Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Would you rather have a K-x?
I have a K-7 and I would rather keep it 11251.61%
I have a K-7 and would rather have a K-x 135.99%
I don't have a K-7 9242.40%
Voters: 217. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-07-2009, 03:12 PM   #106
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
this is what you got after made to look as an i d i o t.

your point was i can not afford k7.

your second point was i should learn to take photos. So here it is my profile at 1x.com , judged by other photographers.

1x.com - Onexposure

not museum worthy but good enough.
you cannot afford it because you can't justify your purchase !

you'd make a good photoshop artist !

btw, who was that person again that called me a fanboy? I believe it was you. but since I'm an avid ex-Nikon shooter and still do see it's real advantage in some aspects of IQ, that would make your statement completely D U M B. you got shot in the foot there bigtime. go back and drive a taxi and make yourself useful.


Last edited by Pentaxor; 12-07-2009 at 03:25 PM.
12-07-2009, 03:31 PM   #107
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by erickallemeyn Quote

Also, many tests put the K-X sensor about 1 full stop better than the K7 at higher ISOs. True, low high ISO noise does NOT make it a better camera overall, but it tips the scale for some. To each his own, right?
this is what the bonehead doesn't get til now. I'm more into real facts and advantages. tall tales aren't my cup of coffee.
12-24-2009, 07:13 PM   #108
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
you cannot afford it because you can't justify your purchase !

you'd make a good photoshop artist !

btw, who was that person again that called me a fanboy? I believe it was you. but since I'm an avid ex-Nikon shooter and still do see it's real advantage in some aspects of IQ, that would make your statement completely D U M B. you got shot in the foot there bigtime. go back and drive a taxi and make yourself useful.

you still going about can not afford crap.

Anyway here is kx DR
Pentax K-x Review: 17. Photographic tests (DR): Digital Photography Review
and here is k7 DR
Pentax K-7 Review: 18. Photographic tests (DR): Digital Photography Review

as i said kx has higher DR even at base isos . And the difference in images at higher isos is ridiculously high.
I just rub it in about how wrong you were on both accounts.

The only way i could have a k7 is if someone gave me free that too for few days because i might ebay it and buy another kx from that money.

i think the issue is you made a mistake in buying k7 and now trying to justify at any cost.


QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
go back and drive a taxi and make yourself useful.
http://www.srixon-worldwide.com/

how does designing golf balls and designing best software (in world) to do it sound to you. (i know it is beyond your intellect).

Last edited by zxaar; 12-24-2009 at 09:54 PM.
12-24-2009, 09:40 PM   #109
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 239
Funny how everyone is arguing.. i'd like to see folks who have both k-7 and k-x chime in as to which body they use most of the time - the k-7 or k-x ? and why ?

I voted for my K-7 anyway

12-25-2009, 12:38 AM   #110
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
you still going about can not afford crap.

Anyway here is kx DR
Pentax K-x Review: 17. Photographic tests (DR): Digital Photography Review
and here is k7 DR
Pentax K-7 Review: 18. Photographic tests (DR): Digital Photography Review

as i said kx has higher DR even at base isos . And the difference in images at higher isos is ridiculously high.
I just rub it in about how wrong you were on both accounts.

The only way i could have a k7 is if someone gave me free that too for few days because i might ebay it and buy another kx from that money.

i think the issue is you made a mistake in buying k7 and now trying to justify at any cost.




SRIXON : International Navigation

how does designing golf balls and designing best software (in world) to do it sound to you. (i know it is beyond your intellect).
ppfffffftttt ! justifying the cost? that's funny as hell. do you know how much the K-7 cost when it first came out? and do you see what my lens lineup is? what do you think my lens lineup costs? less than 1,300 USD ? BIG HAHAHAHAHA !!!
do the math wiseguy and go figure. surely by that amount I spent on lenses, I could easily afford your very affordable $650 k-x camera. but I'd rather buy an FA77 over your beloved k-x without even blinking. that's justification for you right there.
btw, if you can find any thread that showed that I'm remorseful of my purchase of they K-7, then I would agree with your assumption. if you can't, you can eat your own crap assumption back. ! that's a big HAHAHA !!!

btw, what an impressive resume you have there.....NOT !!!

your logic or equation would sound like:

GOLF BALL/SOFTWARE DESIGNER = PHOTOGRAPHY INTELLECT?
if you can prove that designing golf balls and software makes you a great photographer, then please open up a course for it. true, it is beyond my intellect because it doesn't make any sense coz there is zero connection. just stick your golf (goof) balls where they belong.

