Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-13-2014, 03:13 PM   #16
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,235
Yes

10-13-2014, 03:16 PM   #17
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by P. Soo Quote
If I go with the K50 and use it in conjunction with my Pentax 12-24 mm and 18-250 lenses, is it also compatible with my Pentax M50mm/1.7, F50mm/1.7, and A 35mm/2.8 lenses?
Of course!
10-14-2014, 06:52 AM   #18
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 115
QuoteOriginally posted by P. Soo Quote
I currently use a kx in conjunction with 12-24 and 18-250 Takumar lenses. I have a range of other lenses that I sometimes use for special effects. Like many casual photographers I have focused on buying lenses that I think will give me the highest quality images. However, after having read about Pentax camera bodies in these Forums I was reminded that bodies also pay a big role in image quality. According to the info in the Forums, my kx ranks 9.0 in image quality while the k50 rates 9.7. Both cameras can be purchased for about $450. I'm not sure if these are prices for new or used cameras. I usually do not enlarge photos beyond 81/2 x 11 ins and I wonder if the k50 will give me better quality images than my kx. In short, should I sell my kx and buy a k50, or should I keep the kx because it has other redeeming features besides image quality?
its not a big difference between k-x and k-50. you will throw away 400 buck for almost the same quality.
i although have a k-x and have compared it with almost every pentax camera. I thought on upgrading, and the next "cheap choice" would be a k-30. It has the nearest performance to the k-5. although it feels not as cheap as k-50 - no wonder the camera had a starting price of ca. 1000 bucks.
And i would have bought it myself if there was a really big upgrade in terms of IQ, but it isnīt. of course its depending on what you are shooting - if its low light photography, then its worth an upgrade. bigger prints, yes, could do. if you are printing landscapes in 30 to 40cm, the bloody 10% arenīt worth it paying another 500$.
because of that, my next upgrade will really make a differance, and not just making it visible on comparing 200% crop.

Last edited by Vitalii; 10-14-2014 at 11:49 AM.
10-14-2014, 07:02 PM   #19
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 256
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Vitalii Quote
its not a big difference between k-x and k-50. you will throw away 400 buck for almost the same quality.
i although have a k-x and have compared it with almost every pentax camera. I thought on upgrading, and the next "cheap choice" would be a k-30. It has the nearest performance to the k-5. although it feels not as cheap as k-50 - no wonder the camera had a starting price of ca. 1000 bucks.
And i would have bought it myself if there was a really big upgrade in terms of IQ, but it isnīt. of course its depending on what you are shooting - if its low light photography, then its worth an upgrade. bigger prints, yes, could do. if you are printing landscapes in 30 to 40cm, the bloody 10% arenīt worth it paying another 500$.
because of that, my next upgrade will really make a differance, and not just making it visible on comparing 200% crop.
Hi Vitalii. Thanks for your valuable comments. I said before that I don't print photos larger than 10x8 inches, but I often crop very heavily. I might take a photo of a bunch of flowers and crop to a single flower. It's then that I see a loss of sharpness with the Kx which troubles me. I hope that the K50 will show better IQ than the Kx under these severe cropping conditions.

10-15-2014, 05:46 AM   #20
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 115
QuoteOriginally posted by P. Soo Quote
Hi Vitalii. Thanks for your valuable comments. I said before that I don't print photos larger than 10x8 inches, but I often crop very heavily. I might take a photo of a bunch of flowers and crop to a single flower. It's then that I see a loss of sharpness with the Kx which troubles me. I hope that the K50 will show better IQ than the Kx under these severe cropping conditions.
actually I am quite inexpirienced in cropping and printing cropped photos.
But iīve tried to compare k-x with a k-3 in macro. What iīve expected to see was increas in detail and sharpness. The reality looked very different - pictures were almost the same. Actually there was very little increas in detail, and no in sharpness. The smallest detail on the k-x was 2-3px large, compared to the k-3īs 4-5pixels. so the smallest detail, wasnīt getting any smaller it just grew up in size by 2. And on the crop the k-x looked a bit scharper, because the local contrast between each pixel was bigger - on the k-3 it was much smoother.

