[fstopfanatic]

If I upgrade from my K-x to a K-30 will I gain a large amount? Also will all my DA lenses work the same way on the K-30, meaning will the screw drive DA's be compatible with the K-30? I now own a DA 18-55 II. a DA 50-200 and a DA 55-300.


I shoot mostly from a tripod, but do shoot handheld at times. Dragonflies are my favorite subjects in the summer and waterfowl in the winter. I use manual focus much more than AF.

[lithedreamer]

If I upgrade from my K-x to a K-30 will I gain a large amount? Also will all my DA lenses work the same way on the K-30, meaning will the screw drive DA's be compatible with the K-30? I now own a DA 18-55 II. a DA 50-200 and a DA 55-300.


I shoot mostly from a tripod, but do shoot handheld at times. Dragonflies are my favorite subjects in the summer and waterfowl in the winter. I use manual focus much more than AF.

I noticed a huge difference upgrading from my K-x to my K-30. Autofocus will improve, image quality improve, more physical controls mean you'll work faster. It is a larger body, so that's always a trade-off. I quite like the AA adapter so I could continue to use Eneloops.

For me, there was a short adjustment period where my images were worse. This wasn't a knock against the camera, it's just more megapixels puts a bigger onus on you as the photographer to get a steady shot, and I adjusted.

[mee]

If I upgrade from my K-x to a K-30 will I gain a large amount? Also will all my DA lenses work the same way on the K-30, meaning will the screw drive DA's be compatible with the K-30? I now own a DA 18-55 II. a DA 50-200 and a DA 55-300.


I shoot mostly from a tripod, but do shoot handheld at times. Dragonflies are my favorite subjects in the summer and waterfowl in the winter. I use manual focus much more than AF.

I noticed a nice upgrade.

Pentax K-30 vs K-x - Our Analysis

[fstopfanatic]

Thanks for your replies. The link was quite informative.

[caliscouser]

I have owned both, they are fine cameras in their own right (actually 2 of my favorite Pentax cameras) and can both get the job done in the right hands.
For your specific shooting requirements I don't think you would see a huge difference in final output.

The extra megapixels of the K30 would certainly allow more flexibility for cropping and framing, and the weather resistance might be a nice bonus too.
The bigger body and grip of the K30 might be more comfortable with your zooms, or could be a negative too if you like to keep things as small as possible.

If you looking at the K30, look at the K50 as well. Same camera, different body but the latter supports the new KAF4 lenses. (K30 may support these later via firmware but no news yet on that)

[RMabo]

I have the K-x and the K-S2 (sucessor to the K50, K30). Sure the K-S2, as K50 and K30, has more buttons and this allows for more direct user Control and lesser interaction with the menu, this is a big plus. Minus is the extra size and weight, the K-x really is a small gem and I like it a lot (that's why I still have it). AF is improved and allows for more user Control (illuminated AF Points in the viewfinder is a big plus). However, the improvements in image quality is only marginal. Sure the performance at higher ISO's is clearly better, but on lower ISO's well there's something to the colour response of the K-x that I really like. Up to ISO 400 I can't really say that the image quality is improved with the newer sensor, it does more higher up the ISO.

[fstopfanatic]

I rarely use ISO higher than 400 and most times my ISO is set at Auto 100-200 on my K-x. Almost all my shots are taken in daylight, and many from a tripod. I'm happy with my K-x and my K200D, but like most always wanting, maybe not needing, something more. I'm achieving photos like this with my K-x and my DA 55-300.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[normhead]

The K-x was such a good camera. I gave mine to the daughter-in-law who absolutely loves it to this day. And I know pros who stayed with 12 MP cameras even after 36 MP was available. As I recall, the K-30 was the first release after Pentax started putting resources into improving their AF. So you should see noticeable difference in AF performance... but not K-3 performance.

[mgvh]

I started with the K-x, moved up to the K-30, and recently got a used K-3. My K-x was my first DSLR, and once I figured out how to use it properly, I really enjoyed it. I got the K-30 mainly for the weather resistance, and I got the K-3 to have a second weather resistant body.
All three of these bodies use an APSC sensor, but the density of the megapixels does make a difference. Here's a comparison of what the images look like when they are all displayed at the same size. K-3 K-30 K-x

In terms of image quality, when displayed onscreen at about 1/3 size (which nearly fills the screen on my 21" monitor), there is not much difference between them. I suspect that means you could get a good 5x7 or 8x10 print from each without noticing much difference.
It's when you start zooming in and checking other factors where you notice clear differences. Here I've taken a screen shot of just the center of the three. (I'm not sure how well this will show up here with a greatly downsized pic.)
To make this comparison somewhat equal, I'm displaying the K-3 at 100%, the K-30 at 120%, and the K-x at 140%.

I took these all with the same DA 50 lens at f8 with RAW and let the ISO float with the high end set to what I conisder a usual maximum. What you should be able to see here in this comparison is that the K-3 at ISO2000 has less noise than the K-30 at 1250 or the K-x at 1600. You should also see that the K-3 is perceptibly sharper than the K-30 which is sharper than the K-x. None of this is surprising news, though I am quite pleased at the better high ISO performance of the K-3.
Will this make a difference? As I first noted, it depends on what you plan to do with the picture. Most print sizes should be similar. But moving to the K-30 from the K-x will give you better low light performance (higher ISO w/ less noise) and the ability to crop more with less effect on overall resolution.
So, I did notice a big difference going from K-x to K-30 (and probably more of a difference now going from K-30 to K-3), but that K-x is such a lovely little camera that is still very competent.

