New K-x owner impressions and sample images

rawr · 10-22-2009, 05:56 PM

The other thing the K-x let me do was rather crazy shots like this one, of some fellow photographers, using just ambient light in front of the stage @ 6400 ISO, f4.5, 1/13th of second, handheld.

It looks like it was shot under daylight, instead of under a tent at 10pm using only stage lighting. And the skin tones are great too.

simico · 10-23-2009, 04:01 AM

Wow, I'm amazed. K-x seems to be a really great little camera. If I didn't have K-m already, I'd buy K-x for sure.

ogl · 10-23-2009, 05:43 AM

Pentax kx ISO Comparison - Enche Tjin Photography- powered by SmugMug

Outstanding ISO1600. IMO. 3200 is not bad too.

K-x is 1 stops better than K200D.

rawr · 10-23-2009, 06:53 AM

Yes, I think the K-x certainly has at least a 1 stop advantage over the K200D in terms of its ability to deliver a good IQ image, esp at higher ISO's.

This really means several things I think: the K-x sensor has a greater dynamic range than the K200D sensor, and the sensor sensitivity to light and sensor noise control (via innovative sensor design, better electronics engineering or more CPU, better noise processing software algorithms or whatever) is very good.

A by-product of this is that the K-x will probably hold onto lph resolution better than the K200D too as you move up the ISO ladder, ensuring greater detail is retained even at high ISO. The K200D seems to lose 25% of its horizontal resolution from ISO 100 to ISO 1600:

from:
test pentax k200d

All cameras do as they move up the ISO scale, but obviously the slower you lose horizontal resolution as ISO increases, the better, which may be another plus for the K-x if it's sensor is indeed a good one.

jeffrey r · 10-23-2009, 08:26 AM

Great thread Rawr. I am a K200D owner who obviously feels the upgrade bug like anyone else, but who is still very happy with the K200D. Would you say that the video, together with the newer sensor, better high ISO performance, and better AF speed are clearly worth the upgrade from the K200D? If I made the move to the K-x, I would almost surely hold onto the K200D for its weather sealing, so presume that I could live without the weather sealing in the K-x.

And just to recap, since I know you mentioned it before, is the AF speed in good light and low light significantly better in the K-x compared to the K200D?

Thanks.

ares201 · 10-23-2009, 10:46 AM

hi, just joined and first question

, can you post some full exif infos or full jpeg file as attachment?

thanks in adv

rawr · 10-23-2009, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by ares201

hi, just joined and first question

, can you post some full exif infos or full jpeg file as attachment?

thanks in adv

Welcome to the forums.

Full EXIF is there already in the posted images.

I don't want to post any full JPG's - each file is about 5MB as a full JPG. I don't think I can have attachments that big here. And you don't gain much extra insight from the full JPG's. The images here haven't been post-processed at all, except for a simple resize.

rawr · 10-23-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

...Would you say that the video, together with the newer sensor, better high ISO performance, and better AF speed are clearly worth the upgrade from the K200D?

I personally think so, but it depends on what sort of photography you like to do. For me, the K-x makes life a bit easier in dark places, and the video is useful in the places I like to go as well, especially as it works well under low light too.

Quote:

If I made the move to the K-x, I would almost surely hold onto the K200D for its weather sealing, so presume that I could live without the weather sealing in the K-x.

Ditto here. I plan to swap the standard kit on the K200D for the WR kit lens so that I have a fully WR outfit, and hang onto the K200D as my backup/ outdoors/ hiking/ horrible rainy weather camera.

Quote:

And just to recap, since I know you mentioned it before, is the AF speed in good light and low light significantly better in the K-x compared to the K200D?

AF does feel snappier and more confident wherever it is used. In fact everything about the K-x feels snappier and more confident than the K200D. Must be the faster CPU(s) in the K-x. But the AF in live view is MUCH slower than the AF via the viewfinder. No surprises there though - it's the same with every camera that has live view.

jeffrey r · 10-23-2009, 04:51 PM

Thanks for the responses rawr. Sounds like the K-x really has a lot to offer. Though I think I'll wait this out a bit more to see if the K-7 comes down a fair amount in price. As that is just a more compelling camera for me, ISO differences notwithstanding.

ogl · 10-24-2009, 12:39 AM

Anyway, I see FOUR problems with K-x for me.
1. No AF indicators.
2. Worse colours and contrast than K10D, K200D, K-m and K-7. Even in RAW.
(The pictures looks like Nikon D90/Sony A700)
3. Problems with batteries.
4. Still small buffer in RAW and slow buffer clearing.

