K-x vs. K-7? - Which one... $500 or $1000? Same Features?

Pentaxor · 12-29-2009, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by PentaxForums-User

This is why I ask... for deal-breakers like this... (and to learn actual pros/cons that first-hand users can reveal... I have no camera store near me)

I will be shooting a lot of video.

Does anyone know how long the AA's in the K-x last when recording only video (or using live view)?

Is there a time limit on the video files... or does the K-x and K-7 just record until the memory card is full?

there is certainly a lot of dealbreakers if you are going to do a lot of videos. and I believe the K-7 is the ideal choice for that certain function. what I don't like about the AA's is that you need to recharge them everytime before use. AA's died on me a couple of times already because of that. that's why it is preferable to use D-Lion batteries on the battery grip as well.

Pentaxor · 12-29-2009, 03:26 PM

PF-User, if you are going for the K-7, I highly suggest that you start shopping now for those cheap F/FA powerzoom "parfocal" lenses. they worked pretty well on the K-7 which supports this feature, and makes it a pretty nice and very useful for making movies. the k-x doesn't have this to offer.

Jasvox · 12-29-2009, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by pakuchn

Why does anyone focus so much on the body and less on the lense?

Without a good body., the lens is useless. (and vice-versa)

Besides, there's an entire l;ens section on this forum. Plenty of discussion there.

Jason

PentaxForums-User · 12-29-2009, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

PF-User, if you are going for the K-7, I highly suggest that you start shopping now for those cheap F/FA powerzoom "parfocal" lenses. they worked pretty well on the K-7 which supports this feature, and makes it a pretty nice and very useful for making movies. the k-x doesn't have this to offer.

Which lenses are these? (Only about 3 or 4, right?)

I thought no DSLR supported POWERZOOM.

Is there some other feature built into these lenses that make them good for movies? What makes them special?

jacksonpritt · 12-29-2009, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by erickallemeyn

only at ISO 6400 and above is the K-x "better". K7 wins for anything below that

This.

I can't understand how anyone could read a spec. sheet and think the cameras are anywhere near equal at the low-ISO range.

Not to mention that the Kx isn't weather sealed, doesn't have a flash sync socket, doesn't have a metal inner body, and doesn't even have a top LCD screen.

pakuchn · 12-29-2009, 08:01 PM

But, it does take better pictures when compared to K-7.

zxaar · 12-29-2009, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by pakuchn

But, it does take better pictures when compared to K-7.

yes thats the crux of whole thing.

In reviews conclusion DPR makes few interesting points.

Originally posted by dpreview_kx_review:

While at first sight the new model is pretty much indistinguishable from the K2000, a closer look reveals that, from a features and specification point of view, the K-x has quite lot in common with the K-7, a significantly more expensive camera. It comes with the K-7's 11-point AF system and PRIME II imaging engine, along with its abilities to correct for chromatic aberration and distortion when using Pentax DA and DFA lenses. Add 720p HD video, ISO 12800 and 4.7 frames per second continuous shooting to the mix and you've got a, for the the K-x's very attractive price point, impressively well-specified camera.

Further, about image quality.

Originally posted by dpreview_kx_review:

Crucially the image quality does not lag behind the technical specification. The image output at base ISO shows good detail and colors but where the K-x really starts to shine is in low light. Its high ISO JPEGs are possibly the best of all current DSLRs with an APS-C size sensor; they certainly beat any of its direct competitors.

Pretty bold claim from one of the most influential review site. And this is when they are being accused of treating pentax cams badly.

Last few days lots of argument with regard to kx and k7, my feeling is that many of the k7 users are not ready to give kx the credit it deserves. It seems that they find it very difficult to acknowledge that kx does indeed has better sensor and better image quality.

I think sayingthat kx is better does not mean that k7 is useless, but somehow it is difficult to understand for many k7 users.

Pentaxor · 12-29-2009, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by PentaxForums-User

Which lenses are these? (Only about 3 or 4, right?)

I thought no DSLR supported POWERZOOM.

