[dude2009]

check your AF setting, use center point AF to test it instead of auto 11 point, it may have focused on some objects that you don't intend to focus on.

If this doesn't help, try a different lens, if the image comes out ok, then it's problem with your kit lens, otherwise ,the body may need some adjustment, certainly, most of the bodies shouldn't need users to do that when they r shipped out of factory, but maybe you got an exceptional one there.

[VHDEL]

I hope you dont mind me spending a minute playing around with your KX image.

Only slight changes were made, which has me to belive you will need to play around with JPEG settings.

Top image is the origional

Cheers

Del

[monochrome]

check your AF setting, use center point AF to test it instead of auto 11 point, it may have focused on some objects that you don't intend to focus on.

If this doesn't help, try a different lens, if the image comes out ok, then it's problem with your kit lens, otherwise ,the body may need some adjustment, certainly, most of the bodies shouldn't need users to do that when they r shipped out of factory, but maybe you got an exceptional one there.

I'd bet camera bodies are not individually tested and micro-focused to the kit lens they come with by the factory since bodies are also sold without a kit lens. Some fulfillment house or a different packaging line at the factory randomly puts lenses and bodies together in the kit.

Manufacturing tolerances mean camera bodies and lenses often must be tuned to each other - just a fact of life.

Read this article - Read The Entire Thing - by LensRentals.com, the largest lens rental online company, thus experienced with a 2500 lens inventory, about soft lenses (the lenses aren't soft, they just aren't micro-adjusted to the camera bodies).

Not saying I doubt your outcome, but I'd say the odds are great that the problem isn't your K-x.

[Boris]

What is wrong here?

Not to mention the K-x files are approx. 4 times the size. Where is the data going?

HELP me get this thing right.

I am a Pentax (D) SLR shooter for 7 years. Recently I got to handle Canon 500D with IS lens and while I was shooting the images came out somewhat soft. It occurs to me that perhaps whatever my body does as a matter of reflex when I shoot with my Pentax cameras is just ever so slightly different than what is needed for Canon.

In other words - don't jump to any conclusions after the very first try. Give it more work.

Another thought. After 2.5 years with K10D I was (very) disappointed with the results of my K-7 that I thought were dull with lifeless colors. It took me couple of weeks including a 3 days long weekend with the family full of shooting to realize that K-7 is truly wonderful camera.

Since I reckon Nikon D40 is CCD based and Pentax Kx is CMOS based - again - don't judge too swiftly, keep shooting and let the time pass.

Also, please read thoroughly the camera manual. You might be surprised.

[SteveM]

keyser,
I understand this and plan to purchase a prime for the K-x. I am not sure which one to get yet. Have any suggestions?

Get the prime if you want, but for your intended subjects I recommend a better option is to get a flash that bounces to the ceiling. If you want shots of moving kids, you need faster shutter speeds to stop the action AND maintain the DOF. There's no point in getting a shallow DOF "fast" prime, soft wide open (unless you spend huge $$$), only to get a limited DOF in all your shots because you don't have enough light. And older primes like the FA50 are soft wide open, so you wind up with every shot looking creatively the same: very shallow DOF and slightly soft. It's a lot of $$ spent to get a standard looking, if technically excellent, snapshot.
For the K-x, check the WB as it is a bit on the blue side. And the EV is often a tad high (with flash too). It shows in all your samples. A prime will assist with colour (as will PP, but that's work), but it won't correct the camera pre-sets. I agree with the posters here that the prime vs. kit lens is an awkward test.
My suggestion for a prime (new) would be the DA35, largely because its a decent indoor length without going to the cost extreme of the FA31. It focuses tight and fast, which for tracking a growing kid is far more important a real world measure than other technical arguments. 50mm is too long for moving indoor work. The DA40 is another option, but I still find it too long indoors. Tracking kids you really want AF, especially to take advantage of the shot-to-shot blaze of the K-x (isn't that a reason why you bought it?), so older MF lenses again, aren't maximizing the camera and your subject matter.
A beter option may be a higher quality zoom, like the Tamron 17-50/2.8, or, for more $$$ the DA*16-50/2.8. Bigger and heavier than a prime, but far more versatile. Again, I am trying to match your intended subject matter in all conditions with the advice. A 2.8 zoom lens with a bounce flash can handle any indoor/outdoor situation for following a growing child, with excellent quality, and go wide enough to grab scenes with context, group scenes, etc. Primes are technically great, but have practical disadvantages. The zoom would also work better with video. It's a cost effective solution that should not be discounted if you want versatility.
I cannot speak for the focus issue. Not quite enough evidence to be definitive.
Good luck.

