K-x over D5000. Am I wrong?

Fogel70 · 01-01-2010, 03:17 PM

One area where Pentax really shines is in size. Pentax body and lenses are smaller.
Nikon has the disadvantage of using in-lens stabilization which makes lenses bigger and heavier, in camera stabilization adds much less weight and size on the kit (at least if having more than one lens).

As K-x use AA-batteries its weight is a little more that it had been with Li-ion batteries, but K-x are smaller than D5000.
K-x (without batteries) weights 515g VS D5000 560g. With batteries both probably weight about the same, but K-x is still smaller.

Kit lenses:
18-55 - Pentax (68 x 68 mm, 200g) VS Nikon (73 x 80mm, 265g)
50(55)-200 - Pentax (67 x 79 mm, 235g) VS Nikon (73 x 99mm, 335g)
55(70)-300 - Pentax (71 x 112 mm, 425g) VS Nikon (80 x 144 mm, 725g)

Edit: added longer tele zoom.

Last edited by Fogel70; 01-01-2010 at 05:07 PM.

Shub · 01-01-2010, 05:01 PM

To be honest, I looked at both and chose the K-x in the end.
The D5000's only appealing feature to me was the swivel screen, and, to be honest, it's not anything super useful for me anyway. No regrets with the K-x!

Adam_T4 · 01-01-2010, 07:09 PM

Is pretty damn sweet. A DSLR that acts like a video camera! Brilliant! I moved to the Pentax K20D from the Panasonic Superzoom FZ50 with a well articulated live view LCD. I found it very effective for getting the best POV on a subject. No longer is my eye wedded to the viewfinder. I miss that feature most of all. If the K7 sucessor has one, I will be sorely tempted to upgrade

eyew · 01-01-2010, 07:15 PM

Was contemplating Nikon D5000 but after reading DPreview summary, went with K-X and loving it so far - Pentax K-x Review: 21. Compared to: Digital Photography Review

I also prefer AA batteries over proprietary ones - chose my previous point and shoot (Canon SX1) for having that feature. Although, the video mode is much harder to use smoothly (focusing, zooming) compared to the SX1...

Pentaxoid · 01-02-2010, 07:04 AM

The major problem with Pentax is not the bodies which are excellent, but the price of "standard" lenses which have nearly doubled over the last year.

In all the pictures I have taken with my Pentax K2000 (2400+), I cannot pick one single picture where stabilization saved the shot (they are at focal lengths < 80mm). You MUST have a short enough exposure time to avoid blurry images. Beside museums, I don't see any other situation where SR can really save the shot. How could people take pictures 30 years ago without SR?

Fogel70 · 01-02-2010, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxoid

How could people take pictures 30 years ago without SR?

They had to use fast prime lenses instead of slow zoom lenses mostly used today.

**Rondec** · 01-02-2010, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxoid

The major problem with Pentax is not the bodies which are excellent, but the price of "standard" lenses which have nearly doubled over the last year.

In all the pictures I have taken with my Pentax K2000 (2400+), I cannot pick one single picture where stabilization saved the shot (they are at focal lengths < 80mm). You MUST have a short enough exposure time to avoid blurry images. Beside museums, I don't see any other situation where SR can really save the shot. How could people take pictures 30 years ago without SR?

How did people take photos when the highest film available was iso 400? How did they take photos before auto focus? The answer is that you deal with what you have. SR is very useful in many situations, you seem to be focused on action and it isn't very useful for that. An external flash is definitely the way to go. The cost as compared to the cost of fast glass is definitely worth it.

Marc Sabatella · 01-02-2010, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxoid

In all the pictures I have taken with my Pentax K2000 (2400+), I cannot pick one single picture where stabilization saved the shot (they are at focal lengths < 80mm).

You must not shoot in low light or at long telephoto lengths much. Or else you are simply incorrect in assuming SR didn't make a difference - have you actually done a comparison? I have *thousands* of shots where SR clearly made a huge difference. Are you claiming that every single one of your shots at 1/20" and below are failures even with SR, or are you claiming that you believe you'd have 100% success at that shutter speed without SR? With all due respect, having only been shooting a short time with SR, I think you don't have the experience to truly assess the difference it has made for you.

Quote:

You MUST have a short enough exposure time to avoid blurry images.

Define "short enough". I've got *tons* of keepers at 1/20" and even slower, with living subjects, at focal lengths where I'd have run a much greater risk of blur without SR. Tons of them.

Quote:

How could people take pictures 30 years ago without SR?