Faster speed in jpeg, more fps are not for my style of shooting.
No SR switch, no WR and upper LCD are minuses too.

Pluses?
1. Outstanding noise/resolution at ISO1600/3200.
The per-pixel resolution looks better than K-7.
2. For somebody - VIDEO.

Not enough to buy K-x.

ogl · 10-24-2009, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by rawr

Yes, I think the K-x certainly has at least a 1 stop advantage over the K200D in terms of its ability to deliver a good IQ image, esp at higher ISO's.

IQ is not only low noise.

You pay for low noise some price - worse colours and contrast. If you RAW shooter, it means - you should add every time in convertor - saturation, contrast, hue. Anyway K-x has cheaper RGB filters of sensor than K-7.

Strange dilemma, K-x is the best Pentax camera in terms of noise at high ISO,
but it's only ONE advantage.

68deluxe · 10-24-2009, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Anyway, I see FOUR problems with K-x for me.
1. No AF indicators.
2. Worse colours and contrast than K10D, K200D, K-m and K-7. Even in RAW.
(The pictures looks like Nikon D90/Sony A700)
3. Problems with batteries.
4. Still small buffer in RAW and slow buffer clearing.

Faster speed in jpeg, more fps are not for my style of shooting.
No SR switch, no WR and upper LCD are minuses too.

Pluses?
1. Outstanding noise/resolution at ISO1600/3200.
The per-pixel resolution looks better than K-7.
2. For somebody - VIDEO.

Not enough to buy K-x.

mate you really do sound like a broken record...

no af points in viewfinder... k-x is not for me... no af points in viewfinder.. k-x is not for me... and so on and so on. we get the picture.

You don't like K-7, you don't like D90/A700, Have you bought your 7D yet? or D300s?

Some people are just NEVER happy.

ogl · 10-24-2009, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by 68deluxe

no af points in viewfinder... k-x is not for me... no af points in viewfinder.. k-x is not for me... and so on and so on. we get the picture.
You don't like K-7, you don't like D90/A700, Have you bought your 7D yet? or D300s?
Some people are just NEVER happy.

Silly post. I say about real minuses of new Pentax cameras.
Try to disprove my facts.
I'm happy with K200D and my FA lenses. You missed.

p.s.
D90, A700, D300s and 7D are downcast pieces of s***.

I'm interested in K-x. Still. And I could be future user of K-x. It's paradox.

68deluxe · 10-24-2009, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by ogl

Silly post. I say about real minuses of new Pentax cameras.
Try to disprove my facts.
I'm happy with K200D and my FA lenses. You missed.

p.s.
D90, A700, D300s and 7D are downcast pieces of s***.

I never claimed that what you say is untrue. I'm just sick and tired of reading over and over the same s*** you regurgitate in EVERY K-x thread. We get the picture!!!!!!

Basically what it comes down to is not the pro's and con's of the cameras. It's just the fact that you are annoying.

Great. You love your K200D, the K-x is not for you. Now can we leave it at that?

ogl · 10-24-2009, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by rawr

In short, the K-x is a very commendable little cam. The sensor is exceptional and the kit lens isn't a slouch either. In terms of price/performance, I think it's a bargain.

Can you select AF points during shooting at back LCD by wheel or by joystick? As you can select AF points in VF during shooting.

Is it the same algorithm?