I think we all have different styles and different methods so you'll have to see what is best for you. Aristophanes advice is solid but it is the last thing I would do for me. I have both the DA* 16-50 and the FA 31 LTD and they are great lenses but they sit on the shelf when it comes to kids. I also will bounce a flash off the ceiling or back wall but for me it looks like a flash shot...you really need a proper setup to use a flash. Auto focus can help if it is centre focus and you only focus on the eyes and recompose, but for the shots you have manual would have you controlling the shot not the camera.
Borrow a manual focus that is longer than you would usually use like an 85 and at least a 1.8 and give it a try…

[cbaytan]

I am surprized some Pentaxians don't know about 3D effect in photography. Some Leica and Pentax lenses own this ability and my most mportant reason to stay with Pentax. For instance with ebaying my 40USD cost FA 35-80 and M 50 f/1.7 has those effects, I strongly believe Limited 77mm has that effect too.

A quick goggling with "3d effect" lens heliar leica keywords first two results: (I am a big fan of Heliar's 3D effect.) but I can't afford it I am very happy with above lenses. There is even a 3D description in the second link.

Manual Focus Lenses :: View topic - "3D" effect?

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_26_en/$File/CLN26_English.pdf

[wlachan]

Without actually trying the gears you have, I can only guess. There are a few things I have noticed. 1) All 4 samples aren't sharp, but the K-x samples are worse. 2) The focus of the 1st 2 pics seem to be on the left lower corner. 3) My DA18-55 kit zoom is very low on sharpness. 4) The K-x samples are so soft they look more like AF issue to me. 5) Pentax RAW/jpeg file sizes are indeed much bigger. Why didn't they implement compression is beyond me. 6) Given the right lens and conditions, Pentax can be just as 3D. 7) The SR is slow to ready. Did you wait for the SR indicator? 8) Judging from the background of the 3rd & 4th samples, the 3rd one seems to suffer from FF.

[kostarae]

It does seem there may be focus issues I will have to resolve or possibly get a replacement. I read up on the articles which were posted.

When I first received the D40 (used) -- I was utterly blown away by the pictures it could take with the kit lens that came with it. I was hoping to be as impressed with the K-x which I was not. Whether it has to do with settings or the debug menu I have to tinker with...I am not sure.

On paper though, the K-x seems to be the perfect camera for my needs (low light/indoor shooting). I have not taken the 35mm 1.8 prime off the D40 since I purchased it and hope to get a nice prime for the K-x if everything works out. The only feature I miss with the D40 + prime combo is the image stabilization as most of my shots are hand-held and this is the primary reason I choose to purchase a Pentax.

I am just disappointed the camera hasn't taken the excellent pictures I had expected out of the box.

Time to find a decent prime....currently looking at the 43mm Limited but still need to read up a bit more.

The 35mm prime on the Nikon is nice but I feel I could use a little more zoom (40-50mm) -- I hear the 77mm Limited is real nice but I'm afraid that might be too much zoom for indoor shooting.

Thanks everyone for the replies and not taking my reservations on my purchase on a personal level.

[wlachan]

I'd suggest you tried the debug mode to fine tune the AF b4 going any deeper. Good luck. BTW, the FA43 is a fine lens, except wide open which is soft.

