Pentax K-X, best 1.5 crop sensor going?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Feb 28, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Detail retention at higher ISO's seems to be better than other crop
    cameras out there and noise control is reasonable. I think it would
    make a very good, compact low-light camera, coupled to a fast lens.
    Pity the 35mm f2.0 was discontinued and remaining samples are very
    expensive.
    RichA, Feb 28, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:28:23 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    wrote:

    > Detail retention at higher ISO's seems to be better than other crop
    >cameras out there and noise control is reasonable. I think it would
    >make a very good, compact low-light camera, coupled to a fast lens.



    The Canon EOS 7D and Nikon D300s are way ahead of the K-7 for low
    noise at high ISOs. The Nikon D300 has fewer pixels than the K-7 but
    the Canon EOS 7D has more.

    (Please don't be picky, excluding Canon because of the 1.6X sensor!)


    >Pity the 35mm f2.0 was discontinued and remaining samples are very
    >expensive.



    Most of the formerly excellent Pentax lens range has gone. The few
    that remain have been swamped by average optics made by Tokina,
    another member of the same Hoya Group as Pentax. Those are all
    available for other brands of DSLR, so why buy a Pentax DSLR?

    I suspect that Pentax DSLRs will not be around much longer.
    Bruce, Feb 28, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 28, 5:41 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:28:23 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > Detail retention at higher ISO's seems to be better than other crop
    > >cameras out there and noise control is reasonable.  I think it would
    > >make a very good, compact low-light camera, coupled to a fast lens.

    >
    > The Canon EOS 7D and Nikon D300s are way ahead of the K-7 for low
    > noise at high ISOs.  The Nikon D300 has fewer pixels than the K-7 but
    > the Canon EOS 7D has more.


    True, but this entry level thing is better than the K7. The Nikon
    D5000 is notably better than the warmed over D300s (I've got the D300
    now) and the K-X is better than the D5000.
    >
    > (Please don't be picky, excluding Canon because of the 1.6X sensor!)
    >
    > >Pity the 35mm f2.0 was discontinued and remaining samples are very
    > >expensive.

    >
    > Most of the formerly excellent Pentax lens range has gone.  The few
    > that remain have been swamped by average optics made by Tokina,
    > another member of the same Hoya Group as Pentax.  Those are all
    > available for other brands of DSLR, so why buy a Pentax DSLR?
    >
    > I suspect that Pentax DSLRs will not be around much longer.


    Could be.
    RichA, Feb 28, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Feb 28, 5:41 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:28:23 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> > Detail retention at higher ISO's seems to be better than other crop
    >> >cameras out there and noise control is reasonable.  I think it would
    >> >make a very good, compact low-light camera, coupled to a fast lens.

    >>
    >> The Canon EOS 7D and Nikon D300s are way ahead of the K-7 for low
    >> noise at high ISOs.  The Nikon D300 has fewer pixels than the K-7 but
    >> the Canon EOS 7D has more.

    >
    >True, but this entry level thing is better than the K7.


    Wishing doesn't make it so.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Feb 28, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 28, 2:15 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > RichA  <> wrote:
    > >On Feb 28, 5:41 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:28:23 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    > >> wrote:

    >
    > >> > Detail retention at higher ISO's seems to be better than other crop
    > >> >cameras out there and noise control is reasonable. I think it would
    > >> >make a very good, compact low-light camera, coupled to a fast lens.

    >
    > >> The Canon EOS 7D and Nikon D300s are way ahead of the K-7 for low
    > >> noise at high ISOs. The Nikon D300 has fewer pixels than the K-7 but
    > >> the Canon EOS 7D has more.

    >
    > >True,  but this entry level thing is better than the K7.

    >
    > Wishing doesn't make it so.


