K-x has GOOD COLOURS, LOW NOISE and GOOD RESOLUTION

Marc Sabatella · 11-20-2009, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by er1kksen

I suppose the much faster and more responsive autofocus is indeed pretty much inconsequential, except for the keeping you from missing shots, even when it's just a person walking out of view.

The faster frame rate, as well, is obviously of no importance.

Those were indeed the main two other improvements I was thinking of. They wouldn't change one thing about my shooting - I don't tend to lose shots due to slow AF even with my K200D, and I've never lost one due to too slow a frame rate. I imagine the same is true of most people, although no doubt they do make some difference sometimes to some people. But we're still talking about a smaller dimmer viewfinder, fewer controls, no weather sealing, etc. Technology has advanced in certain ways, but it hasn't made the K-x a better camera in all ways - just in a few. If those happen to be the ways that are important to you, great. And obviously I was exaggerating slightly to make a point - these things are not really "inconsequential". But it is important, I think, to put them into perspective. It's equally inaccurate to say the K-x "kills" the K20D.

er1kksen · 11-21-2009, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by fearview

im really interest with what you said here sir.. can u give me link to whoever has done some test?

--

Apparently Lumolabs has done some interesting testing on the subject, if you want to look them up.

However, my statements have nothing to do with any sort of camera tests or comparisons done on the internet. I'm talking about what I see in the images I bring home after I go out and take pictures, which is what really matters to me. Graphs and charts get boring after a while.

Marc, I agree that the differences in speed are less consequential for some than others, while the differences in controls and sealing are also factors on a similar level, depending on the user. What I was particularly replying to (in an admittedly roundabout way) was the statement that the K-x was only better, IQ-wise, at high ISO. While the high-ISO results are exciting, they're leading everyone to overlook the fact that the K-x is absolutely phenomenal at base ISO; the files are "robust" in a sense that they never have been before. The Shadow DR is actually relevant and usable. The resolution is remarkably close to the K20D as well. I would honestly say that unless you absolutely need those extra pixels, or you prefer the subjective "look" of the Samsung sensor (it is a little different), the K-x is in fact a superior low-ISO imager as well.

audiobomber · 11-21-2009, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by er1kksen

I would honestly say that unless you absolutely need those extra pixels, or you prefer the subjective "look" of the Samsung sensor (it is a little different), the K-x is in fact a superior low-ISO imager as well.

It appears I may be one who prefer the subjective look of K20D photos. And K100D Super photos too. I just looked at pages of photos of all three on Flikr and I have to agree with what I've heard elsewhere. The K-x colours in the photos I saw this morning are dull and uninteresting to me, not Pentax-like at all.

rawr · 11-21-2009, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

...The K-x colours in the photos I saw this morning are dull and uninteresting to me, not Pentax-like at all.

Oh God, here we go again

Full circle.

I've always thought there are two things to dispute here: 'K-x colours' and 'Pentax like'. Neither exists. This is an argument over a phantom. A degree of reflection over the technical basis for either term would stop any such arguments before they began.

wll · 11-21-2009, 12:30 PM

No I won't post them as there are people in the shots, but .....

Shot a K-7 and a K-x at Fry's, shot the K-7 at 3200 and the K-x at 6400 and 12800.

To my eyes the K-x high iso is about a stop and a half better than the K-7. The K-7's grain is very tight but still grainy. Shots were in Jpeg.

The K-7 is quite a machine, I loved the sound of the shutter and it feels great in my hands.

Come on Pentax, how about a K-7 using the K-x sensor.

wll

audiobomber · 11-21-2009, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by rawr

Oh God, here we go again

Full circle.

I've always thought there are two things to dispute here: 'K-x colours' and 'Pentax like'. Neither exists. This is an argument over a phantom. A degree of reflection over the technical basis for either term would stop any such arguments before they began.

