[RolloR]

Those were the exact primes I was thinking of getting if I switched over.

Canon EF 50/1.8 $110
Canon EF 35/2 $372
(for reference purposes only: Canon EF 50/1.4 $412)

Pentax FA 50/1.4 $461
Pentax FA 35/2 $$654

The prices for Pentax lenses are so expensive...

And it sucks that the FA 35/2 is "discontinued."

[yeatzee]

high ISO noise.... hmmm, I have been using K10D for over 2-years and most of the time, I keep it under ISO 800 (may be 10% of time I will use ISO-1600). Is high ISO really that important? To me it is not - nice to have but not critical unless you are like Marc specialised in concert/musician photography.

Its been the new thing to obsess about lately.... Honestly people how many of us shoot ISO 800+ regularly? Not much I garuntee you!

[aleonx3]

Where the hell are you pulling those prices from???? And for what its worth I hated the canon EF 50mm F/1.8 I tried, and the EF 50mm F/1.4 was just OK IMHO

I agree, the optics on some of the older 55mm m42 primes (1.4) are so nice that I will rather use the $60 lens than those mentioned.

[aleonx3]

Its been the new thing to obsess about lately.... Honestly people how many of us shoot ISO 800+ regularly? Not much I garuntee you!

Amen to that.. and there is also something called flash to help... which I managed to learn a great deal from this forum.

[RolloR]

I agree, the optics on some of the older 55mm m42 primes (1.4) are so nice that I will rather use the $60 lens than those mentioned.

They don't auto-focus though.

Its been the new thing to obsess about lately.... Honestly people how many of us shoot ISO 800+ regularly? Not much I garuntee you!

If you go out at night a lot, you'll be using ISO 3200 a LOT. If not, one will find ISO 400 more than sufficient for a camera.

Or you can say "single people will use ISO 3200 a LOT." LOL

[yeatzee]

They don't auto-focus though.



If you go out at night a lot, you'll be using ISO 3200 a LOT. If not, one will find ISO 400 more than sufficient for a camera.

Or you can say "single people will use ISO 3200 a LOT." LOL

Well in the tests I did, my M 50mm F/1.7 simply outclassed both in sharpness, contrast, and bokeh wideopen (canon 50mm F/1.4 stopped down to F/1.8). Yes its manual focus but we are comparing optics.

Also thats not necessarily true.... My K200d doesn't go to ISO 3200, and yet I still manage at night with friends. Anyways like I said VERY little of us use ISO 800 or above often...... and Im perfectly fine with the results I get in that range with my camera anyways. AFAIK the K-7 is even better in that regard compared to my K200d so why all the hysteria saying its so terrible?

[khaz0r]

Where the hell are you pulling those prices from???? And for what its worth I hated the canon EF 50mm F/1.8 I tried, and the EF 50mm F/1.4 was just OK IMHO

DWI - Australia wide delivery - Digital Cameras, Digital SLR, Video and Camcorders online store is where I am quoting the prices from.

I tend to use 1600 ISO a lot with my K200D because I go out a lot at night at night and do most of my "people" shooting there. I also don't like using flash because I dislike the artificial light on peoples faces when the flash operating. Everyone just seems to 'glow'. Unless I get a external flash unit... but I prefer and not get one because they are rather expensive and bulky at the same time.

So in the end a fast lens, fast AF and great high ISO performance is what I look for when I take my photos at night.

[khaz0r]

Maybe I might try to purchase something like this http://www.babydiffuser.com/ It looks pretty nifty if you ask me.

[UnknownVT]

Anyways like I said VERY little of us use ISO 800 or above often......

I bought a K-x when I already had a K100D which has pretty acceptable High ISO performance - just because the K-x performed about 1+ stop better at high ISOs.

The majority of my K-x usage is at High ISOs - please see this thread
Kx in Use
where the majority of my shots posted are at high ISO like ISO3200 and ISO5000.

I realize that perhaps I am not normal (no comments please!) but my application for the K-x is exactly high ISO - and whole point why I bought the K-x.

Having said that and getting back to the original subject of the OP - I am actually very impressed with the Canon 550D - its high ISO results are astonishing for a 18Mp APS-C sensor - Canon are really doing something right with the 550D.

I am using the sample test shots of the Canon 550D at Imaging-Resource

[er1kksen]

Its been the new thing to obsess about lately.... Honestly people how many of us shoot ISO 800+ regularly? Not much I garuntee you!

Now that I have a K-x I do.

