[Rondec]

I guess I think the kx has the better sensor, but the K20 feels better in my hands. I shot with my brother's k2000 (same body style) and have to say that it just didn't click with me -- not uncomfortable, just didn't feel good in the same way that I can shoot for several hours with the K20. Probably best to search things out and see what feels good to you -- to me that is the most important thing, more important than high iso. Ergonomics is so individual-specific. Something that is perfect for me, will feel large or small or clunky to somone else, at the same time, it makes all the difference in the world to being able to shoot long term without being irritated and frustrated with your camera.

[GeneV]

IMO the K20D + K-x is a killer combo because they have different strengths. I bought the K-x for its small size and leading-edge ISO performance, but I love the feel of the K20D in my hands. It"s a beautifully built camera and extremely well engineered. As nice as the K-x is in some ways, the K20D remains my favourite.

I agree with that post 100%. This is a killer combo. I find the K20d to have better IQ at lower ISO. It also has a true ISO 100, which is gorgeous. I also like the handling, SR and controls of the bigger body. However, the K-x is a marvelous tool for the things it does best. I've made a similar comparison before, but having both is like having both a big SLR loaded with Kodachrome and an inconspicuous rangefinder camera loaded with Tri-X (except in color) in film days.

[bnorikane]

...

DPreveiw, a noteworthy reviewer of cameras (Google them) gave the K20d 2 stops of advantage for SR, but gave the Kx only 1 stop of advantage for its SR. You can read their tests at their website if you wish. I did not give the advantage to the K20d.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE111

You should not put too much weight on the numeric rating from DPreview's SR test. SR tests in reviews are not very accurate at predicting what your results will be. Most of them are not comparable review to review or camera to camera. None of them reproduce the range of conditions that affect camera shake.

Read the DPreview test procedure. The reviewer holds the camera with one hand; one run at each speed with SR on and one with SR off. The results will depend on the reviewer and will vary over time, even with the same reviewer. Results will vary with different focal lengths, focus distances, lens weights as well. DPreview only tests one setup - one lens, one FL, one photographer, one distance.

I'm not saying that the DRreview SR tests are worthless. They do the best that they can, but they cannot test all the scenarios. They are much better than nothing, but just don't put so much weight on them. The reality is, your mileage will vary - a lot.

Also the DPreview test was done with the original Kx firmware, and the newer versions have improved some aspects of SR.

I don't have a k20d, but my kx surprises me with SR at longer focal lengths, which is supposed to be a weakness of in-body SR compared to in-lens. I get over 3 stops improvement at 250mm. but I would not say that kx SR is good to over 3 stops in other conditions. Just that with my very best holding technique, with my 18-250, I can use 1/30s, if I have to. I don't get that much improvement with other lens or shorter FL.

for more info on Kx SR testing, check these threads:

Can't remember about SR review: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

DPR SR Testing ? [Page 4]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Good luck with your decision!

my 2 cents - If I loved a camera as much you love your K20d, I'd buy a lens for it, instead of a Kx. That would extend your pleasure. You may find that something on the Kx bothers you - smaller viewfinder, single dial, smaller size, no TAV - whatever. But you know the K20d fits you perfectly, that is worth a lot.

[er1kksen]

My two cents here: The difference in IQ between the K-x and K20D isn't just the noise numbers or the amount you see at default. I could take two shots at ISO 1600 or even 800, one with the K20D, and one with the K-x, and open them up in lightroom and the K-x shot looks only barely better than the K20D. The difference is when you actually start to work with the files: the K20D turns to sandpaper if you try to do anything with the shadows, whereas the K-x has usable data available. To me, that's the big difference between the K-x and K20D at high ISO.

At low ISO, contrary to the experiences of many others, I still prefer the K-x. The amount of detail captured is barely different, and the K-x again just has more usable data. The shadows in the K20D are pretty limited in what you can do with them, while in the K-x you can get a nasty-HDR-esque image (not that you'd want to, right?) without any noticeable degradation of technical image quality. And despite its being an artificial low ISO (which have usually sucked in the past), ISO 100 on the K-x is my favorite ISO due to something wierd the K-x does to maintain highlight range while delivering incredibly clean shadows.

I guess what it comes down to is limitations: working with files from the K20D, I had to constantly be conscious of working within the limitations of the image data, at any ISO. With the K-x the limitations rarely reveal themselves at low ISO. I feel freer than ever and it stimulates my creativity.