Well, there were a lot of blurry indoor candids 30 years ago; we just didn't pixel peep to the same extent. Anyhow, no one is saying SR is *necessary* in order to have any success at all - fast lenses, tripods, high ISO, and just plain good technique can *all* help. The point is just that now that SR is available, the need for fast lenses is somewhat diminished. We now have the option of sharper pictures with more DOF than was ever possible before.

ea77 · 01-02-2010, 11:32 PM

heres another few points that the D5000 has over the K-x

the AF light on body (none on pentax) , better battery life and consistant and lighter with Lithium Ion, the AFS motors in Nikon are more reliable than the SDM in the Pentax lenses.

Originally posted by slow2focus

I have to agree too. Coming from a borrowed D40, the next logical step was the d5k. The only reason for the k-x was price and the fact that manual takumars are really nice. Had I gone with the d5k, I would have just gotten the new VR tamron to replace the kit and perhaps a flash and be very happy. Much cheaper too as I am finding out LOL.

It is my belief that majority of the the target for these 2 models don't 'geek out' surf the forums and run comparisons. I am not familiar with the whole AF lens line of the pentax. But, from general day-to-day use, both companies provide similar lines of lenses that will AF and VRed. If the complaint is D5k don't have a screw drive, well, you can always manual focus just like the M/A/Tak/M42 of the pentax since D5k boasts the largest mount compatibility that nikon makes (from bythom).

I am just saying, from a purely AF point of view, D5k supports a variety of nice lens too. The nikon lenses don't suffer from the motor failure neither. the focus speed only improves as you buy better and better pro grade lenses. I have done this with the pro 24-70 from nikon($1500) and this is on a puny D40!!

If one don't care for old lenses that requires manual focus, I thnk D5k has advantage.

That said, I still chose the k-x. Last I checked, both cameras in capable hands take very very nice pictures.

Marc Sabatella · 01-03-2010, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by ea77

heres another few points that the D5000 has over the K-x

...better battery life

Doesn't appear to be true from what I can tell. D5000 claims 510 shots per charge; K-x easily exceeds that from what folks report here.

Quote:

the AFS motors in Nikon are more reliable than the SDM in the Pentax lenses.

Perhaps - do you have actual stats on this? - but in any case, it is an issue for only the tiny handful of Pentax lenses that depend on lens motors.

flockofbirds · 01-03-2010, 12:26 AM

nvm i didnt see the second page
delete if you want.

juu · 01-03-2010, 12:31 AM

asinia, I'd think you've made a good choice even if you didn't have any Pentax lenses. Since you do, I think it's nearly a no-brainer.

Yes, the D5000 has an articulated screen which is nice when you need it, but also makes it more fragile and slightly more heavy. The fact that it is crippled as to what lenses you can use (no internal AF motor) is such a turn-off that the first Nikon I'd seriously look at is a D90.

dude2009 · 01-03-2010, 12:49 AM

There is no right or wrong, there's only what you need and what you can afford. I suppose both K-x and D5000 produce decent images if you know how to use them properly. For me, I chose K-x because of the price, when I bought it on amazon at 650 for two kit lens (300mm one) while the same kit for Nikon would cost me at least 200 dollar more.

I suppose K-x is good enough for family use, but D5000 is probably a better choice if you want to use it in your work. Imaging when you want to take pictures over the heads of a crowd, you may really need that swiveling LCD in those occasions.

juu · 01-03-2010, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by dude2009

I suppose K-x is good enough for family use, but D5000 is probably a better choice if you want to use it in your work. Imaging when you want to take pictures over the heads of a crowd, you may really need that swiveling LCD in those occasions.

Same with the 1Dmk4 and D3X - no articulated screen means good enough for family use, but not if you want to actually use it in your work of... emm... snapping pictures over the heads of a crowd.

Pentaxoid · 01-03-2010, 12:44 PM

Okay so about the SR thing.

At 55mm, and Tv 1/20" on a closeup shot of a static object, w/o SR picture is blurry and unacceptable. With SR the picture is not as blurry, I would call it soft.

At 55mm, Tv 1/40" on a closeup shot of same static object, with or without SR I cannot really tell the difference. But w/o SR it's definitely sharper than at 1/20" with SR.

The pictures were compared on the camera screen well zoomed in, maybe that the picture with SR at 1/20" could become as good as the 1/40" with some PP. But remember that the subject is not moving here, and if it were a human, 1/20" would certainly not be enough and the difference with 1/40" would become more obvious.

So I can't say that SR is saving the shot here, it's at best, making it less worse.