10-24-2009, 03:20 AM	#58
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by 68deluxe no af points in viewfinder... k-x is not for me... no af points in viewfinder.. k-x is not for me... and so on and so on. we get the picture. You don't like K-7, you don't like D90/A700, Have you bought your 7D yet? or D300s? Some people are just NEVER happy. Silly post. I say about real minuses of new Pentax cameras. Try to disprove my facts. I'm happy with K200D and my FA lenses. You missed. p.s. D90, A700, D300s and 7D are downcast pieces of s**. I'm interested in K-x. Still. And I could be future user of K-x. It's paradox. Last edited by ogl; 10-24-2009 at 05:27 AM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
First impressions of K-r from a K-x owner	devorama	Pentax K-r	28	03-30-2011 08:55 AM
K-5 Images and Impressions	Feudal1	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	141	11-15-2010 02:10 PM
645D sample images	eyedias	Pentax News and Rumors	13	05-26-2010 04:32 AM
First Impressions of KM from K20D owner	knumbnutz	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	04-05-2009 01:11 PM
DA 70mm 2.4 Sample Images?	Framed	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	11-08-2008 06:49 AM

10-22-2009, 05:56 PM	#46
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913 Original Poster	The other thing the K-x let me do was rather crazy shots like this one, of some fellow photographers, using just ambient light in front of the stage @ 6400 ISO, f4.5, 1/13th of second, handheld. It looks like it was shot under daylight, instead of under a tent at 10pm using only stage lighting. And the skin tones are great too.

10-23-2009, 04:01 AM	#47
simico Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 821	Wow, I'm amazed. K-x seems to be a really great little camera. If I didn't have K-m already, I'd buy K-x for sure.

10-23-2009, 05:43 AM	#48
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Pentax kx ISO Comparison - Enche Tjin Photography- powered by SmugMug Outstanding ISO1600. IMO. 3200 is not bad too. K-x is 1 stops better than K200D.

10-23-2009, 06:53 AM	#49
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913 Original Poster	Yes, I think the K-x certainly has at least a 1 stop advantage over the K200D in terms of its ability to deliver a good IQ image, esp at higher ISO's. This really means several things I think: the K-x sensor has a greater dynamic range than the K200D sensor, and the sensor sensitivity to light and sensor noise control (via innovative sensor design, better electronics engineering or more CPU, better noise processing software algorithms or whatever) is very good. A by-product of this is that the K-x will probably hold onto lph resolution better than the K200D too as you move up the ISO ladder, ensuring greater detail is retained even at high ISO. The K200D seems to lose 25% of its horizontal resolution from ISO 100 to ISO 1600: from: test pentax k200d All cameras do as they move up the ISO scale, but obviously the slower you lose horizontal resolution as ISO increases, the better, which may be another plus for the K-x if it's sensor is indeed a good one.

10-23-2009, 08:26 AM	#50
jeffrey r Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 337	Great thread Rawr. I am a K200D owner who obviously feels the upgrade bug like anyone else, but who is still very happy with the K200D. Would you say that the video, together with the newer sensor, better high ISO performance, and better AF speed are clearly worth the upgrade from the K200D? If I made the move to the K-x, I would almost surely hold onto the K200D for its weather sealing, so presume that I could live without the weather sealing in the K-x. And just to recap, since I know you mentioned it before, is the AF speed in good light and low light significantly better in the K-x compared to the K200D? Thanks.

10-23-2009, 10:46 AM	#51
ares201 New Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2	hi, just joined and first question , can you post some full exif infos or full jpeg file as attachment? thanks in adv

10-23-2009, 01:48 PM	#52
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913 Original Poster	Originally posted by ares201 hi, just joined and first question , can you post some full exif infos or full jpeg file as attachment? thanks in adv Welcome to the forums. Full EXIF is there already in the posted images. I don't want to post any full JPG's - each file is about 5MB as a full JPG. I don't think I can have attachments that big here. And you don't gain much extra insight from the full JPG's. The images here haven't been post-processed at all, except for a simple resize.