Is there some other feature built into these lenses that make them good for movies? What makes them special?

the good thing about them is the ability to auto-focus at the same time while controlling the zoom electronically in and out which in a way making video recording much smoother. that it is a way a convenience also. I think a used 60-100 dollar powerzoom lens is worth the shot in using it for videos. for reference, you can check the video section of this forum for those lenses. it is also indicated there which Pentax dslrs' support powerzooms, and the K-7 is one of them. the k-x is not.

Pentaxor · 12-29-2009, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by pakuchn

But, it does take better pictures when compared to K-7.

define better and at which and what terms? mind you that High ISO capability/performance does not equate to IQ. there are several parameters that constitute IQ, High ISO performance is just one of them but you need to determine the other parameters as well.

also try to see what IQ parameters or area where the k-x is quite weak at, unless you determine them, it would be hard for some k-x users to understand or figure out as to why K-7 users don't find the k-x needed.

Pentaxor · 12-29-2009, 10:22 PM

ok, let's just get back to the topic again, the OP is looking for the best camera for doing videos. the k-x is a good cheap alternative for doing videos but it's video capabilities are limited. thereby, causing more deal-breakers in the long run. if the OP does have the budget and dont mind spending, he knows for certain what he really needed for shooting videos.

falconeye · 12-30-2009, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by zxaar

I think sayingthat kx is better does not mean that k7 is useless, but somehow it is difficult to understand for many k7 users.

I own both cameras. I think I had no difficulties to understand the respective advantages and disadvantages of both cameras.

zxaar · 12-30-2009, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

I own both cameras. I think I had no difficulties to understand the respective advantages and disadvantages of both cameras.

i think you are an intelligent guy and definitely not in category i was talking about.

mtroute · 12-30-2009, 11:20 AM

seriously, please mods, please, please ban any user that askes this question ever again. I am so tired of people comparing a $20 an hour craigslist hooker with a a $1000 an hour Vegas call girl. Both will do the same things for you but if you could actually afford the Vegas call girl you wouldn't even be looking at the craigslist ho...

Your just trying to rationalize the fact that the craigslist option is your only real option.

Marc Sabatella · 12-30-2009, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by zxaar

Pretty bold claim from one of the most influential review site.

Not a bold claim at all considering they specifically said they were talking baout *high ISO* IQ - in other words, a minor corner case for most people.

Quote:

It seems that they find it very difficult to acknowledge that kx does indeed has better sensor and better image quality.

That's because high ISO aside, your statement simply isn't true. The differences in the more normal ISO range are much more subjective, with most people who actually compare images rather than crunch numbers preferring the K-7. Not by a big enough margin to really matter, but enough to say that any claim the K-x is simply "better" in IQ is demonstratably false.

BTW, I'm not a K-7 user - I'm juist someone capable of looking at thing reasonably objectively.

Pentaxor · 12-30-2009, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Not a bold claim at all considering they specifically said they were talking baout *high ISO* IQ - in other words, a minor corner case for most people.

That's because high ISO aside, your statement simply isn't true. The differences in the more normal ISO range are much more subjective, with most people who actually compare images rather than crunch numbers preferring the K-7. Not by a big enough margin to really matter, but enough to say that any claim the K-x is simply "better" in IQ is demonstratably false.

BTW, I'm not a K-7 user - I'm juist someone capable of looking at thing reasonably objectively.

Marc, your statement and logic makes more sense. but anyway, concerning the OP's dilemma and eventhough it looks like he is pissing some people, which camera you think would be better for video recording? this is of course can be both subjective and objective in a way. so pros and cons or any dealbreakers are put into consideration.

View Poll Results: K-x vs. K-7? - Which one... $500 or $1000? Same Features?
Buy K-x and save $500...(and still be a pro??) (also keeping my K20d)	29	56.86%
Buy K-7 and spend $1000 and be a pro. (also keeping my K20d)	22	43.14%
Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll

12-29-2009, 10:05 PM	#39
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by pakuchn But, it does take better pictures when compared to K-7. define better and at which and what terms? mind you that High ISO capability/performance does not equate to IQ. there are several parameters that constitute IQ, High ISO performance is just one of them but you need to determine the other parameters as well. also try to see what IQ parameters or area where the k-x is quite weak at, unless you determine them, it would be hard for some k-x users to understand or figure out as to why K-7 users don't find the k-x needed. Last edited by Pentaxor; 12-29-2009 at 10:13 PM.