[distudio]

At low ISO, contrary to the experiences of many others, I still prefer the K-x. The amount of detail captured is barely different, and the K-x again just has more usable data. The shadows in the K20D are pretty limited in what you can do with them, while in the K-x you can get a nasty-HDR-esque image (not that you'd want to, right?) without any noticeable degradation of technical image quality. And despite its being an artificial low ISO (which have usually sucked in the past), ISO 100 on the K-x is my favorite ISO due to something wierd the K-x does to maintain highlight range while delivering incredibly clean shadows.

I guess what it comes down to is limitations: working with files from the K20D, I had to constantly be conscious of working within the limitations of the image data, at any ISO. With the K-x the limitations rarely reveal themselves at low ISO. I feel freer than ever and it stimulates my creativity.

I'll add my 2c and make it 4, I feel pretty much the same way, the K-x has allowed me to be more creative in my photography despite the "advanced semi-pro" features of the K20D and I also find that it also offers better IQ at lower ISO than the K20D (I do often push my RAW files a bit).

[Jewelltrail]

zxaar if you already have k20d and can live with keeping yourself below iso1600 then there is no point in buying kx.
it would be better to spend money on lense.

At this moment, anticipating the IRS direct deposit. I am leaning towards your opinion here. But, I could be swayed. especially with RAWR's mention of DXO's imminent release of the Ks sensor's score. Thanks.

Igilligan: In my opinion, that would have been a mistake... I have the K20 and was ready to sell everything and go to Canikon with a body and a couple of lenses...
Thank goodness for the K-x! It has kept my hope for Hoya-Pentax alive... I could have never afforded the K7, but I needed more out of my camera than the K20 was giving me for my ever faster kids.

Well, well, then thank the camera gods for the Kx, if only because it has kept your charming self here, at Pentax Forums, where it belongs. Gus, seriously, I am glad you did not jump ship--you would have been missed, big time! But, help me out here--ok? Some of the nicest shots of kids I have seen here come form you and your Helios!!! (Speaking of Gods) I am set with Pentax, even with the K20d's performance, and have always loved the shots I got of kids, whether with fast AF glass or with the classic old, manual focus primes. I have placed another check mark in the Kx column though, your opinion carrying what it does here. Thanks Gus!

Rondec I guess I think the Kx has the better sensor, but the K20 feels better in my hands. I shot with my brother's k2000 (same body style) and have to say that it just didn't click with me -- not uncomfortable, just didn't feel good in the same way that I can shoot for several hours with the K20. Probably best to search things out and see what feels good to you -- to me that is the most important thing, more important than high iso. Ergonomics is so individual-specific. Something that is perfect for me, will feel large or small or clunky to somone else, at the same time, it makes all the difference in the world to being able to shoot long term without being irritated and frustrated with your camera.

Yes, some excellent points. I do not plan to purchase the Kx to replace most of my shooting, and, for better or worse, already feel the Kx will in no way satisfy my hands appreciation for well-crafted technology. I have a niche application in mind for the Kx, one which will only employ it on a part-time basis. Thanks.

GeneV: I've made a similar comparison before, but having both is like having both a big SLR loaded with Kodachrome and an inconspicuous rangefinder camera loaded with Tri-X (except in color) in film days.

Now here is a simile which will resonate throughout this forum--cool. Thanks.

bnorikane: You should not put too much weight on the numeric rating from DPreview's SR test. SR tests in reviews are not very accurate at predicting what your results will be. Most of them are not comparable review to review or camera to camera. None of them reproduce the range of conditions that affect camera shake.

You are right, weighting anything too heftily is not wise, and my statistical methodology courses from way back will not allow it anyway. But as tests go, theirs is good, with methods consistently applied. The numbers shown there, without running any complicated regression analysis, point to a statistical difference in performance between the two cameras in SR. And I also agree with you, their assessments are on the conservative side, as they should be, since I can get 4 stops of advantage with my K20.

er1kksen: the K20D turns to sandpaper if you try to do anything with the shadows,

This is not my experience with my K20, but I do not doubt yours.

er1kksen: With the K-x the limitations rarely reveal themselves at low ISO. I feel freer than ever and it stimulates my creativity.

Hmmm, you are clearly encamped in Gus' Kx school--you guys are not making this any easier on me: it is great to hear form happy KXers! But, to be honest, I would not say I have ever felt limited with my K20's output, not at all.

distudio: I'll add my 2c and make it 4, I feel pretty much the same way, the K-x has allowed me to be more creative in my photography despite the "advanced semi-pro" features of the K20D and I also find that it also offers better IQ at lower ISO than the K20D (I do often push my RAW files a bit).