01-01-2010, 07:09 PM	#48
Adam_T4 Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: NYC Photos: Gallery Posts: 51	Tilt-Swivel LCD + effective live view Is pretty damn sweet. A DSLR that acts like a video camera! Brilliant! I moved to the Pentax K20D from the Panasonic Superzoom FZ50 with a well articulated live view LCD. I found it very effective for getting the best POV on a subject. No longer is my eye wedded to the viewfinder. I miss that feature most of all. If the K7 sucessor has one, I will be sorely tempted to upgrade Last edited by Adam_T4; 01-01-2010 at 07:11 PM. Reason: edit

01-02-2010, 07:04 AM	#50
Pentaxoid Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 48	The major problem with Pentax is not the bodies which are excellent, but the price of "standard" lenses which have nearly doubled over the last year. In all the pictures I have taken with my Pentax K2000 (2400+), I cannot pick one single picture where stabilization saved the shot (they are at focal lengths < 80mm). You MUST have a short enough exposure time to avoid blurry images. Beside museums, I don't see any other situation where SR can really save the shot. How could people take pictures 30 years ago without SR? Last edited by Pentaxoid; 01-02-2010 at 07:10 AM.

01-02-2010, 10:25 AM	#53
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Pentaxoid In all the pictures I have taken with my Pentax K2000 (2400+), I cannot pick one single picture where stabilization saved the shot (they are at focal lengths < 80mm). You must not shoot in low light or at long telephoto lengths much. Or else you are simply incorrect in assuming SR didn't make a difference - have you actually done a comparison? I have thousands of shots where SR clearly made a huge difference. Are you claiming that every single one of your shots at 1/20" and below are failures even with SR, or are you claiming that you believe you'd have 100% success at that shutter speed without SR? With all due respect, having only been shooting a short time with SR, I think you don't have the experience to truly assess the difference it has made for you. Quote: You MUST have a short enough exposure time to avoid blurry images. Define "short enough". I've got tons of keepers at 1/20" and even slower, with living subjects, at focal lengths where I'd have run a much greater risk of blur without SR. Tons of them. Quote: How could people take pictures 30 years ago without SR? Well, there were a lot of blurry indoor candids 30 years ago; we just didn't pixel peep to the same extent. Anyhow, no one is saying SR is necessary in order to have any success at all - fast lenses, tripods, high ISO, and just plain good technique can all help. The point is just that now that SR is available, the need for fast lenses is somewhat diminished. We now have the option of sharper pictures with more DOF than was ever possible before. Last edited by Marc Sabatella; 01-03-2010 at 12:16 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nikon D3000 or D5000?	dws1117	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	15	08-16-2010 03:35 PM
Pentax K-x over Nikon D5000?	cm9210	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	06-17-2010 11:38 PM
K-x vs T1i (500D) vs D5000 ?	winglik	Pentax DSLR Discussion	37	06-01-2010 07:00 PM
k20d vs nikon d5000?	quiksilver	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	05-17-2010 10:52 AM
Nikon D5000 Leaked.	PNTXFTW12	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	16	04-15-2009 10:17 AM

01-01-2010, 03:17 PM	#46
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	One area where Pentax really shines is in size. Pentax body and lenses are smaller. Nikon has the disadvantage of using in-lens stabilization which makes lenses bigger and heavier, in camera stabilization adds much less weight and size on the kit (at least if having more than one lens). As K-x use AA-batteries its weight is a little more that it had been with Li-ion batteries, but K-x are smaller than D5000. K-x (without batteries) weights 515g VS D5000 560g. With batteries both probably weight about the same, but K-x is still smaller. Kit lenses: 18-55 - Pentax (68 x 68 mm, 200g) VS Nikon (73 x 80mm, 265g) 50(55)-200 - Pentax (67 x 79 mm, 235g) VS Nikon (73 x 99mm, 335g) 55(70)-300 - Pentax (71 x 112 mm, 425g) VS Nikon (80 x 144 mm, 725g) Edit: added longer tele zoom. Last edited by Fogel70; 01-01-2010 at 05:07 PM.

01-01-2010, 05:01 PM	#47
Shub Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 163	To be honest, I looked at both and chose the K-x in the end. The D5000's only appealing feature to me was the swivel screen, and, to be honest, it's not anything super useful for me anyway. No regrets with the K-x!

01-01-2010, 07:15 PM	#49
eyew Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Sydney Photos: Gallery Posts: 34	Was contemplating Nikon D5000 but after reading DPreview summary, went with K-X and loving it so far - Pentax K-x Review: 21. Compared to: Digital Photography Review I also prefer AA batteries over proprietary ones - chose my previous point and shoot (Canon SX1) for having that feature. Although, the video mode is much harder to use smoothly (focusing, zooming) compared to the SX1...

01-02-2010, 07:31 AM	#51
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by Pentaxoid How could people take pictures 30 years ago without SR? They had to use fast prime lenses instead of slow zoom lenses mostly used today.