I think that the weak spot of my comparison was the lense. I`ve used reversed FA50mm 1.4, then same thing with macro tubes, old m42 90mm Macro lense, and some Schneider kreuznach enlargers - nothing new with HD coating, then probably the result would be a bit different.

I really donīt know if you will have a real advantage by having a bit more pixels on hard cropped photo. the only thing that will solve that one is, not to crop and schoot consciously.

and one more thing on an oldk20D you are getting 23mb raw files and that with just 10MP. Professional cameras just have their way to gather much more information.

Last edited by Vitalii; 10-15-2014 at 06:13 AM.
10-15-2014, 12:09 PM   #21
Veteran Member
NicoleC's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Madison, AL
Posts: 448
QuoteOriginally posted by Vitalii Quote
But iīve tried to compare k-x with a k-3 in macro. What iīve expected to see was increas in detail and sharpness. The reality looked very different - pictures were almost the same. Actually there was very little increas in detail, and no in sharpness. The smallest detail on the k-x was 2-3px large, compared to the k-3īs 4-5pixels. so the smallest detail, wasnīt getting any smaller it just grew up in size by 2. And on the crop the k-x looked a bit scharper, because the local contrast between each pixel was bigger - on the k-3 it was much smoother.

That has not been my experience at all between the two. The K3 is much sharper at extreme crops, however than can be more noise at higher ISOs.


IME, the K3 is more prone to motion blur when shooting handheld, no doubt form the heavier weight. But that may just be me since the K3+ leans is about at the maximum weight I can grip in a sustained fashion.


However, I agree that the solution is to stop cropping photos, P. Soo. It may be that the purchase you need to make is a dedicated macro lens so you don't have the desire to crop so close. Then that lens can be used whenever you do upgrade the body as well.
10-15-2014, 12:42 PM   #22
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 256
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by NicoleC Quote
That has not been my experience at all between the two. The K3 is much sharper at extreme crops, however than can be more noise at higher ISOs.


IME, the K3 is more prone to motion blur when shooting handheld, no doubt form the heavier weight. But that may just be me since the K3+ leans is about at the maximum weight I can grip in a sustained fashion.


However, I agree that the solution is to stop cropping photos, P. Soo. It may be that the purchase you need to make is a dedicated macro lens so you don't have the desire to crop so close. Then that lens can be used whenever you do upgrade the body as well.
Hi Nicole. Thanks for your comments. My concern with the Kx is that for high cropping the images lose a lot of sharpness. I've always envied those photos of insects and flowers which are pin-point sharp. I could never get this quality with my 18-250 zoom. Pictures taken with little cropping are quite good. I think I should keep my Kx for the time being and invest in a good quality prime lens with macro to take these close-ups.

What prompted me to initially consider an upgrade from the Kx was my review of the different Pentax cameras in the Forums. My Kx was rated as a 9 in the sharpness category, but other cameras which cost a little more than $400 were rated 9.7. However, some of the commentators above don't think that there is much to choose between the two rankings.
10-15-2014, 03:05 PM   #23
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 256
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by NicoleC Quote
That has not been my experience at all between the two. The K3 is much sharper at extreme crops, however than can be more noise at higher ISOs.


IME, the K3 is more prone to motion blur when shooting handheld, no doubt form the heavier weight. But that may just be me since the K3+ leans is about at the maximum weight I can grip in a sustained fashion.


However, I agree that the solution is to stop cropping photos, P. Soo. It may be that the purchase you need to make is a dedicated macro lens so you don't have the desire to crop so close. Then that lens can be used whenever you do upgrade the body as well.
Hi Nicole. Thanks for the advice. My initial reason for wanting to upgrade from my Kx was because major cropping usually led to a loss of sharpness in my photos. On reviewing the Pentax cameras in the Forums I found that my Kx was rated 9 in sharpness while other Pentaxes costing about $400 or so were rated 9.7. That's why I got interested. I always wanted to get those pin-sharp photos of insects and flowers which was not possible with my 18-250 zoom. If this lens on a K50 will not give much improvement over my Kx then maybe I should keep my camera and buy a good macro lens to get those sharp insect photos. Gotta keep thinking.

