Pentax K-x or Canon 550D?

**Rondec** · 03-24-2010, 04:14 AM

I do think that the K7 should be on your list. The high iso isn't bad. I feel comfortable shooting iso 1600 on a regular basis and 3200 if I'm not going to print too big. The video is really nice. As far as video goes, you are better off going with older manual focus lenses anyway. Newer lenses without good manual focusing features (read the CAnon primes you mentioned) will be very difficult to use with video.

Not sure about the lens prices in Australia. In the US, for equivalent quality lenses, Pentax is at or below Canon's prices. Not certain that those lenses mentioned will be particularly fast focusing either. Where you get into faster focusing is the upper end, ring driven USM lenses, everyone of which will run you better than a thousand dollars.

tokyoso · 03-24-2010, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by khaz0r

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

What ya mean? the lenses were probably cheap back then.

RioRico · 03-24-2010, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by khaz0r

At first, I did some thorough research as I usually do before purchasing something pricey... What I did not realise at that time was how expensive the lenses were... haha

When I did my (extensive) research before buying my first dSLR two years ago, I was lead to Pentax and the K20D precisely because the lenses I wanted (10-17, 18-250, 50/1.4) cost less from Pentax than comparable lenses from any other firm. Lens prices aren't exactly kept secret. Since then I've bought ONE new lens and MANY old lenses. You needn't buy the latest and greatest from any camera/lens maker. Get what you need that will do what you want. Even LBA can be managed.

alexeyga · 03-24-2010, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by khaz0r

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...

Unfortunately that's true... What you save on a body, you gonna loose 2X the same amount (if not more) on every quality Pentax lens... Hoya, for some obscure reason, thinks that they can charge big-boy's prices... Instead they should expand their lens lineup and fix the damned SDM...

Having done some really extensive prices comparison lately as I was considering getting back to Pentax... I'd suggest going with Canon... You won't loose anything besides SR, and you'll recover the price difference after first "real" lens purchase... But please stay clear of the 50/1.8... it's a piece of crap... If you gonna get the 35/2 (I would) get the 85/1.8 instead of a 50..

**Rondec** · 03-24-2010, 11:03 AM

I think the big area where Pentax still has a price advantage is with higher end zooms. If you compare the DA 16-50 to the Canon 17-55 (B and H prices), the Canon is 300 dollars more. The same is true if you compare the 50-135 to the 70-200 zooms out there.

The 50 f1.8 from Canon is not worth buying. Sure, it is one hundred dollars, but it suffers in so many regards, you are far better saving a little and buying the Canon 50 mm f1.4 if you go that route.

Just remember when comparing prices to compare apples to apples. It is a mistake to compare an entry level prime to a much better lens from another company.

er1kksen · 03-24-2010, 01:07 PM

I feel there's a lot of unecessary 50mm f1.8 hate here.

Yes, it's cheaply constructed, and no, it's not terribly sharp wide-open... but it's a great lens to learn with and if you know what you're doing you can most certainly get excellent results from it. Based on all the excellent photographs in the world taken by those who could only afford the 1.8 instead of the 1.4, I'd say it's certainly worth buying for many.

alexeyga · 03-24-2010, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by er1kksen

Based on all the excellent photographs in the world taken by those who could only afford the 1.8 instead of the 1.4, I'd say it's certainly worth buying for many.

Only if you can get the original, MK1 version...

Internetpilot · 03-24-2010, 04:06 PM

In my experience the only people who post on forums that they don't care if their camera can do high ISO are people who have cameras that can't do high ISO (at least not very well). I know because I used to be one of those people!

Now that I have the K-X, I still don't worry or care about ISO, but that's because I don't have to worry about it anymore. Most of the time it's on auto with a range from 200-3200. I don't care what it ends up at most of the time because it's clean all the way up to 3200. It can even be squeaked higher. There are times that I will purposely set it for 200 or 400, but that's just out of habit. With the K-X it simply doesn't matter.

I will now be hating life if I have to go back to a camera that I have to worry about ISO.

yeatzee · 03-24-2010, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by khaz0r

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

My bad, I didn't realize your from australia. Here in the US the Pentax FA 50mm costs ~$350 (roughly the same as the canon 50mm F/1.4 here), and the FA 35mm is discontinued therefore not fair to pair up against similar but in production lenses. Also the FA 35 smokes them optically.

yeatzee · 03-24-2010, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Internetpilot

In my experience the only people who post on forums that they don't care if their camera can do high ISO are people who have cameras that can't do high ISO (at least not very well). I know because I used to be one of those people!