Thank you, very much. Frank opinions like these are all being internalized and weighted. I had not heard, before these last 2 posts, about the unleashing of creativity which accompanies shooting the Kx--fascinating.


Once again, THANK YOU, EVERYONE!! I still have some time to decide, but it sure was great having all of these brains congregated here, to help me.

[fccwpe]

I am considering buying a Kx. I currently shoot with the K20d, and love the camera. It serves me especially well with landscape shots. But, for the Kx, I had other plans. I wanted to utilize its high ISO ability, not just for indoor, low light shots, but for subjects outdoors which are moving. And this brings me to my area of concern and purpose for this thread.

In a nutshell, will I be better off with the Kx than with the K20d? Reading throughout the web, I get varied opinions. And, trusting my eyes I do see an advantage for the Kx, over the K20, for higher ISO. But, is it really an advantage? DPreview, as respected as any of these evaluative/comparative camera sites are, points out the K20d's Shake Reduction system returns a full stop of advantage over the Kx: 2 stops for k20 SR; 1 stop for Kx SR. I read their studies and the methodology seems sound--I have to believe their results are valid.

So, back to the original question, is the Kx actually going to give me any advantages over my K20 for the purpose I have in mind? Part of the answer would depend upon just how much better the Kx actually performs @ high ISO, of course. But, even before I begin to compare, I have to literally put the K20d +1 with its better SR system. I have not shot with the Kx, but plenty here have. Even more interesting, I think, will be advice form those shooters who use both cameras.

I actually use the K20D for the faster wildlife shots and the Kx for landscape and People/portrait shots and it works well!

[khardur]

I don't have the K20D or the Kx.

But your question was about shooting outdoor subjects which are moving. Shake reduction will not help freeze moving subjects. So I'm guessing the idea is to use the K-x at higher ISO's (that on the K20D aren't available or maybe would be unusable noise?) so you can get faster shutter speeds to freeze action. So I would say if the K-x is that much better high ISO to noise ratio then it's probably a good choice.

[Jewelltrail]

Khardr:I don't have the K20D or the Kx.

But your question was about shooting outdoor subjects which are moving. Shake reduction will not help freeze moving subjects. So I'm guessing the idea is to use the K-x at higher ISO's (that on the K20D aren't available or maybe would be unusable noise?) so you can get faster shutter speeds to freeze action. So I would say if the K-x is that much better high ISO to noise ratio then it's probably a good choice.

I discussed this, in the 3rd post of this thread.

jewelltrail: I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying. But I do understand that, for example, a shot @ f4, 1/400th, iso 3200 is, for exposure purposes, equal to a shot @ f4, 1/200th, iso 1600. However, for freezing moving action, the first example may be more effective in freezing subject movement because it has a faster shutter speed. So, 1 stop better in iso performance is not necessarily offset by 1 stop better performance in SR. I understand that much for sure. The speed of the subject, as wel as other factors, needs to be taken into account as well.

[edhombre]

I find that in use the k-x performs noticably better in low light... ISO 3200 looks gorgeous to my eyes and iso 6400 is more than fine if exposed correctly. Auto focus is MUCH better as well...

I know I've posted this before but this shot at ISO 4500 is really something else in my book. From Raw using Lightroom. Just default NR



There's no way you could have done that with a K20d. Look at the detail on her skin and face on the full size version... http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwaring/4106278339/

There's some other example of gigs I've shot as well... mainly at 6400. Heavily processed in lightoom.

Soundmill 6th Birthday Party! - a set on Flickr
Holoman - Pentax k-x High ISO - a set on Flickr (previously posted)

[dcmsox2004]

howdy neighbor.... i've had my k200d for quite some time... loved the heft and feel to it, and the weather seals gave me more confidence in shooting in less than ideal conditions.... i purchased my k-x before xmas... and in the fwiw amateur estimation department... the af is faster and more accurate, extended useable iso range and images is superior... however, yesteday, i was out with the k-x at a local beach, it began to rain/sleet/hail a bit... and i ran like hell back to my car.... (needed the exercise!!)..... bottom line, love the improved capabilities of the k-x, but miss having the weather sealing benefits and the 'feel' of the k200d..... as many have said before... if the k-x were weather sealed.... costing just a few more bucks to consumers.... it'd be even more popular than it is....
dave m.... in overcast r.i.

[Jewelltrail]

edhombre: I find that in use the k-x performs noticably better in low light... ISO 3200 looks gorgeous to my eyes and iso 6400 is more than fine if exposed correctly. Auto focus is MUCH better as well...

