Re: What's up with the K-x?
What's wrong with it? Well, it doesn't have an optical viewfinder for one. At least that's according to the UK magazine 'Digital SLR User' that reviewed the K-x in its December 2009 issue. Surely they couldn't be wrong. Could they? See this link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1370864/K-x.jpg Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:29 -0400, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com 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.) -- Steve Desjardins -- -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
OMG. That must be a little TV set above the LCD screen. On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Brian Walters supera1...@fastmail.fm wrote: What's wrong with it? Well, it doesn't have an optical viewfinder for one. At least that's according to the UK magazine 'Digital SLR User' that reviewed the K-x in its December 2009 issue. Surely they couldn't be wrong. Could they? See this link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1370864/K-x.jpg Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:29 -0400, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com 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.) -- Steve Desjardins -- -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service -- 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. -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
- Original Message - From: Brian Walters Subject: Re: What's up with the K-x? What's wrong with it? Well, it doesn't have an optical viewfinder for one. At least that's according to the UK magazine 'Digital SLR User' that reviewed the K-x in its December 2009 issue. Surely they couldn't be wrong. Could they? See this link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1370864/K-x.jpg Thats rather unbelievable. I suppose that they are doing their reviews without actually getting a camera to look at. William Robb -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
Buttheads...
On 4/15/2010 9:05 AM, Brian Walters wrote:
What's wrong with it?
Well, it doesn't have an optical viewfinder for one.
At least that's according to the UK magazine 'Digital SLR User' that
reviewed the K-x in its December 2009 issue. Surely they couldn't be
wrong. Could they?
See this link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1370864/K-x.jpg
Cheers
Brian
++
Brian Walters
Western Sydney Australia
http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 20:29 -0400, Steven Desjardinsdrd1...@gmail.com
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.)
--
Steve Desjardins
--
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
On 4/15/2010 9:14 AM, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Brian Walters
Subject: Re: What's up with the K-x?
What's wrong with it?
Well, it doesn't have an optical viewfinder for one.
At least that's according to the UK magazine 'Digital SLR User' that
reviewed the K-x in its December 2009 issue. Surely they couldn't be
wrong. Could they?
See this link:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1370864/K-x.jpg
Thats rather unbelievable.
I suppose that they are doing their reviews without actually getting a
camera to look at.
William Robb
Well if it's good enough tor Kennyboy, it's good enough for them.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
It's the Kennyboy syndrome. Being spread by rats? Jack --- On Thu, 4/15/10, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: From: William Robb war...@gmail.com Subject: Re: What's up with the K-x? To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010, 6:14 AM - Original Message - From: Brian Walters Subject: Re: What's up with the K-x? What's wrong with it? Well, it doesn't have an optical viewfinder for one. At least that's according to the UK magazine 'Digital SLR User' that reviewed the K-x in its December 2009 issue. Surely they couldn't be wrong. Could they? See this link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1370864/K-x.jpg Thats rather unbelievable. I suppose that they are doing their reviews without actually getting a camera to look at. William Robb -- 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. -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
See this link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1370864/K-x.jpg Looks like copypaste debris... probably a caption left from a previous review. Dario -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
From: William Robb From: Brian Walters What's wrong with it? Well, it doesn't have an optical viewfinder for one. At least that's according to the UK magazine 'Digital SLR User' that reviewed the K-x in its December 2009 issue. Surely they couldn't be wrong. Could they? See this link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1370864/K-x.jpg Thats rather unbelievable. I suppose that they are doing their reviews without actually getting a camera to look at. And apparently without looking at their own illustrations. -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
2010/4/15 John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com: From: William Robb From: Brian Walters What's wrong with it? Well, it doesn't have an optical viewfinder for one. At least that's according to the UK magazine 'Digital SLR User' that reviewed the K-x in its December 2009 issue. Surely they couldn't be wrong. Could they? See this link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1370864/K-x.jpg Thats rather unbelievable. I suppose that they are doing their reviews without actually getting a camera to look at. And apparently without looking at their own illustrations. No matey, that thingy there above the screen is the built-in flash for backlight situations, it has to fire backwards, that is also why you need to hold the camera above your head! -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
The excellent processing chain Pentax developed for the K20D and K-7 is simply having a field day with the much cleaner Sony sensor. And it's just a great little camera for a remarkably low price. There's nothing else on the market that offers similar performance for anything less than a couple hundred extra (the Sony A500 is the closest comparable camera, and last I checked was $250 more). The K-x is simply a superb camera with very few warts. The only one I consistently see is that the metering is easily confused if run in multi-segment mode and underexposes by a consisten 1/2 stop or so in centre-weighted. -Adam On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com 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.) -- Steve Desjardins -- 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. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- 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.
What's up with the K-x?
