Another help me pick a DSLR.. specific questions inside.

[hawk232]

dpreview K-x review...

The K-x does quite well in this test. It can't quite keep up with the EOS 500D's higher nominal resolution but is on par with the Nikon D5000 and the Olympus. At higher frequencies the Pentax shows some signs of moiré. The Canon produces not only the highest resolution but also the cleanest image in this comparison.

Pentax K-x Review: 27. Compared to (Resolution): Digital Photography Review

The resolution figures of all camera increase when shooting RAW but some gain more than others. Both the Nikon and Pentax improve significantly and in terms of absolute resolution almost catch up with the Canon EOS 500D.

Pentax K-x Review: 28. Compared to (Resolution): Digital Photography Review

That is probably true... so my ENTRY LEVEL pentax takes almost as good of pictures as 2 or three models up from entry level canon and nikon (not familiar with canons lineup and where the 500d fits in, but nikon: 3000, 3100, 5000) and the price reflects it! i got my body, 18-55 and 55-300 lens for only $20 more than the BODY of the nikon (d5000) costs.

scroll down about 3/4 of the way maybe a little more. the comparisons are kx vs k7, kx vs t1i (not entry level) and d5000 (not entry level) Pentax K-x Digital Camera - Full Review - The Imaging Resource!

Note: I am using "not entry level" to mean that this is not the most basic camera in their lineup. I am quite sure that these cameras are still "entry level" when compared with their high end counter parts.

I am also not saying that the kx is the best camera ever. It is without a doubt better in some situations and a bargain for the price. Since i shoot alot of action (boat racing, wildlife) the 4.7fps was awesome (vs 3.0 fps canikon), as well as 2 more megapixels, better high iso quality, and 720p video (not that I will ever use it). All of these are absent (as i recall) on the xs and d3000, which are the kx's comparably priced counterparts. Since I already had several old lenses (from film) laying around it was the straw that broke the camels back!

 

[hawk232]

I LOVE my pentax. The IS is great I like that you can use almost any lens that they have ever made except the old screw mount ones of course.

I went from a Pentax k-m and I was going to save up and buy the K-7 but I don't need the video so I decided to buy a used K20d and i'm very happy with my decision. If you want to see some results of the K20d I just just posted this thread. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-gallery/232587-first-boudoir-shoot-nsfw.html

Pentax is a little noisy-er but it leaves more detail so if you want to remove the noise in PP you can do more and loose less of the image detail.

Thanks, I was just looking at those before I opened this thread...theyre awesome!

Having no working knowledge of "noise" my understanding is that at higher ISO the noise is worse? so if im shooting ice hockey i think the ISO will have to be pretty high, so more noise vs canon?
that being said the ISO goes higher vs the XS so at 1600 would the pentax be better because the XS would be "maxed out"? or is that where I would see the advantage of a canon?

or am i just 100% wrong about all of the above lol.

I'm going to give a slightly better explanation of your questions...

Basically the noise-to-signal ratio gets higher the "faster" your ISO rating. What I mean is the higher the ISO number, the more noise that will be apparent in your final product. Different camera bodies handle it differently: A P&S with a tiny sensor might have pretty bad noise at ISO200 while a Canon 1DMkIV will be almost completely noise-free at ISO6400 (with very little at ISO12800). It's different for *every* body.

As for shooting ice hockey...it depends what level it's at. If you're shooting professional or semi-pro...you won't need high-ISO at all. I've shot professional hockey at ISO100 and still had enough shutter speed to stop movement (around 1/800 or so). That brings me to my second point...different camera bodies have different ISO ratings. My Canon 7D can let more light in at ISO1600 than a Rebel can at ISO1600. That means I can use a lower ISO rating to get the same picture. This isn't usually a huge difference (even the difference between a 1D4 and XT is probably less than 1 full stop), but it's there...which means it's hard to compare evenly.