Now that I have the K-X, I still don't worry or care about ISO, but that's because I don't have to worry about it anymore. Most of the time it's on auto with a range from 200-3200. I don't care what it ends up at most of the time because it's clean all the way up to 3200. It can even be squeaked higher. There are times that I will purposely set it for 200 or 400, but that's just out of habit. With the K-X it simply doesn't matter.
I will now be hating life if I have to go back to a camera that I have to worry about ISO.

Two key points....
I dont need to say anything for the first but the second:
Thats not true at all. I don't care what DSLR you use IQ when using ISO 200 will always be better than at 400. Likewise IQ will always be better at ISO 400 than 800. So yes it simply does matter even with the K-x....

er1kksen · 03-25-2010, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by yeatzee

Two key points....
I dont need to say anything for the first but the second:
Thats not true at all. I don't care what DSLR you use IQ when using ISO 200 will always be better than at 400. Likewise IQ will always be better at ISO 400 than 800. So yes it simply does matter even with the K-x....

...and that's why I normally leave mine set to ISO 100, because the image quality there (false low ISO with some fancy histogram tricks=amazing) is just so good. But the point is that while ISO 100 and 200 may be better than 1600 and 3200, those higher ISOs are now comfortable to use. It always surprises me when I get done working an image that I thought was probably at ISO 200 and I check and discover that it's actually an ISO 800 or 1600 image. K20D, 40D, E-330... none of them gave me those surprises. Usually more on the lines of "why is the noise so bad in this exposure at only ISO 400?" (and I know how to expose for a clean file).

rawr · 03-25-2010, 10:12 AM

I'll just leave this here.... the top 4 APS-C equivalent cameras in the DXOMark RAW sensor database. Overall, and by category.

derived from dxomark.com, via photo.net

It doesn't cover all the various camera features etc, but DXOMark does tell a lot about IQ.

er1kksen · 03-25-2010, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by rawr

I'll just leave this here.... the top 4 APS-C equivalent cameras in the DXOMark RAW sensor database. Overall, and by category.

derived from dxomark.com, via photo.net

It doesn't cover all the various camera features etc, but DXOMark does tell a lot about IQ.

While I don't place a lot of stock in DxOmark's numeric ratings (the charts are far more useful), it is worth noting that the D90, D5000, and K-x, all of which share the same sensor with minor variations in data-path circuitry, truly dominate the APS-C ratings.

However, by my own evaluations, the noise from the 7D/T2i sensor is easier to deal with by a small margin. The T2i isn't on this chart, but it was recently added and does quite well on DxOmark, so I wouldn't call it a smashing victory in this comparison.

rawr · 03-25-2010, 11:19 AM

Agreed, there's not a lot between the K-x and the 7D and even the 550D. The respectable performance of the K-x across all criteria is just worth noting in the context of this thread, I guess.

Canon 550D:
65.6 Overall
11.6 Dynamic Range
22 Colour Depth
807 Low-light ISO.

I did LOL hard at the DXOMark scores of the [full-frame] Leica M9 though:

68.6 Overall
11.7 Dynamic Range
22.5 Colour Depth
884 Low-light ISO.

Not good for the price.

er1kksen · 03-25-2010, 11:36 AM

Not good according to DxOmark, perhaps, but it still delivers excellent image quality. It certainly outresolves any APS-C sensor to date, and even if it's only around the same as the upper-crop APS-C offerings in terms of DR, color depth, and noise, the fact that it accepts M-mount lenses with no crop factor makes all the difference for some.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Field review states: K-7 AF better overall than Canon 550D	Noisychip	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	08-23-2010 12:29 PM
Pentax K7 vs Canon T2i(550D)	rohit anupoju	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	05-03-2010 05:29 PM
Kx high ISO wins against Canon 550D / T2i	cyy47	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	04-07-2010 10:08 PM
Pentax K20D vs. Canon 550D	cloudswimmer	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	03-31-2010 07:17 AM
Canon EOS 550D with full manual control and 1080p 30 FPS. Firmware update time now?	netrex	Video Recording and Processing	17	02-10-2010 12:13 PM