Last edited by Pentaxor; 12-25-2009 at 01:57 AM.
12-25-2009, 01:13 AM   #111
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by eva2000 Quote
Funny how everyone is arguing.. i'd like to see folks who have both k-7 and k-x chime in as to which body they use most of the time - the k-7 or k-x ? and why ?
I got a white K-x for my wife - a good pretext to try one out It is an impressive entry-level camera, really unbelievable compared to what cameras you could get 3 years ago for that price. The noise performance is clearly better than K-7s. I ran some tests at ISO 200/800/1600/3200 - at 200 there was no clear difference; from 800 I could already see the difference at 100%; for 1600 and 3200 the difference was already visible at normal viewing size. But that's the only advantage I could discern and in practice, it's not as important as I expected. I shoot a lot in low light but I try to keep the ISO under 800 regardless of what camera I use - because even if the K-x has better performance, above 800 there's still more noise than I'd like to have in portraits. Also, the K-7 has a better viewfinder and a smoother shutter - these are the most immediate differences when I switch between them - its handling is very smooth. And I think both have great noise, especially in comparison to K10D, whose noise was rougher.
I've got over the obsession with noise, for two reasons: a) I've shot some Fuji 400 film a month ago and I think the noise of K-7 is way better than the grain of film; b) now that I tried the K-x, I can see it is indeed as good as it comes out in tests, but I still am not happy with the noise above 800 - not because it's bad, but because it just "eats" too much detail in portraits.
Would I rather have a K-x if I had to make a choice between one of them? No. Because I want a solid camera body that feels well balanced in my hand and that has extra controls.
Would I throw away (sell) the K-7 if another K-something would come as a hybrid of K-7 and K-x? No, I will at least skip one more generation of high-end Pentax APS DSLRs, if not several before I get another Pentax body. The only thing I want these days is more time and better weather, so I can get out and take more photographs.
12-25-2009, 02:13 AM   #112
New Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9
I totaly agree with the previous statement. In fact I have bought K-x at first and shot for almost a month with it, but handling, features, controls were lacking. It's a great starter camera but I just needed more. High ISO performance, though imppressive, was absolutely of no value to me since I never shoot above ISO400. Just too much grain and noise for my taste even from Kx. I use f2.8 and below lenses and tend to prefer good external flash over high ISO shooting. About 70% of my pictures are ISO100, 25% ISO 200, and 5% ISO 400. Money was also not an issue for me since I'm buying a body for the next 5 years. So I returned Kx and got my K7. And I'm happpy now. Almost anything on K7 is better then Kx except high ISO performance, which I completely don't care about. Viewfinder, construction, menu, LCD, controls, ISO100 performance (based on my tests), video, and a tone of features/options that k7 has and Kx doesn't - I would not even start listing them. I guess everybody can read the specs

So if you are avoiding high ISO like I do, there is no question that K7 is better camera then Kx. The only question is what the advantages of K7 worth over Kx? This is subjective. I beleive for some people K7 worth extra $500. At least for me It definitelly is worth this extra cost.
12-25-2009, 02:17 AM   #113
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
ppfffffftttt ! justifying the cost? that's funny as hell. do you know how much the K-7 cost when it first came out? and do you see what my lens lineup is? what do you think my lens lineup costs? less than 1,300 USD ? BIG HAHAHAHAHA !!!
do the math wiseguy and go figure. surely by that amount I spent on lenses, I could easily afford your very affordable $650 k-x camera. but I'd rather buy an FA77 over your beloved k-x without even blinking. that's justification for you right there.
btw, if you can find any thread that showed that I'm remorseful of my purchase of they K-7, then I would agree with your assumption. if you can't, you can eat your own crap assumption back. ! that's a big HAHAHA !!!

btw, what an impressive resume you have there.....NOT !!!

your logic or equation would sound like:

GOLF BALL/SOFTWARE DESIGNER = PHOTOGRAPHY INTELLECT?
if you can prove that designing golf balls and software makes you a great photographer, then please open up a course for it. true, it is beyond my intellect because it doesn't make any sense coz there is zero connection. just stick your golf (goof) balls where they belong.
thanks for proving my point that you are an IDIOT.


I have no desire to fight with pig in mud. So i am outa here, the pig can have all the mud to himself.
You were wrong about everything you said. And my last post was again a proof about it. You have yet to make any point other than personal attack. That is hopelessly clear that you are not capable of doing.

enjoy your tool , fanboy, you paid 1000+ for an camera with inferior image quality.


12-25-2009, 03:32 AM   #114
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
thanks for proving my point that you are an IDIOT.