    Better in terms of image quality. Read what the owners say in the
    Pentax forum on Dpreview. However, there is one apparently serious
    drawback, it has suffered from some kind of mirror-slap/I.S. failure
    at certain shutter speeds. The cause seems inconclusive, but
    something is wrong with some of them.
    RichA, Feb 28, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article
    <>,
    RichA <> wrote:

    > Better in terms of image quality. Read what the owners say in the
    > Pentax forum on Dpreview.


    that doesn't mean anything. owners of every camera think their choice
    is the best, otherwise they wouldn't have bought it.
    nospam, Feb 28, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Feb 28, 2:15 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >> RichA  <> wrote:
    >> >On Feb 28, 5:41 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:28:23 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >> >> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> > Detail retention at higher ISO's seems to be better than other crop
    >> >> >cameras out there and noise control is reasonable. I think it would
    >> >> >make a very good, compact low-light camera, coupled to a fast lens.

    >>
    >> >> The Canon EOS 7D and Nikon D300s are way ahead of the K-7 for low
    >> >> noise at high ISOs. The Nikon D300 has fewer pixels than the K-7 but
    >> >> the Canon EOS 7D has more.

    >>
    >> >True,  but this entry level thing is better than the K7.

    >>
    >> Wishing doesn't make it so.

    >
    >Better in terms of image quality.


    Wishing doesn't make it so.

    > Read what the owners say in the
    >Pentax forum on Dpreview.


    Why? Do you think that biased reporters who have not done detailed
    and objective tests are credible?

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Feb 28, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 28, 6:13 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > RichA  <> wrote:
    > >On Feb 28, 2:15 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >On Feb 28, 5:41 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:28:23 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    > >> >> wrote:

    >
    > >> >> > Detail retention at higher ISO's seems to be better than other crop
    > >> >> >cameras out there and noise control is reasonable. I think it would
    > >> >> >make a very good, compact low-light camera, coupled to a fast lens..

    >
    > >> >> The Canon EOS 7D and Nikon D300s are way ahead of the K-7 for low
    > >> >> noise at high ISOs. The Nikon D300 has fewer pixels than the K-7 but
    > >> >> the Canon EOS 7D has more.

    >
    > >> >True, but this entry level thing is better than the K7.

    >
    > >> Wishing doesn't make it so.

    >
    > >Better in terms of image quality.

    >
    > Wishing doesn't make it so.
    >
    > >  Read what the owners say in the
    > >Pentax forum on Dpreview.

    >
    > Why?  Do you think that biased reporters who have not done detailed
    > and objective tests are credible?


    No, I think the owners and Dpreview's both show the sensor is top
    notch.
    RichA, Mar 1, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    Peabody Guest

    In article <112a0826-1a5a-43e2-a783-16aedde98057@15g2000yqi
    ..googlegroups.com>, says...

    > Detail retention at higher ISO's seems to be better than
    > other crop cameras out there and noise control is
    > reasonable. I think it would make a very good, compact
    > low-light camera, coupled to a fast lens. Pity the 35mm
    > f2.0 was discontinued and remaining samples are very
    > expensive.


    The DPReview review of the K-X was glowing in its praise.
    For $520 at Amazon for the camera with kit lens, you get
    live view, video, and in-camera HDR. And they said there's
    no better low-light performance this side of full frame.
    That's quite a statement if it really means it's as good as
    the 7D at three times the price.

    Well, of course it's not as good as the 7D in many respects,
    but on paper it does seem to be an excellent value for the
    money, particularly in low light.