I know I've posted this before but this shot at ISO 4500 is really something else in my book. From Raw using Lightroom. Just default NR

Ed, thank you, very much. This post is one of the more helpful ones I received in this thread. I downloaded the full-sized, original version of this pic--the only way to view high ISO really, if you want to evaluate & compare.

What I see is much more aggressive noise reduction used than what my K20 uses--by far. In fact, it looks like Pentax has taken a more Nikon-like approach to noise,whereas the K20 is pretty much hands off. What I liked about the K20, is it allows me to PP my noise to taste. With the K20, I've had excellent results @ high ISO, especially if I use 3rd party NR.

This is a nice shot--don't get me wrong--with a nice trade off between NR & detail. What I love about this shot, is it truly gibes me a standard which I can apply to my high ISO K20 shots. Bottom line, IMO, is the Kx images, at first glance, do look a lot better than the K20--but, I think it is mostly due to the excellent NR in the Kx, though I'm sure the Kx performs better as well.

I am going to stay with my K20d, and put my cash aside for some glass. The next body ought to be very interesting indeed. Thanks again.

[Jewelltrail]

DCMsox2004: howdy neighbor.... i've had my k200d for quite some time... loved the heft and feel to it, and the weather seals gave me more confidence in shooting in less than ideal conditions.... i purchased my k-x before xmas... and in the fwiw amateur estimation department... the af is faster and more accurate, extended useable iso range and images is superior... however, yesteday, i was out with the k-x at a local beach, it began to rain/sleet/hail a bit... and i ran like hell back to my car.... (needed the exercise!!)..... bottom line, love the improved capabilities of the k-x, but miss having the weather sealing benefits and the 'feel' of the k200d..... as many have said before... if the k-x were weather sealed.... costing just a few more bucks to consumers.... it'd be even more popular than it is....
dave m.... in overcast r.i.

Yes, Howdy neighbor as well. I agree with your assessment of the confidence weather sealing instills in the owner. It must be great to have the faster AF, but I am actually fine with the AF on the K20d, especially since I do a lot with MF. When I do go to AF, it seems like light speed.

If you had to qualitatively rate the improved ISO performance of the Kx over the K20, what would you say it is: using "stops." Thanks--this post too is excellent

[dcmsox2004]

i don't have the k20... i had/still have my k200d..... which is sitting tucked away in a dry box.... i'm not much into quantitative assessments.. because i'm not that analytical (smart)about cameras... in an amateurish take on the differences between the k200d and the k-x...
usuable high iso shots (1600) are superior to anything my k200d could produce... no knocks on the k200d... just does not have the latest technology available from pentax to accomplish this task.... i'm still amazed at what these engineers can come up with.... stunning....
in a well lit day situation... the k200d could produce nice pics...... and 'action' shots.... i.e., birds in flight... was well up to the task.... i'm not an indoor shooter... but on the rare occasion, the k-x has beaten the old k200d with ease.... also, the autofocus 'seems' much faster and accurate than the k200d...... i also like the lens calibration functionality for da lenses on the k-x.... especially when using the 16-45 lens.....
all in all, the k-x has been a pleasant surprise.... love the improved capabilities in higher iso pics and refined af .... but i DO miss the heft of the k200d and not having weather seals makes me pay close attention to the weather conditions... ( i always keep a double zip gallon freezer bag in my pocket just in case)....... sorry for not being more definitive in tech terms... all i know is what i see with mine own eyes.... the results have been most satisfactory....
p.s. it seems pentax still meanders along the way..... the k-7 is too $$ for me.... the k-x is the best in its' class imho.... but if they only added the weather seals.. it would kick the competition to the curb.... lookin' forward to spring here in the ocean state... regards, dave m

[Internetpilot]

But your question was about shooting outdoor subjects which are moving. Shake reduction will not help freeze moving subjects. So I'm guessing the idea is to use the K-x at higher ISO's (that on the K20D aren't available or maybe would be unusable noise?) so you can get faster shutter speeds to freeze action. So I would say if the K-x is that much better high ISO to noise ratio then it's probably a good choice.

I'm surprised it took a whole page of responses for this answer to come up. I agree. When shooting moving subjects, SR or IBIS or OIS can actually be a detriment.

The only Pentax I own is a K-X, but I have owned a Panasonic which has far superior OIS to the K-X's in-body SR, and I'm getting FAR better action/motion shots with the K-X because of the trickle down effect from being able to shoot at much higher ISO while still providing clean, superior results.