10-23-2009, 02:00 PM	#53
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913 Original Poster	Quote: ...Would you say that the video, together with the newer sensor, better high ISO performance, and better AF speed are clearly worth the upgrade from the K200D? I personally think so, but it depends on what sort of photography you like to do. For me, the K-x makes life a bit easier in dark places, and the video is useful in the places I like to go as well, especially as it works well under low light too. Quote: If I made the move to the K-x, I would almost surely hold onto the K200D for its weather sealing, so presume that I could live without the weather sealing in the K-x. Ditto here. I plan to swap the standard kit on the K200D for the WR kit lens so that I have a fully WR outfit, and hang onto the K200D as my backup/ outdoors/ hiking/ horrible rainy weather camera. Quote: And just to recap, since I know you mentioned it before, is the AF speed in good light and low light significantly better in the K-x compared to the K200D? AF does feel snappier and more confident wherever it is used. In fact everything about the K-x feels snappier and more confident than the K200D. Must be the faster CPU(s) in the K-x. But the AF in live view is MUCH slower than the AF via the viewfinder. No surprises there though - it's the same with every camera that has live view.

10-23-2009, 04:51 PM	#54
jeffrey r Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: New Jersey, USA Posts: 337	Thanks for the responses rawr. Sounds like the K-x really has a lot to offer. Though I think I'll wait this out a bit more to see if the K-7 comes down a fair amount in price. As that is just a more compelling camera for me, ISO differences notwithstanding.

10-24-2009, 12:39 AM	#55
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Anyway, I see FOUR problems with K-x for me. 1. No AF indicators. 2. Worse colours and contrast than K10D, K200D, K-m and K-7. Even in RAW. (The pictures looks like Nikon D90/Sony A700) 3. Problems with batteries. 4. Still small buffer in RAW and slow buffer clearing. Faster speed in jpeg, more fps are not for my style of shooting. No SR switch, no WR and upper LCD are minuses too. Pluses? 1. Outstanding noise/resolution at ISO1600/3200. The per-pixel resolution looks better than K-7. 2. For somebody - VIDEO. Not enough to buy K-x.

10-24-2009, 12:45 AM	#56
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by rawr Yes, I think the K-x certainly has at least a 1 stop advantage over the K200D in terms of its ability to deliver a good IQ image, esp at higher ISO's. IQ is not only low noise. You pay for low noise some price - worse colours and contrast. If you RAW shooter, it means - you should add every time in convertor - saturation, contrast, hue. Anyway K-x has cheaper RGB filters of sensor than K-7. Strange dilemma, K-x is the best Pentax camera in terms of noise at high ISO, but it's only ONE advantage.

10-24-2009, 02:12 AM	#57
68deluxe Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Australia/Africa Posts: 52	Originally posted by ogl Anyway, I see FOUR problems with K-x for me. 1. No AF indicators. 2. Worse colours and contrast than K10D, K200D, K-m and K-7. Even in RAW. (The pictures looks like Nikon D90/Sony A700) 3. Problems with batteries. 4. Still small buffer in RAW and slow buffer clearing. Faster speed in jpeg, more fps are not for my style of shooting. No SR switch, no WR and upper LCD are minuses too. Pluses? 1. Outstanding noise/resolution at ISO1600/3200. The per-pixel resolution looks better than K-7. 2. For somebody - VIDEO. Not enough to buy K-x. mate you really do sound like a broken record... no af points in viewfinder... k-x is not for me... no af points in viewfinder.. k-x is not for me... and so on and so on. we get the picture. You don't like K-7, you don't like D90/A700, Have you bought your 7D yet? or D300s? Some people are just NEVER happy.

10-24-2009, 03:52 AM	#59
68deluxe Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Australia/Africa Posts: 52	Originally posted by ogl Silly post. I say about real minuses of new Pentax cameras. Try to disprove my facts. I'm happy with K200D and my FA lenses. You missed. p.s. D90, A700, D300s and 7D are downcast pieces of s*. I never claimed that what you say is untrue. I'm just sick and tired of reading over and over the same s* you regurgitate in EVERY K-x thread. We get the picture!!!!!! Basically what it comes down to is not the pro's and con's of the cameras. It's just the fact that you are annoying. Great. You love your K200D, the K-x is not for you. Now can we leave it at that?

10-24-2009, 05:25 AM	#60
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by rawr In short, the K-x is a very commendable little cam. The sensor is exceptional and the kit lens isn't a slouch either. In terms of price/performance, I think it's a bargain. Can you select AF points during shooting at back LCD by wheel or by joystick? As you can select AF points in VF during shooting. Is it the same algorithm?