Now...for the "maxing out" question...no. Just because a camera has a range that says, for instance, ISO200-12800 doesn't mean that range is completely usable. It may start having severe noise issues at ISO400 (not that it does, but just explaining a point). The total range is almost useless in real world. There's a reason that "highest ISO" is usually listed separately...it's usually not even part of the standard ISO range. You almost always have to enable it somewhere in a deep menu...and there's really almost no reason to since that ISO rating is almost *always* completely useless (unless you've metered *perfectly* and it's the only way to get the shot). I *have* taken shots at ISO12800...but even on my camera (which costs 3-4 times as much as that Pentax) it only produces usable shots if I can spend some time PPing out the noise.



Now as for the actual comparison. Don't look at the specs at all between the 2. It has a slightly larger sensor, built-in IS, face-detection via Liveview (useless), and a few other things...but none of that should really matter when comparing cameras. The thing that matters is "How good are are the pictures?"...and in this case? The Rebel kills that Pentax.

That's not to say the Pentax makes bad pictures or there's something wrong with the camera...but the Canon will almost *always* take better shots in the same condition. Add to that that the quality of lenses available will almost always be better with the Canon...and that *should* be your inkling I'm putting down subtly.

Either way, it's definitely your decision. Go out and try them both. Try them using every ISO setting, every lens you can get your hands on, and play around with the menus and settings. See which one *YOU* like, because that's what matters in the end.

1/2 of a good post! i learned a bit in the first half of the post (the better cameras being able to get same quality from higher iso.

as for the rest... well its wildly exaggerated opinions. Post up some proof of credible reviews that can confirm what i have bolded in your post.


when i first started looking, i was going to go canon all the way. its what my friends have, so what i was used to being the norm. After researching side by side comparisons (like the one i posted above) the canon in the same price range proved to be inferior in almost every review! That dropped me down to nikon vs pentax. in that case the nikon won some and the pentax won others, I chose based off of what suited my typical shooting situations better, the pentax.

having said that, i am willing to bet that had i gotten the xs (or t1i) or the d3100 i would have never looked back either. Ultimitely, for most shooting (especially beginner) we are splitting hairs here.

 

[enzodm]

That is probably true... so my ENTRY LEVEL pentax takes almost as good of pictures as 2 or three models up from entry level canon and nikon (not familiar with canons lineup and where the 500d fits in, but nikon: 3000, 3100, 5000) and the price reflects it! i got my body, 18-55 and 55-300 lens for only $20 more than the BODY of the nikon (d5000) costs.

scroll down about 3/4 of the way maybe a little more. the comparisons are kx vs k7, kx vs t1i (not entry level) and d5000 (not entry level) Pentax K-x Digital Camera - Full Review - The Imaging Resource!

Note: I am using "not entry level" to mean that this is not the most basic camera in their lineup. I am quite sure that these cameras are still "entry level" when compared with their high end counter parts.

I am also not saying that the kx is the best camera ever. It is without a doubt better in some situations and a bargain for the price. Since i shoot alot of action (boat racing, wildlife) the 4.7fps was awesome (vs 3.0 fps canikon), as well as 2 more megapixels, better high iso quality, and 720p video (not that I will ever use it). All of these are absent (as i recall) on the xs and d3000, which are the kx's comparably priced counterparts. Since I already had several old lenses (from film) laying around it was the straw that broke the camels back!

+1.
Anyway, I have an XS and I would say to the OP that the first dSLR is always more than sufficient, when coming from P&S. The only real reason for taking a dSLR from one of the two biggest brands is the larger availability of modern lenses (and in case of Pentax, the fact that there is not (yet?) a full frame available to grow up with it). Older lenses can be put on either Canon and Pentax without much difficulty (not on Nikon, though).