10-16-2014, 06:08 AM   #24
Veteran Member
NicoleC's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Madison, AL
Posts: 448
Bear in mind that most of the super close-up insect photos you see are taken in studio conditions with half frozen insects and even more than a macro -- bellows, reversal rings, etc. But a macro alone can do quite well and is a good place to start.

Handheld, outdoors, uncropped. (Not with my Kx, tho.)



[url=https://flic.kr/p/nZr7T8]
10-16-2014, 06:22 AM   #25
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 256
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by NicoleC Quote
Bear in mind that most of the super close-up insect photos you see are taken in studio conditions with half frozen insects and even more than a macro -- bellows, reversal rings, etc. But a macro alone can do quite well and is a good place to start.

Handheld, outdoors, uncropped. (Not with my Kx, tho.)



[url=https://flic.kr/p/nZr7T8]
HI Nicole: Thanks again for your comments. The close-ups you show are really sharp. I was never able to reach that level of detail with my lenses. I have taken your earlier advice and just ordered a dedicated macro to use for insect and flower photos. It is the Pentax M100/f4 macro which gets great reviews in these Forums. The reviewers rave about it even though the f/4 aperture is a bit restrictive. I got it on ebay, in v. good condition, for $125, with free shipping. Can't wait to check it out. For $125 how can I go wrong.
10-16-2014, 06:39 AM   #26
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,726
Compatability is the same....

For a long time we had both a K-5 and K-x around the house. My wife actually stopped using her K-x altogether, and took my K-5, forcing me to use my old K20D until I could afford a second K-5.

As for the noise issue mentioned above... reduce the images to the same size and you'll have the same noise. The same goes for K-5 and K-3.

4 years ago Pentax set out to improve their AF. The K-5s are a step along the way, the K-3 is current. The K-30 was the first step in the new system... you can practically judge the AF by when it was released. Incremental improvements in every release.

Personally, I think K-x to K-5 was a huge step. We do a lot of sunsets, sunrises with huge Dynamic Range, and for that type of shot the K-5 series are kings. So once we got the K-5s the K20D and K-x became gifts for family members. The K-3 has many advantages, but I find it a little more difficult in terms of post processing than the K-5s were. But now that I'm used to it, I can't bring myself to go back to a K-5. There is more that I like than there is that I dislike.

So my guess is you'd find anything newer than a K-30 a fine complement to what you have... Just shop for the features you want.
To me the advantage to the K-3 is, it's current. I probably won't be looking at a new APS-c camera for another 3 or 4 years now or until something with better low light capacity and dynamic range is released. The older the model you buy, the more likely the next model released will have an improvement you just "have to" have.

My wife is still quite happy with her K-5. I keep thinking she should get a K-5IIs as it's sort of the pinnacle of the K-5 seres, but she sees no reason to upgrade. The K-5 is simply a great camera, even if it isn't the newest thing since sliced bread any more.

Its funny how, when other camera companies are being discussed, many companies have yet to produce a camera as good in IQ as the K-5 all these years later. And straight up for IQ, it's still as good as the K-3 for images reduced to the same size, maybe a little better for dynamic range.

Last edited by normhead; 10-16-2014 at 06:50 AM.
10-16-2014, 09:47 AM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,905
Just Mentioning

The K-5IIs is priced at 682.66 at Amazon for the body. I have one and the IQ sharpness and lack of noise are excellent when using the appropriate settings. I use it for birding, flowers, and wildlife with a Sigma 150-500 for Pentax K Mount.

The camera is amazing.

Last edited by C_Jones; 10-16-2014 at 10:10 AM. Reason: small typo
10-16-2014, 02:00 PM   #28
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 115
QuoteOriginally posted by P. Soo Quote
HI Nicole: Thanks again for your comments. The close-ups you show are really sharp. I was never able to reach that level of detail with my lenses. I have taken your earlier advice and just ordered a dedicated macro to use for insect and flower photos. It is the Pentax M100/f4 macro which gets great reviews in these Forums. The reviewers rave about it even though the f/4 aperture is a bit restrictive. I got it on ebay, in v. good condition, for $125, with free shipping. Can't wait to check it out. For $125 how can I go wrong.
Second essential upgrade, especially for macro with magnification above 1:1 is flash. You will need a whole lot of light, to shoot with small aperture so you have a decent DOF, or just to freeze the picture. A ring flash would be the easiest solution, you might find a cheap one too. and to get really sharp a monopod or tripod.