I'm also an avid user of flash (generally multiple radio-triggered off-camera flashes) but the fact is that there are a lot of situations where flash simply isn't appropriate or where you really don't want to carry around an external flashhead. For my general walkaround any-light shooting I far prefer my K-x and M 50mm f1.7, no flash required, to my old K20D+fast fifty and AF360GZ setup. I didn't like going over ISO 400 in poor light with the K20D; while noise levels are objectively not that far apart (around one stop), the qualitative difference in noise is highly significant.

I would recommend that the OP purchase a K-x. Why? It's the first camera I've used that really makes me feel "free." I worry less and shoot more, because I know that if I do my part, the K-x will deliver. There may be fewer external controls than my K20D, but there's a whole lot less fussing over the right settings for optimal image quality, so I concentrate more on composition and seeing photographically.

While the T2i is an incredibly capable little machine, my experience with the rebel interface suggests that I would not have the same "freeing" experience with it that I find with the K-x. I'm considering eventually getting one as an affordable studio camera (my studio being wherever I set up my tripod and lights ). But I would keep my K-x even if I had the option of selling mine (I banged it hard into a rock and cracked the front panel... I sealed it up and it works fine, but I wouldn't feel right selling it to anyone).

The K-x is one of the best, if not the best, deals going in photography right now. Get one and be happy with it.

[tokyoso]

Hi guys, I am soon to be in the market for a camera upgrading from my K200D. I have looked at the Pentax K-7 / K-x, Canon 500D / 550D, Nikon D90 and I think I have narrowed it down to the K-x and 550D.

My main purpose of the camera is to take nice pictures. I found that my K200D was limiting me because of the poor ISO performance and the lack of video recording.

I can get the Canon 550D for under $1000 and the K-x for under $700.

Here are a list of Pros and Cons I have found with these 2 cameras:

Pentax K-x
- Cheaper
- Inbuilt stabilisation
- AA batteries
- I have a few lenses already. Kit + FA 50mm 1.4
- Better high ISO performance
- Small and lightweight
x No battery grip
x Expensive lenses
x Poorer video recording quality
x Lack of visible focus points

Canon EOS 550D
- 1080p video recording @ 30fps
- High ISO performance is still pretty good
- High LCD resolution
- Battery grip available
- Lenses are cheaper even with image stabilisation compared to Pentax glass.
x Camera a tad more expensive
x Need to purchase lens with this camera

... at least that's what I can come up with from te top of my head.

Please help me decide. I know this is a Pentax forum so the opinions may be skewed, but any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Im sure you have liked Pentax enough to buy into K200D in the first place. Why the urge to switch?

[inferno10]

For a brief moment, I had the K-7, the K-x, and the T2i (550D) in my possession. I just sold the K-x, and am keeping the K-7 and T2i. For me, it's the video. I'm starting to catch the VSLR bug, and the lack of manual control in the K-7 and K-x was a bit frustrating. The T2i's video quality is just amazing too. The K-x and, to a lesser extent, the K-7, do a decent job in good lighting; however, in low light, the T2i's video blows both cameras away.

One may ask if I'm going to ditch the brand. As of yet, I'm not abandoning. I just love the feel of the K-7, and having the weather-sealing is quite important. I'm traveling to Japan this week for vacation, and it's raining there, so it'll be nice to have a weather-sealed body and lens available. Once Pentax releases a firmware update that brings manual control for video, I might consider re-purchasing the K-x. But only time will tell.

But in regards to your question, get the K-x if you have a stockpile of lenses already and don't plan to use video much. The K-x absolutely rocks with low-light stills. If, however, you need to record a lot of video, the 550D might be the better option.

On a random tangent: if Pentax were to put the K-x sensor into a K-7 body, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

- Jason

[Christopher M.W.T]

Poor High ISO from the K7? Hand Held 6400ISO, shot with the histogram slightly to the right.

If used properly High ISO is very usable in the K7. I applied NN to this shot, but to be honest it wasn't really all that necessary.

[khaz0r]

On a random tangent: if Pentax were to put the K-x sensor into a K-7 body, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

My thoughts exactly. If only they could add the K-x sensor into the K-7, I wouldn't even think of getting any other camera than the K-7.

[khaz0r]

Im sure you have liked Pentax enough to buy into K200D in the first place. Why the urge to switch?

At first, I did some thorough research as I usually do before purchasing something pricey. There were rave reviews on the K200D from everywhere. When I went to the shop I picked it up and played with it. It felt pretty good in my hand. Very sturdy and I felt secure that the camera was weatherproof. So It was an easier purchase. What I did not realise at that time was how expensive the lenses were... haha