12-30-2009, 11:20 AM	#43
mtroute Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Portland OR Posts: 533	seriously, please mods, please, please ban any user that askes this question ever again. I am so tired of people comparing a $20 an hour craigslist hooker with a a $1000 an hour Vegas call girl. Both will do the same things for you but if you could actually afford the Vegas call girl you wouldn't even be looking at the craigslist ho... Your just trying to rationalize the fact that the craigslist option is your only *real* option. Last edited by mtroute; 12-30-2009 at 02:20 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sigma 50-500 vs 150-500 vs 170-500	juanraortiz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	10-30-2009 03:32 PM
Tamron 200-500/6.9 AD2 vs 500/8 AD	wujek	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	04-29-2009 05:14 AM
Sigma lenses 150-500, 50-500 ?	lesmore49	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	19	03-21-2009 06:49 AM
500-1000 phoenix?	MJB DIGITAL	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	04-04-2008 11:50 AM
New Monitor, Do I really need t o spend $500-$1000	vievetrick	Photographic Technique	33	01-30-2008 10:12 AM

12-29-2009, 02:55 PM	#31
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by PentaxForums-User This is why I ask... for deal-breakers like this... (and to learn actual pros/cons that first-hand users can reveal... I have no camera store near me) I will be shooting a lot of video. Does anyone know how long the AA's in the K-x last when recording only video (or using live view)? Is there a time limit on the video files... or does the K-x and K-7 just record until the memory card is full? there is certainly a lot of dealbreakers if you are going to do a lot of videos. and I believe the K-7 is the ideal choice for that certain function. what I don't like about the AA's is that you need to recharge them everytime before use. AA's died on me a couple of times already because of that. that's why it is preferable to use D-Lion batteries on the battery grip as well.

12-29-2009, 03:26 PM	#32
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	PF-User, if you are going for the K-7, I highly suggest that you start shopping now for those cheap F/FA powerzoom "parfocal" lenses. they worked pretty well on the K-7 which supports this feature, and makes it a pretty nice and very useful for making movies. the k-x doesn't have this to offer.

12-29-2009, 03:36 PM	#33
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Originally posted by pakuchn Why does anyone focus so much on the body and less on the lense? Without a good body., the lens is useless. (and vice-versa) Besides, there's an entire l;ens section on this forum. Plenty of discussion there. Jason

12-29-2009, 04:57 PM	#34
PentaxForums-User Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: New Orleans Posts: 263 Original Poster	Originally posted by Pentaxor PF-User, if you are going for the K-7, I highly suggest that you start shopping now for those cheap F/FA powerzoom "parfocal" lenses. they worked pretty well on the K-7 which supports this feature, and makes it a pretty nice and very useful for making movies. the k-x doesn't have this to offer. Which lenses are these? (Only about 3 or 4, right?) I thought no DSLR supported POWERZOOM. Is there some other feature built into these lenses that make them good for movies? What makes them special?

12-29-2009, 07:42 PM	#35
jacksonpritt Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Berkeley, CA Posts: 124	Originally posted by erickallemeyn only at ISO 6400 and above is the K-x "better". K7 wins for anything below that This. I can't understand how anyone could read a spec. sheet and think the cameras are anywhere near equal at the low-ISO range. Not to mention that the Kx isn't weather sealed, doesn't have a flash sync socket, doesn't have a metal inner body, and doesn't even have a top LCD screen.

12-29-2009, 08:01 PM	#36
pakuchn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 166	But, it does take better pictures when compared to K-7.

