Errgggh. K20D Vs. K-x

ogl · 10-16-2009, 10:52 PM

K-x has no AF indicators in VF. And very small buffer in RAW. K20D has better ergonomics.

ogl · 10-16-2009, 10:53 PM

Originally posted by Buschmaster

I would have to disagree with this. I feel like there are giant differences in high ISO handling between the K110D and the K-x. The JPEG processing is likely the biggest factor, but it is a giant factor in this particular instance.

K110D is the same.

But only 6 MP.

Marc Sabatella · 10-16-2009, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Buschmaster

I would have to disagree with this. I feel like there are giant differences in high ISO handling between the K110D and the K-x. The JPEG processing is likely the biggest factor, but it is a giant factor in this particular instance.

I'd have to see some side-by-side samples - same scene, same exposure, etc - to say. The K-x is new and I suppose it *could* turn out to really represent a giant leap, but I'm skeptical, since virtually every single APS-C camera ever released up to this point has been pretty similar thus far.

Buschmaster · 10-17-2009, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

I'd have to see some side-by-side samples - same scene, same exposure, etc - to say. The K-x is new and I suppose it *could* turn out to really represent a giant leap, but I'm skeptical, since virtually every single APS-C camera ever released up to this point has been pretty similar thus far.

There are some samples posted in the thread a few below this one and at ISO 12800 it looks about as good as my camera looks at 800 or maybe one or two stops higher. It looks very impressive at high ISO.

The no AF Indicator in the VF would kinda stink, but I typically can see fairly well in the viewfinder as is.

Ergonomics are a matter of opinion, and since I'm used to the K110D it could be argued that the K-x would be better in most of those regards.

Peter Zack · 10-17-2009, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by mtngal

That convinced me that getting a "lesser" camera so a girlfriend etc. can use it occasionally isn't as necessary as I had originally thought.

I sure hope your husband never reads this. That cracked me up. He must wear the skirt in the family!

As for the cameras, both are good choices and the high ISO thing is yet to be determined. I'm with Marc S on this. The differences have been marginal up till now and the K110/100 series were some of the best APS-c cameras to date due to sensor size.

What would tip me to the K20D is the WS. You may not shoot in rain much but what about fog, snow, dust etc. There are lots of reasons to have WS camera.

flippedgazelle · 10-17-2009, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Peter Zack

I sure hope your husband never reads this. That cracked me up. He must wear the skirt in the family!

Maybe he's Scottish?

Marc Sabatella · 10-17-2009, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Buschmaster

There are some samples posted in the thread a few below this one

Samples aren't even close to the same as direct A-B comparisons. There are *tons* of variables involved that can affect the results - what the color of the lighting was, how much of it there was, what kind of exposure was used, what kind of textures are present in the scene, whether the important details are more in the lights or in the shadows, and of course what settings might have been made in camera (natural versus bright mode, how much and what kind of sharpening, what the High ISO NR setting is, etc).

You might think I'm just being pedantic, but these factors make a *huge* difference in how much noise you see in an image. Much greater than the difference between any two APS-C cameras on the market up till now. That is, you can take *any* one camera, and by changing these variables, make it look like the best *or* the worst of the lot. The only way to really get a handle on what the actual differences would be in practice would be to control those variables and tke the same shot with both cameras (and that includes tweaking the JPEG settings to if the defaults are different). When you test in this way, differences that at first appear enormous have almost always virtually completely disappeared (the K10D might be the one exception; it tried a radically different A/D converter design than any other camera before or since has used, and paid a price in high ISO noise).

So I'm not saying the K-x won't turn out to be slightly better than older cameras, but I'd be shocked if, once you control the variables, it turns out to be anything that would be visible in full screen shots or prints smaller than 8x10.

Quote:

The no AF Indicator in the VF would kinda stink, but I typically can see fairly well in the viewfinder as is.

Note there *is* an AF confirmation indicator in the viewfinder, as with all Pentax DSLR's. There is just no indication of *which* AF point is confirming focus. If you use center point only (as a great many photographers do), then you won't need any such indicator to know which point was selected.

Buschmaster · 10-17-2009, 04:47 PM

If there won't be any difference, why would people always post ISO tests with every new camera that comes out?

If the main things for me are high ISO why not just get a K200D then?

Marc Sabatella · 10-17-2009, 11:02 PM

I didn't say *no* difference; I said relatively small differences. People test this because people are interested in the results and indeed obsess about them, but like I said, in the real world - full screen views, prints you can make at home - the differences between virtually *all* APS-C cameras is pretty small.

Buschmaster · 10-18-2009, 09:39 AM

Ok, thanks for the tip.