    But everyone has these nagging doubts about Pentax being
    able to successfully compete with the big guys.
    Peabody, Mar 1, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Feb 28, 11:49 pm, Peabody <> wrote:
    > In article <112a0826-1a5a-43e2-a783-16aedde98057@15g2000yqi
    > .googlegroups.com>, says...
    >
    >  > Detail retention at higher ISO's seems to be better than
    >  > other crop cameras out there and noise control is
    >  > reasonable.  I think it would make a very good, compact
    >  > low-light camera, coupled to a fast lens. Pity the 35mm
    >  > f2.0 was discontinued and remaining samples are very
    >  > expensive.
    >
    > The DPReview review of the K-X was glowing in its praise.
    > For $520 at Amazon for the camera with kit lens, you get
    > live view, video, and in-camera HDR.  And they said there's
    > no better low-light performance this side of full frame.
    > That's quite a statement if it really means it's as good as
    > the 7D at three times the price.
    >
    > Well, of course it's not as good as the 7D in many respects,
    > but on paper it does seem to be an excellent value for the
    > money, particularly in low light.
    >
    > But everyone has these nagging doubts about Pentax being
    > able to successfully compete with the big guys.


    I just compared the images from it (400 - 3200 ISO) and it does have a
    decided edge on the K7 sensor output when it comes to noise control
    and detail retention. Pentax has done a good job.
    RichA, Mar 1, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Feb 28, 6:13 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >> RichA  <> wrote:
    >> >On Feb 28, 2:15 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >> >On Feb 28, 5:41 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:28:23 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >> >> >> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> >> > Detail retention at higher ISO's seems to be better than other crop
    >> >> >> >cameras out there and noise control is reasonable. I think it would
    >> >> >> >make a very good, compact low-light camera, coupled to a fast lens.

    >>
    >> >> >> The Canon EOS 7D and Nikon D300s are way ahead of the K-7 for low
    >> >> >> noise at high ISOs. The Nikon D300 has fewer pixels than the K-7 but
    >> >> >> the Canon EOS 7D has more.

    >>
    >> >> >True, but this entry level thing is better than the K7.

    >>
    >> >> Wishing doesn't make it so.

    >>
    >> >Better in terms of image quality.

    >>
    >> Wishing doesn't make it so.
    >>
    >> >  Read what the owners say in the
    >> >Pentax forum on Dpreview.

    >>
    >> Why?  Do you think that biased reporters who have not done detailed
    >> and objective tests are credible?

    >
    >No,


    Good.

    > I think the owners


    Biased.

    > and Dpreview's both show the sensor is top
    >notch.


    Too bad that a camera isn't a sensor and that image quality in general
    falls short. Also also remember that you say that DPReview is biased.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Mar 1, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Peabody <> wrote:
    > says...
    >
    > > Detail retention at higher ISO's seems to be better than
    > > other crop cameras out there and noise control is
    > > reasonable. I think it would make a very good, compact
    > > low-light camera, coupled to a fast lens. Pity the 35mm
    > > f2.0 was discontinued and remaining samples are very
    > > expensive.

    >
    >The DPReview review of the K-X was glowing in its praise.


    Nope.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Mar 1, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:29:13 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    wrote:
    >
    >I just compared the images from it (400 - 3200 ISO) and it does have a
    >decided edge on the K7 sensor output when it comes to noise control
    >and detail retention. Pentax has done a good job.



    Or, Pentax has done a bad job with the K-7.
    Bruce, Mar 1, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 1, 3:30 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > RichA  <> wrote:
    > >On Feb 28, 6:13 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >On Feb 28, 2:15 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >> >On Feb 28, 5:41 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:28:23 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    > >> >> >> wrote:

    >
    > >> >> >> > Detail retention at higher ISO's seems to be better than other crop
    > >> >> >> >cameras out there and noise control is reasonable. I think it would
    > >> >> >> >make a very good, compact low-light camera, coupled to a fast lens.

    >
    > >> >> >> The Canon EOS 7D and Nikon D300s are way ahead of the K-7 for low
    > >> >> >> noise at high ISOs. The Nikon D300 has fewer pixels than the K-7 but
    > >> >> >> the Canon EOS 7D has more.

    >
    > >> >> >True, but this entry level thing is better than the K7.

    >
    > >> >> Wishing doesn't make it so.

    >
    > >> >Better in terms of image quality.

