower I agree adding the K7 to Kx or change it to K5. IMO, K7 is actually better in lower ISO. Kx can only do ISO200(extended to 100) but it can do better higher ISO. K5 will cover the low and high ISO with a better DR. I like to have two body so I use K7 + Kx combination. With the K7, I have a Metz 50 so it will fit the need for low-light situation. I don't know where you get your information, but the K-x has a superior sensor to the K-7 at every ISO, including (and especially) DR. In fact, the K-x has greater DR at ISO 400 than the K-7 does at ISO 80! DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side