03-24-2010, 04:14 AM	#31
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	I do think that the K7 should be on your list. The high iso isn't bad. I feel comfortable shooting iso 1600 on a regular basis and 3200 if I'm not going to print too big. The video is really nice. As far as video goes, you are better off going with older manual focus lenses anyway. Newer lenses without good manual focusing features (read the CAnon primes you mentioned) will be very difficult to use with video. Not sure about the lens prices in Australia. In the US, for equivalent quality lenses, Pentax is at or below Canon's prices. Not certain that those lenses mentioned will be particularly fast focusing either. Where you get into faster focusing is the upper end, ring driven USM lenses, everyone of which will run you better than a thousand dollars.

03-24-2010, 07:46 AM	#32
tokyoso Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Tokyo Photos: Albums Posts: 723	Originally posted by khaz0r 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 What ya mean? the lenses were probably cheap back then.

03-24-2010, 07:56 AM	#33
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by khaz0r At first, I did some thorough research as I usually do before purchasing something pricey... What I did not realise at that time was how expensive the lenses were... haha When I did my (extensive) research before buying my first dSLR two years ago, I was lead to Pentax and the K20D precisely because the lenses I wanted (10-17, 18-250, 50/1.4) cost less from Pentax than comparable lenses from any other firm. Lens prices aren't exactly kept secret. Since then I've bought ONE new lens and MANY old lenses. You needn't buy the latest and greatest from any camera/lens maker. Get what you need that will do what you want. Even LBA can be managed.

03-24-2010, 10:31 AM	#34
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	Originally posted by khaz0r 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... Unfortunately that's true... What you save on a body, you gonna loose 2X the same amount (if not more) on every quality Pentax lens... Hoya, for some obscure reason, thinks that they can charge big-boy's prices... Instead they should expand their lens lineup and fix the damned SDM... Having done some really extensive prices comparison lately as I was considering getting back to Pentax... I'd suggest going with Canon... You won't loose anything besides SR, and you'll recover the price difference after first "real" lens purchase... But please stay clear of the 50/1.8... it's a piece of crap... If you gonna get the 35/2 (I would) get the 85/1.8 instead of a 50..

03-24-2010, 11:03 AM	#35
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	I think the big area where Pentax still has a price advantage is with higher end zooms. If you compare the DA 16-50 to the Canon 17-55 (B and H prices), the Canon is 300 dollars more. The same is true if you compare the 50-135 to the 70-200 zooms out there. The 50 f1.8 from Canon is not worth buying. Sure, it is one hundred dollars, but it suffers in so many regards, you are far better saving a little and buying the Canon 50 mm f1.4 if you go that route. Just remember when comparing prices to compare apples to apples. It is a mistake to compare an entry level prime to a much better lens from another company.

03-24-2010, 01:07 PM	#36
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	I feel there's a lot of unecessary 50mm f1.8 hate here. Yes, it's cheaply constructed, and no, it's not terribly sharp wide-open... but it's a great lens to learn with and if you know what you're doing you can most certainly get excellent results from it. Based on all the excellent photographs in the world taken by those who could only afford the 1.8 instead of the 1.4, I'd say it's certainly worth buying for many.

03-24-2010, 02:36 PM	#37
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	Originally posted by er1kksen Based on all the excellent photographs in the world taken by those who could only afford the 1.8 instead of the 1.4, I'd say it's certainly worth buying for many. Only if you can get the original, MK1 version...

03-24-2010, 04:06 PM	#38
Internetpilot Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: NE Florida Posts: 130	In my experience the only people who post on forums that they don't care if their camera can do high ISO are people who have cameras that can't do high ISO (at least not very well). I know because I used to be one of those people! Now that I have the K-X, I still don't worry or care about ISO, but that's because I don't have to worry about it anymore. Most of the time it's on auto with a range from 200-3200. I don't care what it ends up at most of the time because it's clean all the way up to 3200. It can even be squeaked higher. There are times that I will purposely set it for 200 or 400, but that's just out of habit. With the K-X it simply doesn't matter. I will now be hating life if I have to go back to a camera that I have to worry about ISO.