I have no desire to fight with pig in mud. So i am outa here, the pig can have all the mud to himself.
You were wrong about everything you said. And my last post was again a proof about it. You have yet to make any point other than personal attack. That is hopelessly clear that you are not capable of doing.

enjoy your tool , fanboy, you paid 1000+ for an camera with inferior image quality.
what's the matter? can't handle the fire?

geez, the 108 majority who voted in the poll must be really be a bunch of idiots for getting a camera with an inferior IQ !

you don't expect a camera like the K-7 to cost around $650? oh, I get it, MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS and ANALYSIS has nothing to do with GOOF BALL DESIGN! that's it !

what is your equation for IQ again?

was it HDR + HIGH ISO performance = great IQ ? nice parameters you got there (pun intended) . please look up the k-x sharpness and focusing issue !
obviously your IQ is the one that can be considered inferior !

Last edited by Pentaxor; 12-25-2009 at 11:47 AM.
12-25-2009, 04:16 AM   #115
Pentaxian
LeDave's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,896
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
thanks for proving my point that you are an IDIOT.


I have no desire to fight with pig in mud. So i am outa here, the pig can have all the mud to himself.
You were wrong about everything you said. And my last post was again a proof about it. You have yet to make any point other than personal attack. That is hopelessly clear that you are not capable of doing.

enjoy your tool , fanboy, you paid 1000+ for an camera with inferior image quality.
Inferior IQ? I don't know what you're smoking, but I am sure it has got to be some type of methamphetamine; because I really don't know how anybody could think so "barbarically". People don't buy the K-7 for 1,000+ just for this "inferior IQ" you speak of. People buy the K-7 because it is what they need, and if implying that those who buy the K-7 for this "inferior IQ" is what they need, then something is obviously wrong with your statement.

The K-7 is technically the superior camera over the K-x. I didn't just buy the K-7 over the K-x for no reason you know, I knew the K-x had significantly better high ISO IQ at the time I bought my K-7. The K-7 has better low ISO IQ, and with that, technically the K-x is the "inferior IQ" when in comparison with the K-7 because the K-7 can ditch out better IQ than the K-x when used with the best possible settings; what the K-x has over the K-7 is better high ISO IQ, but that is high ISO IQ which does not make it better in IQ over the K-7.

What you are forgetting to imply is the K-7 has significantly better metering, significantly better build quality; and significantly more features that to some are deemed necessary for what they do, professional work. AF adjustment for dead-on accuracy without the slightest BF/FF is one of them.

What you are saying about the K-7 being inferior in IQ due to having lower high ISO IQ when in comparison to the K-x, is like implying to those who buy the Nikon D300s for 1,700 over the D5000 that costs 700. So those who buy the D300s is buying it for it's "inferior IQ" and they are an "idiot" because technically the D5000 which costs a grand less has better high ISO IQ over it? No. The D300s has better features, build quality, technological advancements outside of the sensors ability to produce IQ in high ISO, and other things that makes the K-7 the better camera over the K-x.

This poll shows what you are trying to say is of otherwise, and invalidates your statements to which you have lost your credibility; so if you don't want to speak further, there was no need for you to speak further in the first place.
12-25-2009, 11:58 AM   #116
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by LeDave Quote
Inferior IQ? I don't know what you're smoking, but I am sure it has got to be some type of methamphetamine; because I really don't know how anybody could think so "barbarically". People don't buy the K-7 for 1,000+ just for this "inferior IQ" you speak of. People buy the K-7 because it is what they need, and if implying that those who buy the K-7 for this "inferior IQ" is what they need, then something is obviously wrong with your statement.

The K-7 is technically the superior camera over the K-x. I didn't just buy the K-7 over the K-x for no reason you know, I knew the K-x had significantly better high ISO IQ at the time I bought my K-7. The K-7 has better low ISO IQ, and with that, technically the K-x is the "inferior IQ" when in comparison with the K-7 because the K-7 can ditch out better IQ than the K-x when used with the best possible settings; what the K-x has over the K-7 is better high ISO IQ, but that is high ISO IQ which does not make it better in IQ over the K-7.

What you are forgetting to imply is the K-7 has significantly better metering, significantly better build quality; and significantly more features that to some are deemed necessary for what they do, professional work. AF adjustment for dead-on accuracy without the slightest BF/FF is one of them.

What you are saying about the K-7 being inferior in IQ due to having lower high ISO IQ when in comparison to the K-x, is like implying to those who buy the Nikon D300s for 1,700 over the D5000 that costs 700. So those who buy the D300s is buying it for it's "inferior IQ" and they are an "idiot" because technically the D5000 which costs a grand less has better high ISO IQ over it? No. The D300s has better features, build quality, technological advancements outside of the sensors ability to produce IQ in high ISO, and other things that makes the K-7 the better camera over the K-x.