01-02-2010, 08:44 AM	#52
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by Pentaxoid The major problem with Pentax is not the bodies which are excellent, but the price of "standard" lenses which have nearly doubled over the last year. In all the pictures I have taken with my Pentax K2000 (2400+), I cannot pick one single picture where stabilization saved the shot (they are at focal lengths < 80mm). You MUST have a short enough exposure time to avoid blurry images. Beside museums, I don't see any other situation where SR can really save the shot. How could people take pictures 30 years ago without SR? How did people take photos when the highest film available was iso 400? How did they take photos before auto focus? The answer is that you deal with what you have. SR is very useful in many situations, you seem to be focused on action and it isn't very useful for that. An external flash is definitely the way to go. The cost as compared to the cost of fast glass is definitely worth it.

01-02-2010, 11:32 PM	#54
ea77 New Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Toronto Posts: 24	heres another few points that the D5000 has over the K-x the AF light on body (none on pentax) , better battery life and consistant and lighter with Lithium Ion, the AFS motors in Nikon are more reliable than the SDM in the Pentax lenses. Originally posted by slow2focus I have to agree too. Coming from a borrowed D40, the next logical step was the d5k. The only reason for the k-x was price and the fact that manual takumars are really nice. Had I gone with the d5k, I would have just gotten the new VR tamron to replace the kit and perhaps a flash and be very happy. Much cheaper too as I am finding out LOL. It is my belief that majority of the the target for these 2 models don't 'geek out' surf the forums and run comparisons. I am not familiar with the whole AF lens line of the pentax. But, from general day-to-day use, both companies provide similar lines of lenses that will AF and VRed. If the complaint is D5k don't have a screw drive, well, you can always manual focus just like the M/A/Tak/M42 of the pentax since D5k boasts the largest mount compatibility that nikon makes (from bythom). I am just saying, from a purely AF point of view, D5k supports a variety of nice lens too. The nikon lenses don't suffer from the motor failure neither. the focus speed only improves as you buy better and better pro grade lenses. I have done this with the pro 24-70 from nikon($1500) and this is on a puny D40!! If one don't care for old lenses that requires manual focus, I thnk D5k has advantage. That said, I still chose the k-x. Last I checked, both cameras in capable hands take very very nice pictures.

01-03-2010, 12:20 AM	#55
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by ea77 heres another few points that the D5000 has over the K-x ...better battery life Doesn't appear to be true from what I can tell. D5000 claims 510 shots per charge; K-x easily exceeds that from what folks report here. Quote: the AFS motors in Nikon are more reliable than the SDM in the Pentax lenses. Perhaps - do you have actual stats on this? - but in any case, it is an issue for only the tiny handful of Pentax lenses that depend on lens motors.

01-03-2010, 12:26 AM	#56
flockofbirds Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Oregon, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 178	nvm i didnt see the second page delete if you want.

01-03-2010, 12:31 AM	#57
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680	asinia, I'd think you've made a good choice even if you didn't have any Pentax lenses. Since you do, I think it's nearly a no-brainer. Yes, the D5000 has an articulated screen which is nice when you need it, but also makes it more fragile and slightly more heavy. The fact that it is crippled as to what lenses you can use (no internal AF motor) is such a turn-off that the first Nikon I'd seriously look at is a D90.

01-03-2010, 12:49 AM	#58
dude2009 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: San Jose Posts: 24	There is no right or wrong, there's only what you need and what you can afford. I suppose both K-x and D5000 produce decent images if you know how to use them properly. For me, I chose K-x because of the price, when I bought it on amazon at 650 for two kit lens (300mm one) while the same kit for Nikon would cost me at least 200 dollar more. I suppose K-x is good enough for family use, but D5000 is probably a better choice if you want to use it in your work. Imaging when you want to take pictures over the heads of a crowd, you may really need that swiveling LCD in those occasions.

01-03-2010, 01:04 AM	#59
juu Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 680	Originally posted by dude2009 I suppose K-x is good enough for family use, but D5000 is probably a better choice if you want to use it in your work. Imaging when you want to take pictures over the heads of a crowd, you may really need that swiveling LCD in those occasions. Same with the 1Dmk4 and D3X - no articulated screen means good enough for family use, but not if you want to actually use it in your work of... emm... snapping pictures over the heads of a crowd.

01-03-2010, 12:44 PM	#60
Pentaxoid Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 48	Okay so about the SR thing. At 55mm, and Tv 1/20" on a closeup shot of a static object, w/o SR picture is blurry and unacceptable. With SR the picture is not as blurry, I would call it soft. At 55mm, Tv 1/40" on a closeup shot of same static object, with or without SR I cannot really tell the difference. But w/o SR it's definitely sharper than at 1/20" with SR. The pictures were compared on the camera screen well zoomed in, maybe that the picture with SR at 1/20" could become as good as the 1/40" with some PP. But remember that the subject is not moving here, and if it were a human, 1/20" would certainly not be enough and the difference with 1/40" would become more obvious. So I can't say that SR is saving the shot here, it's at best, making it less worse.