On Apr 13, 2010, at 5:29 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
Ok, so we're all having fun with the inexpensive little Pentax that
has this annoying habit of producing fine images. Why is that? Is
the sensor and electronics that much better? I'm just curious. It's
been a while since one of the low end cameras caused such a fuss.
(The colors have been an amusing touch as well.)
I'll start off with the short answer:
The K-x doesn't have any major flaws. It pretty much does everything
somewhere between good enough and surprisingly well. Despite a couple
of missing features (a front dial wheel and focus point lights) the UI
is very good, and in some ways better than my K20. It is small and
light enough that it is easy to carry with me. And, to be honest,
there is something childishly fun about taking professional quality
pictures with a camera that looks like it came from Toys R Us.
Every so often a product comes out that performs way beyond it's price
range. It generally doesn't have a lot of features, and it's generally
marketed as an entry level product, yet it ends up being bought by a
large number of people that could make full use of much higher end
items. Two of these that I do, or have, owned are my NAD 3020 amp and
the Ninja 250 that I owned for a while. The K-x nails this sweet
spot. As far as performance goes, it's a pretty decent $700 camera,
that sells for $500.
Now, for the long answer:
I will say that Pentax is missing a HUGE opportunity here. They
should have the K-x in as many colors as they can, in as many stores
as they can. They should also cut the cost to the point that they are
just barely making a profit just to get their name out there. I was
talking cameras tonight and someone asked "Isn't Pentax the company
with the foveon sensors?".
I bought the K-x for it's high ISO ability. I used replacing my K100
as a second body as an excuse.
My gut feeling is that in good light, below ISO 200 it would be very
hard to see the difference between the images from my K20 and my K-x.
(I have a hunch that up to maybe a 20x30 enlargement, my K100 would
actually make the best images.)
I think that between ISO 400 and 800, the K20 actually makes superior
images.
Above ISO 800, the K-x simply rocks. So, if I'm shooting indoors,
available light, I use the K-x.
I like to always have a camera handy, just in case a shot presents
itself. The K-x has good enough image quality at all ISOs. It the
same size and has a better UI than my K100 and a lot smaller than the
K20. It simply ends up being the camera within arms reach on 80% of my
opportunistic photos. Between it being the easiest camera to have
handy, and the best high ISO, it ends up being the camera I use most
of the time.
The one fly in the ointment is the "double image" problem. I don't
know whether it is mirror slap, a resonance of the sensor to the SR,
or what, but there seem to be a few documentable cases of it. I
suspect that there are far more clueless people who are blaming
problems caused by them not being able to hold a camera properly on it.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