    >
    > >> Wishing doesn't make it so.

    >
    > >> > Read what the owners say in the
    > >> >Pentax forum on Dpreview.

    >
    > >> Why? Do you think that biased reporters who have not done detailed
    > >> and objective tests are credible?

    >
    > >No,

    >
    > Good.
    >
    > >  I think the owners

    >
    > Biased.
    >
    > >  and Dpreview's both show the sensor is top
    > >notch.

    >
    > Too bad that a camera isn't a sensor and that image quality in general
    > falls short.  Also also remember that you say that DPReview is biased.
    >
    > --
    > Ray Fischer        
    >  


    I also said, look at the tests, and they point out the camera produces
    good images.
    RichA, Mar 1, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On Mar 1, 3:30 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >> RichA  <> wrote:
    >> >On Feb 28, 6:13 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >> >On Feb 28, 2:15 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >> >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >> >> >On Feb 28, 5:41 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:28:23 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    >> >> >> >> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> >> >> > Detail retention at higher ISO's seems to be better than other crop
    >> >> >> >> >cameras out there and noise control is reasonable. I think it would
    >> >> >> >> >make a very good, compact low-light camera, coupled to a fast lens.

    >>
    >> >> >> >> The Canon EOS 7D and Nikon D300s are way ahead of the K-7 for low
    >> >> >> >> noise at high ISOs. The Nikon D300 has fewer pixels than the K-7 but
    >> >> >> >> the Canon EOS 7D has more.

    >>
    >> >> >> >True, but this entry level thing is better than the K7.

    >>
    >> >> >> Wishing doesn't make it so.

    >>
    >> >> >Better in terms of image quality.

    >>
    >> >> Wishing doesn't make it so.

    >>
    >> >> > Read what the owners say in the
    >> >> >Pentax forum on Dpreview.

    >>
    >> >> Why? Do you think that biased reporters who have not done detailed
    >> >> and objective tests are credible?

    >>
    >> >No,

    >>
    >> Good.
    >>
    >> >  I think the owners

    >>
    >> Biased.
    >>
    >> >  and Dpreview's both show the sensor is top
    >> >notch.

    >>
    >> Too bad that a camera isn't a sensor and that image quality in general
    >> falls short.  Also also remember that you say that DPReview is biased.

    >
    >I also said, look at the tests,


    The tests that reveals the camera's shortcomings.

    > and they point out the camera produces
    >good images.


    In some situations.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Mar 2, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 2, 3:37 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > RichA  <> wrote:
    > >On Mar 1, 3:30 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >On Feb 28, 6:13 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >> >On Feb 28, 2:15 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > >> >> >> RichA <> wrote:
    > >> >> >> >On Feb 28, 5:41 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:28:23 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
    > >> >> >> >> wrote:

    >
    > >> >> >> >> > Detail retention at higher ISO's seems to be better than other crop
    > >> >> >> >> >cameras out there and noise control is reasonable. I think it would
    > >> >> >> >> >make a very good, compact low-light camera, coupled to a fast lens.

    >
    > >> >> >> >> The Canon EOS 7D and Nikon D300s are way ahead of the K-7 for low
    > >> >> >> >> noise at high ISOs. The Nikon D300 has fewer pixels than the K-7 but
    > >> >> >> >> the Canon EOS 7D has more.

    >
    > >> >> >> >True, but this entry level thing is better than the K7.

    >
    > >> >> >> Wishing doesn't make it so.

    >
    > >> >> >Better in terms of image quality.

    >
    > >> >> Wishing doesn't make it so.

    >
    > >> >> > Read what the owners say in the
    > >> >> >Pentax forum on Dpreview.

    >
    > >> >> Why? Do you think that biased reporters who have not done detailed
    > >> >> and objective tests are credible?

    >
    > >> >No,

    >
    > >> Good.

    >
    > >> > I think the owners

    >
    > >> Biased.