For the start, just look for some close up(yep its not the same), macro and supermacro threads and techniques. have fun...)

first one shoot on tripod, second with flash and small softbox on extendet gripm and of course no cropping, nor using a macro lense.
there are really low cost solutions to shoot macro - with specific equipment its just easier and a higher rate of taking good shots.

Last edited by Vitalii; 11-06-2014 at 09:09 AM.
10-16-2014, 05:22 PM   #29
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 256
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Vitalii Quote
Second essential upgrade, especially for macro with magnification above 1:1 is flash. You will need a whole lot of light, to shoot with small aperture so you have a decent DOF, or just to freeze the picture. A ring flash would be the easiest solution, you might find a cheap one too. and to get really sharp a monopod or tripod.

For the start, just look for some close up(yep its not the same), macro and supermacro threads and techniques. have fun...)

first one shoot on tripod, second with flash and small softbox on extendet gripm and of course no cropping, nor using a macro lense.
there are really low cost solutions to shoot macro - with specific equipment its just easier and a higher rate of taking good shots.
Vitalii, thanks for your great advice. Clearly, it's not just good equipment that is necessary but the photographer has to apply his/her skills as well. Your photos, and Nicole's photos, show what can be done without paying the earth for expensive cameras and lenses. I thank everybody for their help in this thread. I've learned a lot.
10-18-2014, 06:59 AM   #30
Forum Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 73
QuoteOriginally posted by P. Soo Quote
Vitalii, thanks for your great advice. Clearly, it's not just good equipment that is necessary but the photographer has to apply his/her skills as well. Your photos, and Nicole's photos, show what can be done without paying the earth for expensive cameras and lenses. I thank everybody for their help in this thread. I've learned a lot.
Dont know if you already took a decision to buy the K50 but here's my opinion. As far as I am concerned the K-x is still a very good camera though it came out 5 years ago. If it works fine and gives you no problems use it.

and if printing on a large sheet is your reason for upgrading rest assured the k-x will give you good prints. dont go by megapixel myth that more megapixel means sharper higher resolution prints. if that be true lots of compacts which come out with 20 or 24 megapixels should in theory give you better prints in large size. in good old days when aps-c sensor based dslrs newly came out most had resolutions below 6 mp but they were able to take out larger prints and the reason was the sensors had great pixel density which ensure tonnes of detail got captured even in a low resolution and when printed not much detail was lost! Its said 6mp is the maximum resolution possible to be captured using an aps-s sensor but what camera manufacturers started doing was to implement complex interpolation algorithms and try increase resolution to 10, 12,16 ans 20 mp. as they realised to sell new cameras bigger the megapixel better it will sell

so dont assume just because the k50 has 4 mp extra resolution it will be in anyway superior to the k-x is concerned as far as IQ is concerned. It might ofcourse be superior to the k-x in other aspects such as faster af, full hd video, extra feature sets but if its these things which matter upgrade but if its iq you can stick to the k-x

and may i also suggest consider buying some used manual lenses of pentax such as the 50mm f1.7 or 1.4. they dont cost much and trust me the pics you will clicke with them will be far superior to ones you get with the kit lens or the superzoom you have with you.
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, cameras, dslr, image, images, k-3, k-5, k-5iis, k5, k50, kx, lenses, light, pentax, pentax kx, photography, post, quality, weather
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
question about upgrading to Pentax Kx pimentel1980 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 6 07-10-2014 10:44 AM
Upgrading from Kx ChopperCharles Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 09-10-2012 06:05 PM
drastic upgrading of AF algorithms - kr / kx possible? opiedog Pentax News and Rumors 18 09-13-2010 08:21 AM
Upgrading from K10d to Kx--Should I do it? annod Pentax DSLR Discussion 31 07-12-2010 03:03 PM
Talk me out of upgrading to a KX? mediaslinky Pentax DSLR Discussion 35 07-10-2010 11:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:46 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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