Originally posted by ogl Maybe LR 3.0 beta doesn't work fine with K-x?
According to Ned Bunnell's blog, LR 2.5 does include support for the K-x. They gave the K-x details to Adobe at the same time as the K7 details. So LR 3 should support it too.
The K-x's resolution at low ISO's would, you would expect, be lower than the K7 given the 14MP vs 12MP pixel density.
Allow me to make some speculative comments on K7 vs K-x resolution.
The argument could be made that at higher ISO's the K7 and K-x may catch up with each other in lph resolution as ISO increases. All cameras lose resolution as sensitivity increases. Even though the K7 has a denser sensor, the K-x may possibly lose resolution at a slower rate than the K7 sensor as ISO increases, due to its better noise floor.
To illustrate the issue, eg according to some of the
Focus-Numerique charts, a camera like the K200D loses fully 25% of it's horizontal resolution from ISO 100 > ISO 1600, whereas a better FF sensor like the Canon 5DII loses only 15% of its resolution across the same ISO range. Similarly, the Canon 500D seems to lose less than 20% of its resolution across that same ISO range.
In theory, if the K-x's resolution loss was on a slower trajectory than the K7's from ISO 100 onwards, the K-x's resolution might be expected to match or exceed the K7's at some point, perhaps even at ISO 1600, depending on the relative rate of decline in resolution vs sensitivity of the two cameras.
Eg for arguments sake if, like the K200D the 14MP K7 lost 25% of its resolution ISO 100 to 1600, it would effectively be resolving at 10.5MP at 1600 ISO, but if the K-x lost only 15% resolution across that range it would be effectively be 10.2MP at 1600 ISO. And at 3200 ISO or earlier the K7 might fall below the K-x in resolution, if the rate of decline in resolution were constant for both sensors after ISO 1600.
Holding onto more sensor resolution even up into high ISO's is certainly a handy trick, if the K-x does indeed do that. I suspect it may.