This poll shows what you are trying to say is of otherwise, and invalidates your statements to which you have lost your credibility; so if you don't want to speak further, there was no need for you to speak further in the first place.
probably poppy seeds !

this wouldn't had happened if our friend from India here used his IQ.
12-26-2009, 04:20 AM   #117
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by LeDave Quote
Inferior IQ? I don't know what you're smoking, but I am sure it has got to be some type of methamphetamine; because I really don't know how anybody could think so "barbarically". People don't buy the K-7 for 1,000+ just for this "inferior IQ" you speak of. People buy the K-7 because it is what they need, and if implying that those who buy the K-7 for this "inferior IQ" is what they need, then something is obviously wrong with your statement.

The K-7 is technically the superior camera over the K-x. I didn't just buy the K-7 over the K-x for no reason you know, I knew the K-x had significantly better high ISO IQ at the time I bought my K-7. The K-7 has better low ISO IQ, and with that, technically the K-x is the "inferior IQ" when in comparison with the K-7 because the K-7 can ditch out better IQ than the K-x when used with the best possible settings; what the K-x has over the K-7 is better high ISO IQ, but that is high ISO IQ which does not make it better in IQ over the K-7.

What you are forgetting to imply is the K-7 has significantly better metering, significantly better build quality; and significantly more features that to some are deemed necessary for what they do, professional work. AF adjustment for dead-on accuracy without the slightest BF/FF is one of them.

What you are saying about the K-7 being inferior in IQ due to having lower high ISO IQ when in comparison to the K-x, is like implying to those who buy the Nikon D300s for 1,700 over the D5000 that costs 700. So those who buy the D300s is buying it for it's "inferior IQ" and they are an "idiot" because technically the D5000 which costs a grand less has better high ISO IQ over it? No. The D300s has better features, build quality, technological advancements outside of the sensors ability to produce IQ in high ISO, and other things that makes the K-7 the better camera over the K-x.

This poll shows what you are trying to say is of otherwise, and invalidates your statements to which you have lost your credibility; so if you don't want to speak further, there was no need for you to speak further in the first place.

i did not read your post fully.

i was talking to an idiot not to you.
12-26-2009, 07:45 AM   #118
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by LeDave Quote
Inferior IQ? I don't know what you're smoking, but I am sure it has got to be some type of methamphetamine; because I really don't know how anybody could think so "barbarically". People don't buy the K-7 for 1,000+ just for this "inferior IQ" you speak of. People buy the K-7 because it is what they need, and if implying that those who buy the K-7 for this "inferior IQ" is what they need, then something is obviously wrong with your statement.

The K-7 is technically the superior camera over the K-x. I didn't just buy the K-7 over the K-x for no reason you know, I knew the K-x had significantly better high ISO IQ at the time I bought my K-7. The K-7 has better low ISO IQ, and with that, technically the K-x is the "inferior IQ" when in comparison with the K-7 because the K-7 can ditch out better IQ than the K-x when used with the best possible settings; what the K-x has over the K-7 is better high ISO IQ, but that is high ISO IQ which does not make it better in IQ over the K-7.

What you are forgetting to imply is the K-7 has significantly better metering, significantly better build quality; and significantly more features that to some are deemed necessary for what they do, professional work. AF adjustment for dead-on accuracy without the slightest BF/FF is one of them.

What you are saying about the K-7 being inferior in IQ due to having lower high ISO IQ when in comparison to the K-x, is like implying to those who buy the Nikon D300s for 1,700 over the D5000 that costs 700. So those who buy the D300s is buying it for it's "inferior IQ" and they are an "idiot" because technically the D5000 which costs a grand less has better high ISO IQ over it? No. The D300s has better features, build quality, technological advancements outside of the sensors ability to produce IQ in high ISO, and other things that makes the K-7 the better camera over the K-x.

This poll shows what you are trying to say is of otherwise, and invalidates your statements to which you have lost your credibility; so if you don't want to speak further, there was no need for you to speak further in the first place.
okey i read you post now. Here are few points.

1. I am well aware of what you are writing.
2. You should understand what context things are said and to whom.
3. It is not good idea to pick a part of sentence and keep going about it. But even if you do, inferior IQ and inferior camera are two different things.
I do not think anyone who thinks that k-x has better sensor and thus has better IQ is smoking anything. If you think you have any solid proof against this statement I would like to hear it.
Further there is no debating that k7 is superior camera, but it does indeed have inferior sensor.

4. Last metering of k7 is an isssue which is not very clear to me, i have seen that it wants double exposure compared to other cams. If this is true, i would not call that it has better metering.

So long.
12-26-2009, 08:13 AM   #119
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,008
I think it's time to give it a rest, Pentaxor and zxaar...please.
12-26-2009, 12:26 PM   #120
Pentaxian
Moderator Emeritus




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,648
I'm in agreement. Since it's Christmas, No infractions for being flamers. Just closing the thread.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, k-7, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:08 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top