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.) -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
On 14/04/2010, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com 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.) It's actually just a pretty decent camera, a combination of physical and performance attributes that make producing a decent image easy and fun. I'll probably get roasted for the following but I think that the decision Pentax took to go with the Samsung sensors in the later DSLRs was a poor one, maybe it got them out of potential insolvency but honestly their image quality was not comparable to the competition. It's such a pity that the K7 doesn't contain better sensor (mainly from and DR, noise and sensitivity perspective), it would really be quite an impressive camera then. -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:04 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 14/04/2010, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com 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.) It's actually just a pretty decent camera, a combination of physical and performance attributes that make producing a decent image easy and fun. I'll probably get roasted for the following but I think that the decision Pentax took to go with the Samsung sensors in the later DSLRs was a poor one, maybe it got them out of potential insolvency but honestly their image quality was not comparable to the competition. It's such a pity that the K7 doesn't contain better sensor (mainly from and DR, noise and sensitivity perspective), it would really be quite an impressive camera then. No roasting:-). But based on what I've seen, I think the K7 sensor is considerably better than the Kx at all but high ISO. And even at high ISO, it renders more detail. Now, I don't have both cameras, so my opinion is based on impressions gleaned from web images, but I'd be surprised if real testing didn't reveal the same. That being said, I think the Kx is a fine camera for the money. It doesn't match my shooting style or needs, so I wouldn't want one, but I applaud the success that Pentax has had with it. Paul -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- 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. -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
I saw the Kx at a store the other day. It had instant appeal when I picked it up. The size and ergonomics made it seem like an optic wonder, that compact toy kids can get that are a telescope, microscope, magnifier, compass, etc. all in one. For the money it seemed like a camera I could see getting for my wife or son, or as a backup. I can't compare sensor/IQ either. Tom C On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:17 PM, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:04 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 14/04/2010, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com 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.) It's actually just a pretty decent camera, a combination of physical and performance attributes that make producing a decent image easy and fun. I'll probably get roasted for the following but I think that the decision Pentax took to go with the Samsung sensors in the later DSLRs was a poor one, maybe it got them out of potential insolvency but honestly their image quality was not comparable to the competition. It's such a pity that the K7 doesn't contain better sensor (mainly from and DR, noise and sensitivity perspective), it would really be quite an impressive camera then. No roasting:-). But based on what I've seen, I think the K7 sensor is considerably better than the Kx at all but high ISO. And even at high ISO, it renders more detail. Now, I don't have both cameras, so my opinion is based on impressions gleaned from web images, but I'd be surprised if real testing didn't reveal the same. That being said, I think the Kx is a fine camera for the money. It doesn't match my shooting style or needs, so I wouldn't want one, but I applaud the success that Pentax has had with it. Paul -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
On 14/04/2010, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: No roasting:-). But based on what I've seen, I think the K7 sensor is considerably better than the Kx at all but high ISO. And even at high ISO, it renders more detail. Now, I don't have both cameras, so my opinion is based on impressions gleaned from web images, but I'd be surprised if real testing didn't reveal the same. That being said, I think the Kx is a fine camera for the money. It doesn't match my shooting style or needs, so I wouldn't want one, but I applaud the success that Pentax has had with it. I'm sure that the K7 has a slight resolution advantage, but as soon as I stitch even just a pair of images the resolution argument is absolutely null and void. These days resolution is easy to achieve, if you absolutely need to capture the image in one shot sure the K7 would have a slight advantage but a top line Canon would do the job far better in every performance metric but physical size. Regarding low ISO shots I'm sure the K-x would have a DR advantage over the K7 (there's just nothing between the K20 and K7 in this regard and I know the K20 has less available DR as I can compare them side by side). The high ISO advantage of the K-x has to be personally experienced to appreciate I expect, the successor to the K7 will hopefully make this performance advantage more apparent. -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
On Apr 13, 2010, at 9:42 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 14/04/2010, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: No roasting:-). But based on what I've seen, I think the K7 sensor is considerably better than the Kx at all but high ISO. And even at high ISO, it renders more detail. Now, I don't have both cameras, so my opinion is based on impressions gleaned from web images, but I'd be surprised if real testing didn't reveal the same. That being said, I think the Kx is a fine camera for the money. It doesn't match my shooting style or needs, so I wouldn't want one, but I applaud the success that Pentax has had with it. I'm sure that the K7 has a slight resolution advantage, but as soon as I stitch even just a pair of images the resolution argument is absolutely null and void. These days resolution is easy to achieve, if you absolutely need to capture the image in one shot sure the K7 would have a slight advantage but a top line Canon would do the job far better in every performance metric but physical size. Regarding low ISO shots I'm sure the K-x would have a DR advantage over the K7 (there's just nothing between the K20 and K7 in this regard and I know the K20 has less available DR as I can compare them side by side). I do have both a K7 and K20, and it's obvious to me that the DR of the K7 is far better. It renders both more shadow detail and highlights and is particularly good on the hot end of the scale. I suspect it has more to do with the rendering firmware than the sensor, but I certainly can't say for sure. Paul The high ISO advantage of the K-x has to be personally experienced to appreciate I expect, the successor to the K7 will hopefully make this performance advantage more apparent. -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- 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. -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
On 14/04/2010, paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: I do have both a K7 and K20, and it's obvious to me that the DR of the K7 is far better. It renders both more shadow detail and highlights and is particularly good on the hot end of the scale. I suspect it has more to do with the rendering firmware than the sensor, but I certainly can't say for sure. The DPR Raw headroom tests seem to bear out your experience, there's 0.6 of a stop more DR available in the K7 according to their testing methodology (which I find pretty lacking in practical terms). Pity I'm never going to own a K7 to be able to directly compare. Currently the only reason I'm keeping the K20D is just in case there's something that I can't possibly shoot using the K-x. -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
Every once in awhile Pentax gets something just 'right' - this is one of those. It is a combination of price, features, usability and image quality. It is certainly getting a stronger look by many of us who would normally look at the higher end bodies, because of the high ISO capability. It is interesting to note that most everyone who has picked one up has been pleasantly surprised with how capable and usable it is. I'm not sure how many K7 users have actually purchased one, but many of us K20 users tend to prefer the K-x (yes, I know I am generalizing - sure seems that way though). -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 5:29:00 PM, you wrote: SD Ok, so we're all having fun with the inexpensive little Pentax that SD has this annoying habit of producing fine images. Why is that? Is SD the sensor and electronics that much better? I'm just curious. It's SD been a while since one of the low end cameras caused such a fuss. SD (The colors have been an amusing touch as well.) SD -- SD Steve Desjardins -- 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.
Re: What's up with the K-x?
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.