[WerTicus]

Work on tweaking your in camera jpg settings or shoot raw

+

Get an FA 35mm f2.

If that does not work, well....even with a broken camera mum is smoking hot.

[JohnBee]

I am surprized some Pentaxians don't know about 3D effect in photography. Some Leica and Pentax lenses own this ability and my most mportant reason to stay with Pentax. For instance with ebaying my 40USD cost FA 35-80 and M 50 f/1.7 has those effects, I strongly believe Limited 77mm has that effect too.

Isn't this entire 3D effect based on DOF.
I mean... from a technical stand-point, its nothing more than a matter of the the right distance, focal range and DOF.

Which I always concluded was entirely lens based to begin with(though you'd still need a camera to do it )

Anyways, I've found that most lenses from 55-300 can pull it off and that it's just a matter of knowing the recipe to get it. Though bokeh's really do play a role in the overall success of the effect(ie. harsh bokeh's usually ruin the show).

Anyone else care to comment on this?


Here's what I could call, one of my favorite examples of a 3D effect


Posted by - brainiac - Contax 35 f1.4 - at Fred Miranda's forums


Oh and a flash can REALLY emphasize(or enhance) this effect also.

[cbaytan]

Isn't this entire 3D effect based on DOF.
I mean... from a technical stand-point, its nothing more than a matter of the the right distance, focal range and DOF.

Not just DOF, IMO an almost perfect Bokeh and good transition from focused areas to unfocused areas with good color rendition required for 3D effect, there are other stories but too long to write down. Check out the lovely nose poking guys left cheek and ear you posted, along with the tip of his nose.

Another link about 3D effect:

Which portrait lens with 3D effect? - FM Forums

[HGMonaro]

If that does not work, well....even with a broken camera mum is smoking hot.

I'll 2nd that.. and add that the kid is pretty cute too! Will star in lot's of pics in the future no doubt!

I don't have one but I've seen too many good examples from K-Xs to believe this is as good as it gets.

[planedriver]

Work on tweaking your in camera jpg settings or shoot raw
+
Get an FA 35mm f2.
If that does not work, well....even with a broken camera mum is smoking hot.

I didn't dare to tell... but very well pointed out

Dear Kostarae I guess you are overwhelmed with the number of responses your post generated which is a very good sign and makes this whole "forum-ing" and photography fun.

I would like to point out some important aspects for you:

-no matter how experienced a photographer is he/she needs some time (and a number of test shots) until a new camera (or other gear) will satisfy him/her.

-taking pictures of children is not an easy task.Generally saying the higher the shutter speed better the chance to get a good picture, although it is not as simple as that. If your interested in shooting without flash (as I do) this becomes even more challenging. It"s all about compromise and keeping the available factors in balance. Now with the K-x you are in a good position as the high iso performance is very very good. This has more beneficial effects-higher shutter speed for the given amount of light or wider aperture can be used which means focusing is not so critical. (as for portraits my first objective is to try to focus on the eyes- now with a continuously moving kid it's very difficult with a narrow depth of field). With the K-x now I'm more confident to use the DA50-200 lens as it is not a fast glass but that's being compensated by the high iso number.

With the K-x the higher shutter speed can be easily achieved by using higher iso. And don't hesitate to use it even in good light-a well captured sharp focus at the right place (lets's at his eyes) is much more important than the image quality degradation you get from using higher iso.

I did some pictures with the K-x this morning to show you what I'm talking about:

iso3200 DA16-45 1/80 f4.5



iso5000 DA50-200 f4.5 1/50 50mm-it's not super sharp but still acceptable for me at this size:



Merry Chistmas!

Andras

P.s. and don't forget the change the settings in the camera-if you shoot jpeg. I use VIVID colors with +1 on with sharpness and fine sharpness +3.

[cbaytan]

I did some pictures with the K-x this morning to show you what I'm talking about:

Am I the only one not seeing the pictures?