[planedriver]

Ever since I bought my K-x I try to compare it's low iso performance with my K200D which I like very much. Right from the start I decided to use them both as a kit together. This is no problem as I found a good bag with enough place for both with four lenses (DA16-45, FA50, F35-105, DA55-200).



Size compared to a 500ml bottle




Today I went out with my kit to do an unsophisticated, unscientific test. I used the FA50 1.4 with the K-x and the DA16-45 with the K200. Here are the results:

K-x:









K200D:





Andras

---

Last edited by planedriver; 01-16-2010 at 12:07 PM.

[BBear]

Nice real life shots..

What is your opnion regarding the cameras? What you think about the ISOs?

[planedriver]

Nice real life shots..

What is your opnion regarding the cameras? What you think about the ISOs?

Thanks

I really like both cameras-the K-x has wonderful usable IQ in the high iso range (iso2500-3200 and sometimes even higher depending on the situation) but somehow I still prefer the k200's output at base iso (this is just a personal preference).

Both cameras are a real joy to touch-really enjoy having the possibility to choose.

I have the impression that I need high quality prime glass to bring out the maximum from the K-x.

Andras

[Tom in Delaware]

The K200D images seem to have more..oomph. More clarity or punch. Did you have them both set on the same image mode or were these done from Raw?

[planedriver]

The K200D images seem to have more..oomph. More clarity or punch. Did you have them both set on the same image mode or were these done from Raw?

All of them are RAW conversions-Vivid color tone-the K200d's pictures have more contrast added. The FA50 always produces colder images. Adding contrast to the K-x pictures doesn't produce that similar punchy effect as with the k200d. But as I mentioned this is not a fair test of course.

Andras

[kyteflyer]

The angle of the shots may have had an effect. I guess the only way you'd really know how the two compare is by taking the same shot with the same lens. I note that those taken with the K-x have vast areas of grey (water) and that is going to damp the scene down a lot. The K200D shots are more direct of the boats and so there is more colour in the pic. I have the same two cams and so now, of course, I feel a need to carry out the same test (but I'll just be using kit lenses)... you've got me all curious now.

[er1kksen]

I would definitely agree with you that the K-x images at low ISO have a somewhat different "feel" to them than low ISO images from my previous Pentax (a K20D), though for my uses the K-x has the best overall low-ISO image quality I've ever found.

As to the differences in these images, however, I definitely do feel that the difference between the FA 50's rendering (and telephoto compression) and the 16-45's rendering (and wide-angle) are playing a role as well. The biggest thing, in fact, is probably angle of reflection; from the K-x's 50mm pov you're mostly composing with light-reflecting surfaces at an oblique angle to the sensor plane, meaning that you're getting a lot of reflected gray from the sky mixed into the colors and contrasts from the surfaces themselves. The angles from the 16-45's wider perspective are bringing the light in from a far more perpendicular angle, leading to better saturation and contrast.

[planedriver]

You are all right this is not a fair comparison. Anyway here is a K-x picture with the contrast increased+3 trying to make it similarly punchy as the K200's pictures came out.



Andras

[rustynail925]

The K200D images has more pop, color/contrast in it.
I believe the Kx images comes to life at high iso. both are really nice
to pair up.
K200D for daylight / outside
Kx for night / indoor

[rustynail925]

This is no problem as I found a good bag with enough place for both with four lenses (DA16-45, FA50, F35-105, DA55-200).

Andras

What bag did you use?
btw nice bag you got there

[planedriver]

The K200D images has more pop, color/contrast in it.
I believe the Kx images comes to life at high iso. both are really nice
to pair up.
K200D for daylight / outside
Kx for night / indoor

Thank you this is my impression too right from the start. The K200d's pictures at iso 200 is much more 3D looking than the K-x's images at that sensitivity. However at high iso...yes the K-x really comes alive. Impressively. DR is of course better with the K-x at any iso.

What bag did you use?
btw nice bag you got there

This is a "KATA DC443" bag. Even a Giotto pump and the lens hoods for the 16-45 and the 50-200 fits in. You can put both cameras in with lens attached, however taking in the K200 without lens makes it easier to pack.

I think one or two primes would still fit in too...hahaha



Andras

[rustynail925]

Thank you this is my impression too right from the start. The K200d's pictures at iso 200 is much more 3D looking than the K-x's images at that sensitivity. However at high iso...yes the K-x really comes alive. Impressively. DR is of course better with the K-x at any iso.



This is a "KATA DC443" bag. Even a Giotto pump and the lens hoods for the 16-45 and the 50-200 fits in. You can put both cameras in with lens attached, however taking in the K200 without lens makes it easier to pack.

I think one or two primes would still fit in too...hahaha

Andras

Thats a very handy bag. is this is it?
Amazon.com: Kata KT DC-443 Digital Case (Black): Electronics

Im thinking of getting an external flash or just get a kx since im not very happy w/ the k200d in low light.

[planedriver]

Thats a very handy bag. is this is it?
Amazon.com: Kata KT DC-443 Digital Case (Black): Electronics

That's a very good price for sure!

Im thinking of getting an external flash or just get a kx since im not very happy w/ the k200d in low light.

I decided to go on the "no flash way" and I'm enjoying it. K-x AF is much much better in low light than the k200's.
I started with the k200 to take available light portraits of my son-limited the iso to 800. Like this:



and this:



and my favourite with the K-x at iso1600:



and this one is at iso5000:



Andras

[Marc Sabatella]

Im thinking of getting an external flash or just get a kx since im not very happy w/ the k200d in low light.

You might try posting some pictures you are not happy with. K200D is actually very very good already, but a lot of the difference between a good shot and bad shot is technique (including PP technique). No doubt the K-x is somewhat better, but we're talking pixel peeping differences, not night and day differences. You still need good technique to get good results.

[asdf]

You are all right this is not a fair comparison. Anyway here is a K-x picture with the contrast increased+3 trying to make it similarly punchy as the K200's pictures came out.

Andras

You could say that the red color produced by the k200d is over-saturated and k-x produces more ``authentic'' colors here. You can always play around with the saturation and luminance of a specific color and see if you can imitate k200d's color.