03-24-2010, 09:37 PM	#39
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by khaz0r DWI - Australia wide delivery - Digital Cameras, Digital SLR, Video and Camcorders online store is where I am quoting the prices from.. My bad, I didn't realize your from australia. Here in the US the Pentax FA 50mm costs ~$350 (roughly the same as the canon 50mm F/1.4 here), and the FA 35mm is discontinued therefore not fair to pair up against similar but in production lenses. Also the FA 35 smokes them optically.

03-24-2010, 09:42 PM	#40
yeatzee Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Temecula Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,675	Originally posted by Internetpilot *In my experience* the only people who post on forums that they don't care if their camera can do high ISO are people who have cameras that can't do high ISO (at least not very well). I know because I used to be one of those people! Now that I have the K-X, I still don't worry or care about ISO, but that's because I don't have to worry about it anymore. Most of the time it's on auto with a range from 200-3200. I don't care what it ends up at most of the time because it's clean all the way up to 3200. It can even be squeaked higher. *There are times that I will purposely set it for 200 or 400, but that's just out of habit. With the K-X it simply doesn't matter.* I will now be hating life if I have to go back to a camera that I have to worry about ISO. Two key points.... I dont need to say anything for the first but the second: Thats not true at all. I don't care what DSLR you use IQ when using ISO 200 will always be better than at 400. Likewise IQ will always be better at ISO 400 than 800. So yes it simply does matter even with the K-x....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-25-2010, 07:09 AM	#41
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Originally posted by yeatzee Two key points.... I dont need to say anything for the first but the second: Thats not true at all. I don't care what DSLR you use IQ when using ISO 200 will always be better than at 400. Likewise IQ will always be better at ISO 400 than 800. So yes it simply does matter even with the K-x.... ...and that's why I normally leave mine set to ISO 100, because the image quality there (false low ISO with some fancy histogram tricks=amazing) is just so good. But the point is that while ISO 100 and 200 may be better than 1600 and 3200, those higher ISOs are now comfortable to use. It always surprises me when I get done working an image that I thought was probably at ISO 200 and I check and discover that it's actually an ISO 800 or 1600 image. K20D, 40D, E-330... none of them gave me those surprises. Usually more on the lines of "why is the noise so bad in this exposure at only ISO 400?" (and I know how to expose for a clean file).

03-25-2010, 10:12 AM	#42
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	I'll just leave this here.... the top 4 APS-C equivalent cameras in the DXOMark RAW sensor database. Overall, and by category. derived from dxomark.com, via photo.net It doesn't cover all the various camera features etc, but DXOMark does tell a lot about IQ.

03-25-2010, 10:29 AM	#43
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Originally posted by rawr I'll just leave this here.... the top 4 APS-C equivalent cameras in the DXOMark RAW sensor database. Overall, and by category. derived from dxomark.com, via photo.net It doesn't cover all the various camera features etc, but DXOMark does tell a lot about IQ. While I don't place a lot of stock in DxOmark's numeric ratings (the charts are far more useful), it is worth noting that the D90, D5000, and K-x, all of which share the same sensor with minor variations in data-path circuitry, truly dominate the APS-C ratings. However, by my own evaluations, the noise from the 7D/T2i sensor is easier to deal with by a small margin. The T2i isn't on this chart, but it was recently added and does quite well on DxOmark, so I wouldn't call it a smashing victory in this comparison.

03-25-2010, 11:19 AM	#44
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Agreed, there's not a lot between the K-x and the 7D and even the 550D. The respectable performance of the K-x across all criteria is just worth noting in the context of this thread, I guess. Canon 550D: 65.6 Overall 11.6 Dynamic Range 22 Colour Depth 807 Low-light ISO. I did LOL hard at the DXOMark scores of the [full-frame] Leica M9 though: 68.6 Overall 11.7 Dynamic Range 22.5 Colour Depth 884 Low-light ISO. Not good for the price.

03-25-2010, 11:36 AM	#45
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Not good according to DxOmark, perhaps, but it still delivers excellent image quality. It certainly outresolves any APS-C sensor to date, and even if it's only around the same as the upper-crop APS-C offerings in terms of DR, color depth, and noise, the fact that it accepts M-mount lenses with no crop factor makes all the difference for some.