    >
    > >> > and Dpreview's both show the sensor is top
    > >> >notch.

    >
    > >> Too bad that a camera isn't a sensor and that image quality in general
    > >> falls short. Also also remember that you say that DPReview is biased.

    >
    > >I also said, look at the tests,

    >
    > The tests that reveals the camera's shortcomings.
    >
    > > and they point out the camera produces
    > >good images.

    >
    > In some situations.
    >
    > --
    > Ray Fischer        
    >  


    My interest is primarily for mostly static image shots requiring
    decent low light performance and some portability from the camera. My
    D300 can do the shots, but isn't very portable. My G1 is very
    portable, but poor at high ISO. At this point, it appears that apart
    from FF (all larger cameras), the Pentax produces the best low light
    shots.
    RichA, Mar 2, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    SMS Guest

    Bruce wrote:

    > Most of the formerly excellent Pentax lens range has gone. The few
    > that remain have been swamped by average optics made by Tokina,
    > another member of the same Hoya Group as Pentax. Those are all
    > available for other brands of DSLR, so why buy a Pentax DSLR?


    I'd avoid all products from the Hoya Group, just on moral grounds, after
    what they are trying to pull with Hoya filter pricing.
    SMS, Mar 2, 2010
    #17
  18. "SMS" <> wrote in message
    news:4b8d56e6$0$1628$...
    > Bruce wrote:
    >
    >> Most of the formerly excellent Pentax lens range has gone. The few
    >> that remain have been swamped by average optics made by Tokina,
    >> another member of the same Hoya Group as Pentax. Those are all
    >> available for other brands of DSLR, so why buy a Pentax DSLR?

    >
    > I'd avoid all products from the Hoya Group, just on moral grounds, after
    > what they are trying to pull with Hoya filter pricing.


    Pentax is owned by Hoya, Tokina is not. Tokina is not a member of the Hoya
    group, just a customer.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Mar 2, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Guest

    nospam wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > RichA <> wrote:
    >
    >> Better in terms of image quality. Read what the owners say in the
    >> Pentax forum on Dpreview.

    >
    > that doesn't mean anything. owners of every camera think their choice
    > is the best, otherwise they wouldn't have bought it.



    Nice one. Maybe one day people will figure this out. :)

    What's most amazing to me is the lengths they will go to defending their
    purchase decisions and to beat down the one they didn't choose. I've
    shot with most of the major brands and as long as you don't have a
    really crappy lens attached, they all make nice prints. Even a couple of
    generations old ones will. Unless you are such a crappy photographer
    you have to try to make a 16X20 print from 1/4 of the frame or find a
    need to shoot at ISO 6400+. Then maybe some models work better than others.

    Stephanie
    , Mar 3, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Mar 3, 1:17 am, "" <> wrote:
    > nospam wrote:
    > > In article
    > > <>,
    > > RichA <> wrote:

    >
    > >> Better in terms of image quality.  Read what the owners say in the
    > >> Pentax forum on Dpreview.

    >
    > > that doesn't mean anything. owners of every camera think their choice
    > > is the best, otherwise they wouldn't have bought it.

    >
    > Nice one. Maybe one day people will figure this out. :)


    Sometimes true, in this case, wrong. A few of them own the K7 and the
    K-X and find the K-X to be better. That's why they wish the K7 had
    the K-X sensor. Get it?
    RichA, Mar 3, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steven M. Scharf

    D-SLR Sensor Resolution and Sensor Size Comparison Size Matters!

    Steven M. Scharf, May 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    5,428
    Georgette Preddy
    May 16, 2004
  2. IMKen
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    852
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Jun 22, 2004
  3. Peabody

    Equivalent crop sensor lenses

    Peabody, Dec 16, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,023
    Paul Furman
    Dec 22, 2009
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    283
    RichA
    Dec 18, 2010
  5. Wally
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    931
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Feb 12, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page