[psoo]

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?

[Adam]

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?

Yes, the K-50 should give you less noise and slightly more resolution, which should help when it comes to overalll image quality. The K-50 pulls ahead in just about every other area as well, including live view performance, build quality (it's weather-sealed), ergonomics (has 2 e-dials and a bigger grip), video, and the optical viewfinder, which has 100% coverage and is bigger/brighter.

The K-50 has actually recently dropped to just $396 with a bunch of free goodies:
Pentax K-50 Digial SLR Camera Body - Black With Accessory Bundle 10883 C

[LightBug]

Also low light and tungsten light focusing was improved in k30/k50.

[ElJamoquio]

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?

K-x is better in no way to ME.

To you, I don't know. I think the K-x was marginally lighter. The K-x was able to use AA's IIRC whereas the K-50 can't IIRC.

The K-50 has better AF, better IQ in every way.

Still, it'd be tough to see in an 8x10 unless your pictures are at high ISO, etc., already.

[robthebloke]

I upgraded from a kx to a k5, and frankly was a little underwhelmed by the difference. The K5 is a better camera, but images are noisier than the Kx, and it's a good thing the viewfinder is better, because the autofocus sucks! It made me realise how far above its weight the kx had been punching! (To be fair to the k50, the k5 is the same generation as the kx, so I would expect some improvement to noise and autofocus over the k5)

I've since had quite a few chances to play with a friends k-3, and frankly the difference between the k-5 and k-3 is staggering. The lack of AA filter makes a significant difference to image quality (and everything else is just better, faster, cleaner).

Having played around with the k-3, my advice would be this: unless you need weather sealing, wait for the price of the ks-1 to drop to something a bit more affordable, then jump on one of those. If you want weather sealing, go for a k50 (or second hand k-5iis).

I had a brief play with the k30, and it is a nicer camera to use than the kx (so you will enjoy owning one), but personally I'd rather sink my money into a k-s1, k-5iis, or k-3. (Just because of the increased image quality over my k-5)

---------- Post added 10-12-14 at 11:52 PM ----------

Also low light and tungsten light focusing was improved in k30/k50.

Admittedly, that is actually the best thing about the k-5 vs kx (I always used to manually focus the kx in low light). Mind you, it's a shame the k-5 can't back that up with the high ISO performance of the kx.

---------- Post added 10-13-14 at 12:02 AM ----------

The K-x was able to use AA's IIRC whereas the K-50 can't IIRC.

It can with D-BH109

[ElJamoquio]

I think you're the only person who has ever thought the K-5 is inferior to the K-x at any ISO.

I had the K-r. In comparison to the K-5, it lost in every possible way except mass.

[robthebloke]

Well, that's just my experience (of mostly taking shots of friends in pubs and parties of an evening). I used to be happy with ISO1600, a da40, and the k-x. Moving up to the k-5 I found iso800 looked worse than the k-x at 1600 (with the same lenses).

At ISO 100-400 the k-5 wins. I never push ISO to the stratospheric levels, so maybe the k-5 wins at 6400, but that's not really my kind of shooting.

To be fair to the k-5 though, the reason I bought it was a move to the coast. The first few 'sea spray' moments with the k-x persuaded me I might want something weather sealed, and it's filled that role well. I just wish the autofocus and ISO performance matched the k-x (so I didn't keep staring at the k-3 with such envy)

[sergysergy]

The K-x was my first DSRL and although I loved it it is nowhere close to the K-5 and newer models.

[psoo]

Thanks for your inputs. It seems that the K5 and K50 cameras will give superior image quality compared to my Kx. The ratings in these Forums certainly show this, together with your comments. However, when I compare the cost of a new K50 body it is about $400 compared to $1000+ for a K5 series. I am leaning towards the purchase of a K50 because of the much lower price. Will I regret this?

[ElJamoquio]

Go with the K50.

[boriscleto]

However, when I compare the cost of a new K50 body it is about $400 compared to $1000+ for a K5 series. I am leaning towards the purchase of a K50 because of the much lower price. Will I regret this?

A used K-5 should be around $420. A used K-5 IIS around $600. A new K-5 IIS less than $700.

[psoo]

A used K-5 should be around $420. A used K-5 IIS around $600. A new K-5 IIS less than $700.

I have a basic aversion to buying a second hand camera since I don't know what may have happened to it. If I buy a new K50 body for $400 is it going to significantly inferior to a $700 K5 in terms of IMAGE QUALITY? I don't want to pay an extra $300 for a few extra bells and whistles that I would never use.

[boriscleto]

The K-5 IIS will have an advantage over the K-50 in terms of sharpness (No AA filter vs weak AA filter). The K-50 has better video and focus peaking.

[NicoleC]

A used K-5 should be around $420. A used K-5 IIS around $600. A new K-5 IIS less than $700.

At B& H right now it's $696 with a 64GB card and the grip.

[psoo]

Go with the K50.

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?