Pleasing colours are subjective. I love the colour rendition of my cameras. I don't see it in the K-x. The photos look like they were made with some other brand. I'm not going to argue about it. It was mentioned and I looked at the pics and I agree. Muted colours don't interest me. I'm not closing the door on the K-x, but I'm going to wait and see if the low ISO IQ is a step down from the K100DS it would replace.

er1kksen · 11-21-2009, 01:43 PM

I have to agree that the K-x tends to need a little more on the saturation sliders. This does not in any way prevent me from getting the colors I like out of it, though.

rawr · 11-21-2009, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by er1kksen

I have to agree that the K-x tends to need a little more on the saturation sliders. This does not in any way prevent me from getting the colors I like out of it, though.

Yes, that's partly my point. Users can tune any modern DSLR to adjust it's output pretty much however they like, in camera or PP. It's like people saying they prefer 'Ford speed' compared to 'Toyota speed'.

audiobomber · 11-21-2009, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by rawr

Yes, that's partly my point. Users can tune any modern DSLR to adjust it's output pretty much however they like, in camera or PP. It's like people saying they prefer 'Ford speed' compared to 'Toyota speed'.

To a point, except that boosting saturation often results in blowing the yellow and/or red out completely. I have seen blown reds with the K-x.

I would consider Ford speed and Toyota speed to be different due to different torque response of larger vs smaller engines. ;~)

ogl · 11-21-2009, 11:51 PM

I used LR 3.0 beta, LR 2.6 RC and UFRAW for K-x and D300s.
I can say the colour depends on RAW converter. For jpegs - depends on settings.
I've got the identical colour from UFRAW for K-x and D300s.

zxaar · 11-22-2009, 12:36 AM

As i said color is pure myth, you can change to whatever you like.

Here are two from last weekend, place shodoshima (japan).

Camera is K-x.

colors adjusted to my taste.

lense 28mm M f2.8.

lense 135mm M F2.5.

Camera is just a tool.

Zebooka · 11-22-2009, 01:44 AM

Very nice color rendering....
Superb!

fearview · 11-22-2009, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by rawr

Oh God, here we go again

Full circle.

I've always thought there are two things to dispute here: 'K-x colours' and 'Pentax like'. Neither exists. This is an argument over a phantom. A degree of reflection over the technical basis for either term would stop any such arguments before they began.

never ending argument..

@zxaar

you know that second pic is fantastic.

Marc Sabatella · 11-22-2009, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by audiobomber

Pleasing colours are subjective. I love the colour rendition of my cameras. I don't see it in the K-x. The photos look like they were made with some other brand. I'm not going to argue about it.

OK, but then, you must admit you are actually talking about the JPEG engine and nothing else - because the actual sensor data is identical between the K100DS and lots of other cameras. And once you accept that what you are actually talking about isd the JPEG engine, then you must consider the possibility that simply shooting RAW with your own customized presets - or even custom tweaking the camera JPEG settings (there are more controls than just saturation) could probably make the color look exactly as you like it.

You should also consider, BTW, that the K-x is an entry level camera and is probably being shot disproportionately by beginning photographers using the kit lens and all default settings. So I wouldn't read too much into it if you're not seeing a lot of really professional-quality results.

ryan s · 11-22-2009, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by ogl

My conclusion:

K-x offers the same level of resolution as D300s and has a bit lower noise at ISO from 200-1600, and approx. 2/3 f-stops better from ISO3200.

Originally posted by ogl

Not me. It's Sigma 70/2.8 macro.

Originally posted by ogl

I used LR 3.0 beta, LR 2.6 RC and UFRAW for K-x and D300s.
I can say the colour depends on RAW converter. For jpegs - depends on settings.
I've got the identical colour from UFRAW for K-x and D300s.

So what I'm reading into this is that you actually haven't used the camera, correct?

If you're just downloading Raw files taken by others, I really hope no one bases their opinion on your opinion.