A careful selection of sentences from a review may help any camera. If you like the Pentax, just read this one , from the same review cited above (p.15):
"At higher sensitivities the K-x shows a little more luminance noise than the Nikon and a similar amount to the EOS 500D. However, noticeably more detail is retained and the Pentax's results look visibly sharper. All in all the K-x's JPEG engine is doing a very decent job. Surprisingly at high ISOs the camera is a lot better than its bigger brother, the K-7, and is one of the currently best performing APS-C cameras in low light. "

Not to tell is overall better, just to tell that quality is also here .

 

[o hey tyler]

I'm going to give a slightly better explanation of your questions...

As for shooting ice hockey...it depends what level it's at. If you're shooting professional or semi-pro...you won't need high-ISO at all. I've shot professional hockey at ISO100 and still had enough shutter speed to stop movement (around 1/800 or so). That brings me to my second point...different camera bodies have different ISO ratings. My Canon 7D can let more light in at ISO1600 than a Rebel can at ISO1600. That means I can use a lower ISO rating to get the same picture. This isn't usually a huge difference (even the difference between a 1D4 and XT is probably less than 1 full stop), but it's there...which means it's hard to compare evenly.

I think maybe you're attributing color and definition loss to "letting more light in". I was not under the impression that ISO changes the exposure to a significant degree. For example, I'll take a photo on 1600ISO on my 5D and my girlfriend will take one on her T1i. The t1i suffers from more definition loss and colors blending, not an exposure difference. It's really just a difference in IQ.

 

[LOL_Slamball]

Well I went down and looked at both cameras and im pretty set on the pentax. The grip just felt way better in my hand, and the canon grip was just too small for my hands. (yes the pentax is a bit smaller but the grip is thicker)

The guy I talked to at the store said that there are no rechargable batteries for the k-x. I showed him a page about the eneloop batteries (havent really read up on them at all, just know that they exist) and he said something about that they are 1.2v instead of 1.5v
this seems 100% wrong but convirmation would be nice lol
also he was trying to sell me the pentax while telling me that.

 

[PASM]

You want us to choose your batteries now ? Duracell.
Buy the Pentax.

 

[LOL_Slamball]

haha im just asking if they make rechargable batteries that would work

 

[PASM]

Any rechargeable AA i would assume. Go for high mA - 2500.

 

[LOL_Slamball]

oh awesome... lol I was pretty sure fiding recharable batteries wouldnt be a problem... stupid camera salesman.. his exact quote was "there are literally no rechargable batteries that will work with this camera"

 

[PASM]

?

oh awesome... lol I was pretty sure fiding recharable batteries wouldnt be a problem... stupid camera salesman.. his exact quote was "there are literally no rechargable batteries that will work with this camera"

That seems ridiculous.

 

[LOL_Slamball]

i even showed him the page on the eneloops and he was like, oh yeah you could use these but the problem is theyre only 1.2v and you need batteries that are 1.5v

 

[PASM]

Review: Testing Sanyo's Eneloop Low Self-Discharge Rechargeable Battery
Says that voltage averages at 1.11v single cell.
Is that typical/unusual for AA? I don't know.

So the salesman's suggesting you buy a DSLR that needs disposal AA's ?

 

[enzodm]

i even showed him the page on the eneloops and he was like, oh yeah you could use these but the problem is theyre only 1.2v and you need batteries that are 1.5v

K-x Black - Official PENTAX Imaging Web Site
read at the bottom (or ask the guy read the manual):
Capture up to 1900 shots with universally available, easy-to-find AA lithium batteries (also compatible with AA NiMH rechargeable and alkaline batteries).

NiMH are the normal rechargeable batteries, 1.2V nominal. They usually last less than litium, but you can always go with some set.

 

[LOL_Slamball]

yes, he was trying to sell me a camera that needed disposable batteries, luckily hes out of the way for me and I just happened to be around there today. sony is his brand though so maybe that explains it

 

[LOL_Slamball]

lol i dont know how he would miss that, thanks for the link...
also whats with pentax selling their cameras for $150 more on their website?