12-29-2009, 09:15 PM	#37
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by pakuchn But, it does take better pictures when compared to K-7. yes thats the crux of whole thing. In reviews conclusion DPR makes few interesting points. Originally posted by dpreview_kx_review: While at first sight the new model is pretty much indistinguishable from the K2000, a closer look reveals that, from a features and specification point of view, the K-x has quite lot in common with the K-7, a significantly more expensive camera. It comes with the K-7's 11-point AF system and PRIME II imaging engine, along with its abilities to correct for chromatic aberration and distortion when using Pentax DA and DFA lenses. Add 720p HD video, ISO 12800 and 4.7 frames per second continuous shooting to the mix and you've got a, for the the K-x's very attractive price point, impressively well-specified camera. Further, about image quality. Originally posted by dpreview_kx_review: Crucially the image quality does not lag behind the technical specification. The image output at base ISO shows good detail and colors but where the K-x really starts to shine is in low light. Its high ISO JPEGs are possibly the best of all current DSLRs with an APS-C size sensor; they certainly beat any of its direct competitors. Pretty bold claim from one of the most influential review site. And this is when they are being accused of treating pentax cams badly. Last few days lots of argument with regard to kx and k7, my feeling is that many of the k7 users are not ready to give kx the credit it deserves. It seems that they find it very difficult to acknowledge that kx does indeed has better sensor and better image quality. I think sayingthat kx is better does not mean that k7 is useless, but somehow it is difficult to understand for many k7 users.

12-29-2009, 10:01 PM	#38
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by PentaxForums-User Which lenses are these? (Only about 3 or 4, right?) I thought no DSLR supported POWERZOOM. Is there some other feature built into these lenses that make them good for movies? What makes them special? the good thing about them is the ability to auto-focus at the same time while controlling the zoom electronically in and out which in a way making video recording much smoother. that it is a way a convenience also. I think a used 60-100 dollar powerzoom lens is worth the shot in using it for videos. for reference, you can check the video section of this forum for those lenses. it is also indicated there which Pentax dslrs' support powerzooms, and the K-7 is one of them. the k-x is not.

12-29-2009, 10:22 PM	#40
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	ok, let's just get back to the topic again, the OP is looking for the best camera for doing videos. the k-x is a good cheap alternative for doing videos but it's video capabilities are limited. thereby, causing more deal-breakers in the long run. if the OP does have the budget and dont mind spending, he knows for certain what he really needed for shooting videos.

12-30-2009, 05:39 AM	#41
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by zxaar I think sayingthat kx is better does not mean that k7 is useless, but somehow it is difficult to understand for many k7 users. I own both cameras. I think I had no difficulties to understand the respective advantages and disadvantages of both cameras.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-30-2009, 09:41 AM	#42
zxaar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: kobe/japan Posts: 510	Originally posted by falconeye I own both cameras. I think I had no difficulties to understand the respective advantages and disadvantages of both cameras. i think you are an intelligent guy and definitely not in category i was talking about.

12-30-2009, 12:05 PM	#44
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by zxaar Pretty bold claim from one of the most influential review site. Not a bold claim at all considering they specifically said they were talking baout high ISO IQ - in other words, a minor corner case for most people. Quote: It seems that they find it very difficult to acknowledge that kx does indeed has better sensor and better image quality. That's because high ISO aside, your statement simply isn't true. The differences in the more normal ISO range are much more subjective, with most people who actually compare images rather than crunch numbers preferring the K-7. Not by a big enough margin to really matter, but enough to say that any claim the K-x is simply "better" in IQ is demonstratably false. BTW, I'm not a K-7 user - I'm juist someone capable of looking at thing reasonably objectively.

12-30-2009, 01:31 PM	#45
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Not a bold claim at all considering they specifically said they were talking baout high ISO IQ - in other words, a minor corner case for most people. That's because high ISO aside, your statement simply isn't true. The differences in the more normal ISO range are much more subjective, with most people who actually compare images rather than crunch numbers preferring the K-7. Not by a big enough margin to really matter, but enough to say that any claim the K-x is simply "better" in IQ is demonstratably false. BTW, I'm not a K-7 user - I'm juist someone capable of looking at thing reasonably objectively. Marc, your statement and logic makes more sense. but anyway, concerning the OP's dilemma and eventhough it looks like he is pissing some people, which camera you think would be better for video recording? this is of course can be both subjective and objective in a way. so pros and cons or any dealbreakers are put into consideration.