[MCR]

Hi all,
I find gallery with Pentax K-X and high ISO on flickr.

Few samples ISO1600:


Full size : http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2532/3962231547_0c1d64dc9f_o.jpg

Next ISO1600:


Full size : http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3438/3962141075_4f2e8d50f8_o.jpg

Gallery : PENTAX K-x photo sample - a set on Flickr

IMO - very well high ISO, much better then K20D has...

[WerTicus]

a lot of people were waiting for these... be nicer to see the comparator with the same scene but this is good!

[and]

looks better than my k7 altho who knows with just these samples. but it has less mp and goes to a higher iso so should be better.

[rawr]

Looks promising.

[Fototim]

Thanks for posting.

Not much noise. But to me it looks like the price is lack of details.
Anyway. Two samples is not enough to make a conclusion. So I'll reserve my final judgement.

[MCR]

Thanks for posting.

Not much noise. But to me it looks like the price is lack of details.
Anyway. Two samples is not enough to make a conclusion. So I'll reserve my final judgement.

I posted only 2 photos; you have to try other samples in flickr gallery : PENTAX K-x photo sample - a set on Flickr

[alessandro63]

Not much noise. But to me it looks like the price is lack of details.

Motion blur on almost every shot...

[LeDave]

Wow, can't wait to see more.

[georgweb]

These look quite good as high ISO performance imo. Might be true that the K-X's Sony sensor is the same as in the new Sony 500/550, featuring new technology for improved low light performance. The Sonys don't have video but the flip screen and the extra live-view sensor. Both Pentax and Sony have a shake reduction sensor. Mmmmh...

[k100d]

trademark pentax underexposure on the second photo

[ytterbium]

Keep in mind those are underexposed. Correctly exposed ones would look even better.

[Marc Sabatella]

trademark pentax underexposure on the second photo

On the contrary; I loaded it up and looked the hitogram, and it's pretty much ISO perfect - the average / peak of the histogram just a bit left of center, no clipped highlights but within half a stop of starting to do so. That is, any camera that produced a brighter exposure than this would be violating ISO standards and clipping highlights - in other words, it would be a Canikon :-).

This *is*, however, a good illustration of how easy it is to mistake "correct" exposure for "exposure that the viewer happens to find most pleasing". I think most viewers would agree they'd like the picture brighter; that's not the debate. But wanting it brighter doesn't mean the camera underexposed; it means it is a scene where the photographer should have applied positive exposure compensation.

[Eruditass]

This *is*, however, a good illustration of how easy it is to mistake "correct" exposure for "exposure that the viewer happens to find most pleasing".

Very valid point a lot of people miss. No clipped highlights is the best image in the end - though you will have to do a bit more work PP.

[ytterbium]

That is, any camera that produced a brighter exposure than this would be violating ISO standards and clipping highlights - in other words, it would be a Canikon :-).

First of all, i don't want to start an off-topic discussion here, so if you're interested to discuss this further PM me. I wanted to note that ISO standards define light levels under certain observation circumstances (like metering mode). If camera has metering modes that comply with ISO standards, their returned values should as well. If the mode is custom/automatic like multi/segment/matrix or whatever you call it, the exposure values calculated cannot be linked to such standards.

Btw, by looking at the last image, to me it seems more like low contrast (High DR) than underexposure actually.

I dont want to sound all negative, but

Do you have the High Iso noise reduction turned up to high on these shots?

I ask, because I am seeing absolutely no detail, especially in that second shot. There is just none.

Could be motion blur as mentioned... I hope so.