Something I just thought of that could be the absolute clincher...

Can the K-x have a battery grip?

rawr · 10-18-2009, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Buschmaster

Ok, thanks for the tip.

Something I just thought of that could be the absolute clincher...

Can the K-x have a battery grip?

I don't believe so, from my reading of the Japanese brochure.

It needn't be a clincher, depending on your preferences I guess - the K2000/Km didn't have a battery grip either.

Buschmaster · 10-18-2009, 01:59 PM

I really think the K20D is up on top now, though. Fo the ability of having a battery grip, having more professional features, and everything like that. It just seems like more of a camera. I would like the video features, I would like the faster AF, I would like the higher ISO, I would like all of that, but when it comes down to it, I think the K20D takes the cake.

The K-7 is likely just too expensive, unless I wait for a good while for it to drop to at least $800 or so. I still have to buy new lenses, too, which makes it tough.

tr13 · 10-18-2009, 03:43 PM

If you choose camera, do not look at specifications. And especially at video features.
Look at ergonomics and quality of produced photo. On time necessary to make each of best shots. On small quircks and annoyances.
I sometimes love my GX20, sometimes hate it :-)
But viewfinder quality and two wheels are very handy.
Foe just extra $60 you could have chinese replacement battery and battery grip. For another $40 you could have good replacement focus screen.
And believe me (and I am strong follower of AA camp), AA batteries and accums are way to the past.

Buschmaster · 10-18-2009, 05:03 PM

Maybe I should just stick with what I have if it's this tough of a decision

In some regards, I think the K200D would almost be better, because it leaves more money for glass...

I'll probably wait for a little while and think it out. The front wheel would be nice. The video mode would be nice. The money saved would be nice. Every camera body I could buy certainly has advantages over the others.

tr13 · 10-19-2009, 12:41 AM

I strongly suggest to look for refurbs.
Look at related themes on the forums, as I belive that good K20D refurb can be obtained for less then $500.
And, believe me, it is very good deal.

10-16-2009, 10:53 PM	#17
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Buschmaster I would have to disagree with this. I feel like there are giant differences in high ISO handling between the K110D and the K-x. The JPEG processing is likely the biggest factor, but it is a giant factor in this particular instance. K110D is the same. But only 6 MP. Last edited by ogl; 10-17-2009 at 12:10 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K20D, Battery Grip, NEW K20D battery, cable remote (Worldwide)	Albert Siegel	Sold Items	6	09-23-2010 08:02 AM
In Canada: Summer Rebates for K20d or K20d plus lens	Pentaxtic	Pentax DSLR Discussion	1	07-17-2009 11:34 AM
Magic Lantern Guides: Pentax K20D and MasterWorks: Jumpstart Guide for the K20D.	Reportage	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	02-12-2009 10:24 PM

10-16-2009, 10:52 PM	#16
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	K-x has no AF indicators in VF. And very small buffer in RAW. K20D has better ergonomics.

10-16-2009, 11:28 PM	#18
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Buschmaster I would have to disagree with this. I feel like there are giant differences in high ISO handling between the K110D and the K-x. The JPEG processing is likely the biggest factor, but it is a giant factor in this particular instance. I'd have to see some side-by-side samples - same scene, same exposure, etc - to say. The K-x is new and I suppose it could turn out to really represent a giant leap, but I'm skeptical, since virtually every single APS-C camera ever released up to this point has been pretty similar thus far.

10-17-2009, 07:49 AM	#19
Buschmaster Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 806 Original Poster	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella I'd have to see some side-by-side samples - same scene, same exposure, etc - to say. The K-x is new and I suppose it could turn out to really represent a giant leap, but I'm skeptical, since virtually every single APS-C camera ever released up to this point has been pretty similar thus far. There are some samples posted in the thread a few below this one and at ISO 12800 it looks about as good as my camera looks at 800 or maybe one or two stops higher. It looks very impressive at high ISO. The no AF Indicator in the VF would kinda stink, but I typically can see fairly well in the viewfinder as is. Ergonomics are a matter of opinion, and since I'm used to the K110D it could be argued that the K-x would be better in most of those regards.

10-17-2009, 08:01 AM	#20
Peter Zack Pentaxian Moderator Emeritus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 10,643	Originally posted by mtngal That convinced me that getting a "lesser" camera so a girlfriend etc. can use it occasionally isn't as necessary as I had originally thought. I sure hope your husband never reads this. That cracked me up. He must wear the skirt in the family! As for the cameras, both are good choices and the high ISO thing is yet to be determined. I'm with Marc S on this. The differences have been marginal up till now and the K110/100 series were some of the best APS-c cameras to date due to sensor size. What would tip me to the K20D is the WS. You may not shoot in rain much but what about fog, snow, dust etc. There are lots of reasons to have WS camera.