11-21-2009, 12:30 PM	#35
wll Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Mission Hills, CA Posts: 773	Just did some test shots: K-7 vs K-x No I won't post them as there are people in the shots, but ..... Shot a K-7 and a K-x at Fry's, shot the K-7 at 3200 and the K-x at 6400 and 12800. To my eyes the K-x high iso is about a stop and a half better than the K-7. The K-7's grain is very tight but still grainy. Shots were in Jpeg. The K-7 is quite a machine, I loved the sound of the shutter and it feels great in my hands. Come on Pentax, how about a K-7 using the K-x sensor. wll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA15 - where is good resolution?	ogl	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	82	05-10-2009 06:46 AM
k20d \ k200d have a good noise reduction?	platinum	Pentax DSLR Discussion	4	04-20-2008 01:47 PM
ISO noise - pentax K10D is good?	platinum	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	04-18-2008 03:24 PM
good low light zooms?	goldfishin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	06-14-2007 10:43 PM

11-20-2009, 11:11 PM	#31
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by er1kksen I suppose the much faster and more responsive autofocus is indeed pretty much inconsequential, except for the keeping you from missing shots, even when it's just a person walking out of view. The faster frame rate, as well, is obviously of no importance. Those were indeed the main two other improvements I was thinking of. They wouldn't change one thing about my shooting - I don't tend to lose shots due to slow AF even with my K200D, and I've never lost one due to too slow a frame rate. I imagine the same is true of most people, although no doubt they do make some difference sometimes to some people. But we're still talking about a smaller dimmer viewfinder, fewer controls, no weather sealing, etc. Technology has advanced in certain ways, but it hasn't made the K-x a better camera in all ways - just in a few. If those happen to be the ways that are important to you, great. And obviously I was exaggerating slightly to make a point - these things are not really "inconsequential". But it is important, I think, to put them into perspective. It's equally inaccurate to say the K-x "kills" the K20D.

11-21-2009, 11:25 AM	#32
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Originally posted by fearview im really interest with what you said here sir.. can u give me link to whoever has done some test? -- Apparently Lumolabs has done some interesting testing on the subject, if you want to look them up. However, my statements have nothing to do with any sort of camera tests or comparisons done on the internet. I'm talking about what I see in the images I bring home after I go out and take pictures, which is what really matters to me. Graphs and charts get boring after a while. Marc, I agree that the differences in speed are less consequential for some than others, while the differences in controls and sealing are also factors on a similar level, depending on the user. What I was particularly replying to (in an admittedly roundabout way) was the statement that the K-x was only better, IQ-wise, at high ISO. While the high-ISO results are exciting, they're leading everyone to overlook the fact that the K-x is absolutely phenomenal at base ISO; the files are "robust" in a sense that they never have been before. The Shadow DR is actually relevant and usable. The resolution is remarkably close to the K20D as well. I would honestly say that unless you absolutely need those extra pixels, or you prefer the subjective "look" of the Samsung sensor (it is a little different), the K-x is in fact a superior low-ISO imager as well.

11-21-2009, 12:03 PM	#33
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by er1kksen I would honestly say that unless you absolutely need those extra pixels, or you prefer the subjective "look" of the Samsung sensor (it is a little different), the K-x is in fact a superior low-ISO imager as well. It appears I may be one who prefer the subjective look of K20D photos. And K100D Super photos too. I just looked at pages of photos of all three on Flikr and I have to agree with what I've heard elsewhere. The K-x colours in the photos I saw this morning are dull and uninteresting to me, not Pentax-like at all.

11-21-2009, 12:19 PM	#34
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by audiobomber ...The K-x colours in the photos I saw this morning are dull and uninteresting to me, not Pentax-like at all. Oh God, here we go again Full circle. I've always thought there are two things to dispute here: 'K-x colours' and 'Pentax like'. Neither exists. This is an argument over a phantom. A degree of reflection over the technical basis for either term would stop any such arguments before they began.