[fstopfanatic]

Great job mgvh. I rarely make a print bigger than 8 X 10. And these prints are just for a yearly calendar to hang in my at home office.


I feel now if I made an upgrade, maybe something like the K-3 would be the way to go. I'll have to do some research before I do anything. I like my K-x a lot though. I never use LV and seldom use AF. I'm not much for bells and whistles, just something that performs well.

[BrianR]

I made a jump from the 6mp k100d to the 16mp k5iis. Here are a few observations that should apply to you:

• Unless you're already hitting pixel level sharpness (i.e. stuff isn't mushy when you zoom in) with the lower resolution camera, more mp isn't a big help.
• With solid technique, I hang 8x12 prints from these two cameras side by side and can't tell the difference. 6mp is enough for this size.
• The newer camera still has several advantages that aid in capturing images
  • A couple stops better iso, though I don't often take advantage of this (flashes and/or tripod).
  • Better viewfinder, which helps with manual focus. (also LiveView, but your K-x already has this)
  • Better AutoFocus, to the point where I started using it regularly, even for close ups of insects (up to maybe 0.5X magnification).
  • More buttons to control things, less menu fiddling the better.
  • A battery that I don't want to punch in the face.

A much bigger upgrade in my case was the DFA100mm macro lens I had before picking up the k5iis. This was a huge jump over the kit lenses I had (18-55mm & 50-200mm) and also, from my limited experience with it, optically superior to the 55-300mm. While you will have to get closer to dragonflies to get the same magnification as your 55-300mm, when you can it would be the bomb. It also has the ability for a much higher magnification ratio for little damselflies or other small insects. Harder to use, but the payoff for photographing insects will be much more noticeable than a new camera body.

Just something to consider.

[lithedreamer]

I made a jump from the 6mp k100d to the 16mp k5iis. Here are a few observations that should apply to you:

• With solid technique, I hang 8x12 prints from these two cameras side by side and can't tell the difference. 6mp is enough for this size.

Although I don't regularly print larger sizes, I think every photographer should try printing at say....16x24 a few times. It made me stop and pay attention to my photos before they'd been crushed to death by online compression and after I had gotten out of the editing mindset.

[BrianR]

Although I don't regularly print larger sizes, I think every photographer should try printing at say....16x24 a few times. It made me stop and pay attention to my photos before they'd been crushed to death by online compression and after I had gotten out of the editing mindset.

I was mostly speaking to the OP's printing 8x10 calendar size . At this point, unless you crop heavily on a regular basis, more megapixels is just more megapixels for more megapixels sake.

I also don't regularly print large, the price gets high and I have no place to put massive prints. I've been working on motivating myself to add bigger prints to my limited sales attempts, but the initial cost of a dozen or so bigg'uns so you have something to display is frightening.

[fstopfanatic]

Thanks for the insight Brian. I've considered a Macro lens for quite a while. Closing the distance is where I, personally, have a major concern. I am physically challenged, having the use of only one arm. This is the reason most of my shots are from a tripod. Getting good handheld shots is tough for me to do. This is the main reason I opted for the 55-300 lens.

[BrianR]

I'm not sure if this will be any help, but I frequently use my dfa100mm macro handheld in just my right hand in two situations:

1. Lower magnification and strong light, say below 0.25x life size and sunny or partly sunny conditions. With a reflector/diffuser in my left hand, I find this a flexible combo for controlling the light, but this isn't a necessary item if the light is nice. The higher the magnification you're trying to achieve, the tougher it is to handhold, but provided you can get close enough this is a more workable approach than the heavier and more awkwardly balanced 55-300mm. An example of some frogs: Reflector Comparison | Top photo ISO400, f/8, 1/350s, natura? | Flickr
   
2. Any magnification and a subject lit by a flash. I often hold an external flash in my left hand or have it on a stand of it's own. I know many people have success with the pop-up flash and DIY modifiers that might be an option for you. It does get harder to aim with one hand at high magnifications, but it's doable with practice (I have thousands of failures with this method, but I'm pretty reliable now). At high magnifications any kind of handholding does get difficult to work the ambient light in with the flash without introducing blur, so this is mostly for 100% flash lit setups. An example of a spider: Colour-blind crab spider? | Able to turn yellow or white to ? | Flickr

The dfa100mm is small enough and has a large enough focusing ring that I'm able to do slight modifications to the focus with my pinky while the camera is held up to my eye (NOTE: I have the non-WR version, the focusing ring changed on the new WR one). It's easier with my slightly lighter older k100d, but also workable on my k5iis. I will also say that the AF of my k5iis has made the pinky adjustments a little unnecessary as the AF has become so much more reliable. I used to be nearly 100% manual focus since it was overall frustrating with the k100d, but it's improved greatly in newer models. I'm not sure how much of a gain you'd see with a K-30 over your K-x, but that might be a consideration if it helps you operate the camera.

I have a ton more examples with my dfa100mm in my general flickr stream. If it's the kind of lens you think you'll enjoy, it's totally worth it. There are also no end of subjects that you can take a slow and methodical tripod based approach with (caterpillars have been a recent obsession of mine, so have mushrooms).