10-17-2009, 09:27 AM	#21
flippedgazelle Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: NJ, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,270	Originally posted by Peter Zack I sure hope your husband never reads this. That cracked me up. He must wear the skirt in the family! Maybe he's Scottish?

10-17-2009, 09:52 AM	#22
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Buschmaster There are some samples posted in the thread a few below this one Samples aren't even close to the same as direct A-B comparisons. There are tons of variables involved that can affect the results - what the color of the lighting was, how much of it there was, what kind of exposure was used, what kind of textures are present in the scene, whether the important details are more in the lights or in the shadows, and of course what settings might have been made in camera (natural versus bright mode, how much and what kind of sharpening, what the High ISO NR setting is, etc). You might think I'm just being pedantic, but these factors make a huge difference in how much noise you see in an image. Much greater than the difference between any two APS-C cameras on the market up till now. That is, you can take any one camera, and by changing these variables, make it look like the best or the worst of the lot. The only way to really get a handle on what the actual differences would be in practice would be to control those variables and tke the same shot with both cameras (and that includes tweaking the JPEG settings to if the defaults are different). When you test in this way, differences that at first appear enormous have almost always virtually completely disappeared (the K10D might be the one exception; it tried a radically different A/D converter design than any other camera before or since has used, and paid a price in high ISO noise). So I'm not saying the K-x won't turn out to be slightly better than older cameras, but I'd be shocked if, once you control the variables, it turns out to be anything that would be visible in full screen shots or prints smaller than 8x10. Quote: The no AF Indicator in the VF would kinda stink, but I typically can see fairly well in the viewfinder as is. Note there is an AF confirmation indicator in the viewfinder, as with all Pentax DSLR's. There is just no indication of which AF point is confirming focus. If you use center point only (as a great many photographers do), then you won't need any such indicator to know which point was selected.

10-17-2009, 04:47 PM	#23
Buschmaster Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 806 Original Poster	If there won't be any difference, why would people always post ISO tests with every new camera that comes out? If the main things for me are high ISO why not just get a K200D then?

10-17-2009, 11:02 PM	#24
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	I didn't say no difference; I said relatively small differences. People test this because people are interested in the results and indeed obsess about them, but like I said, in the real world - full screen views, prints you can make at home - the differences between virtually all APS-C cameras is pretty small.

10-18-2009, 09:39 AM	#25
Buschmaster Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 806 Original Poster	Ok, thanks for the tip. Something I just thought of that could be the absolute clincher... Can the K-x have a battery grip?

10-18-2009, 01:55 PM	#26
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Buschmaster Ok, thanks for the tip. Something I just thought of that could be the absolute clincher... Can the K-x have a battery grip? I don't believe so, from my reading of the Japanese brochure. It needn't be a clincher, depending on your preferences I guess - the K2000/Km didn't have a battery grip either.

10-18-2009, 01:59 PM	#27
Buschmaster Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 806 Original Poster	I really think the K20D is up on top now, though. Fo the ability of having a battery grip, having more professional features, and everything like that. It just seems like more of a camera. I would like the video features, I would like the faster AF, I would like the higher ISO, I would like all of that, but when it comes down to it, I think the K20D takes the cake. The K-7 is likely just too expensive, unless I wait for a good while for it to drop to at least $800 or so. I still have to buy new lenses, too, which makes it tough.

10-18-2009, 03:43 PM	#28
tr13 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 343	If you choose camera, do not look at specifications. And especially at video features. Look at ergonomics and quality of produced photo. On time necessary to make each of best shots. On small quircks and annoyances. I sometimes love my GX20, sometimes hate it :-) But viewfinder quality and two wheels are very handy. Foe just extra $60 you could have chinese replacement battery and battery grip. For another $40 you could have good replacement focus screen. And believe me (and I am strong follower of AA camp), AA batteries and accums are way to the past.

10-18-2009, 05:03 PM	#29
Buschmaster Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 806 Original Poster	Maybe I should just stick with what I have if it's this tough of a decision In some regards, I think the K200D would almost be better, because it leaves more money for glass... I'll probably wait for a little while and think it out. The front wheel would be nice. The video mode would be nice. The money saved would be nice. Every camera body I could buy certainly has advantages over the others.

10-19-2009, 12:41 AM	#30
tr13 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 343	I strongly suggest to look for refurbs. Look at related themes on the forums, as I belive that good K20D refurb can be obtained for less then $500. And, believe me, it is very good deal.