11-21-2009, 12:49 PM	#36
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by rawr Oh God, here we go again Full circle. I've always thought there are two things to dispute here: 'K-x colours' and 'Pentax like'. Neither exists. This is an argument over a phantom. A degree of reflection over the technical basis for either term would stop any such arguments before they began. Pleasing colours are subjective. I love the colour rendition of my cameras. I don't see it in the K-x. The photos look like they were made with some other brand. I'm not going to argue about it. It was mentioned and I looked at the pics and I agree. Muted colours don't interest me. I'm not closing the door on the K-x, but I'm going to wait and see if the low ISO IQ is a step down from the K100DS it would replace.

11-21-2009, 01:43 PM	#37
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	I have to agree that the K-x tends to need a little more on the saturation sliders. This does not in any way prevent me from getting the colors I like out of it, though.

11-21-2009, 02:07 PM	#38
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by er1kksen I have to agree that the K-x tends to need a little more on the saturation sliders. This does not in any way prevent me from getting the colors I like out of it, though. Yes, that's partly my point. Users can tune any modern DSLR to adjust it's output pretty much however they like, in camera or PP. It's like people saying they prefer 'Ford speed' compared to 'Toyota speed'.

11-21-2009, 03:00 PM	#39
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by rawr Yes, that's partly my point. Users can tune any modern DSLR to adjust it's output pretty much however they like, in camera or PP. It's like people saying they prefer 'Ford speed' compared to 'Toyota speed'. To a point, except that boosting saturation often results in blowing the yellow and/or red out completely. I have seen blown reds with the K-x. I would consider Ford speed and Toyota speed to be different due to different torque response of larger vs smaller engines. ;~)

11-21-2009, 11:51 PM	#40
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	I used LR 3.0 beta, LR 2.6 RC and UFRAW for K-x and D300s. I can say the colour depends on RAW converter. For jpegs - depends on settings. I've got the identical colour from UFRAW for K-x and D300s.

11-22-2009, 12:36 AM	#41
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	As i said color is pure myth, you can change to whatever you like. Here are two from last weekend, place shodoshima (japan). Camera is K-x. colors adjusted to my taste. lense 28mm M f2.8. lense 135mm M F2.5. Camera is just a tool.

11-22-2009, 01:44 AM	#42
Zebooka Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Russia, Siberia, Novosibirsk Posts: 323	Very nice color rendering.... Superb!

11-22-2009, 02:03 AM	#43
fearview Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Jakarta Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,067	Originally posted by rawr Oh God, here we go again Full circle. I've always thought there are two things to dispute here: 'K-x colours' and 'Pentax like'. Neither exists. This is an argument over a phantom. A degree of reflection over the technical basis for either term would stop any such arguments before they began. never ending argument.. @zxaar you know that second pic is fantastic.

11-22-2009, 10:42 AM	#44
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by audiobomber Pleasing colours are subjective. I love the colour rendition of my cameras. I don't see it in the K-x. The photos look like they were made with some other brand. I'm not going to argue about it. OK, but then, you must admit you are actually talking about the JPEG engine and nothing else - because the actual sensor data is identical between the K100DS and lots of other cameras. And once you accept that what you are actually talking about isd the JPEG engine, then you must consider the possibility that simply shooting RAW with your own customized presets - or even custom tweaking the camera JPEG settings (there are more controls than just saturation) could probably make the color look exactly as you like it. You should also consider, BTW, that the K-x is an entry level camera and is probably being shot disproportionately by beginning photographers using the kit lens and all default settings. So I wouldn't read too much into it if you're not seeing a lot of really professional-quality results.

11-22-2009, 11:06 AM	#45
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	Originally posted by ogl My conclusion: K-x offers the same level of resolution as D300s and has a bit lower noise at ISO from 200-1600, and approx. 2/3 f-stops better from ISO3200. Originally posted by ogl Not me. It's Sigma 70/2.8 macro. Originally posted by ogl I used LR 3.0 beta, LR 2.6 RC and UFRAW for K-x and D300s. I can say the colour depends on RAW converter. For jpegs - depends on settings. I've got the identical colour from UFRAW for K-x and D300s. So what I'm reading into this is that you actually haven't used the camera, correct? If you're just downloading Raw files taken by others, I really hope no one bases their opinion on your opinion.