Pentax K-X

I guess fair could be replaced with relevant then instead. Why not just compare it with images taken with 1Dmk3? I get the impression the K-X has a target market of people crossing over from P&S.
Ok, I'll type this more slowly this time. :)

Skid said the high ISO is outstanding. I posted sample pics of ISO 1600 showing a loss of detail due to NR. ISO 1600 isn't exactly considered super high these days.

Would this be less confusing for you if I hadn't posted a comparison image? How else would you have seen the lack of detail?
 
I guess fair could be replaced with relevant then instead. Why not just compare it with images taken with 1Dmk3? I get the impression the K-X has a target market of people crossing over from P&S.
Ok, I'll type this more slowly this time. :)

Skid said the high ISO is outstanding. I posted sample pics of ISO 1600 showing a loss of detail due to NR. ISO 1600 isn't exactly considered super high these days.

Would this be less confusing for you if I hadn't posted a comparison image? How else would you have seen the lack of detail?

:thumbdown:
Why be an asshole about it? I just pointed out that the comparison is using a camera that costs almost twice as much. Why not compare the "outstanding" ISO to something more in the same price range. Maybe it is "outstanding" in that regards.
 
I guess fair could be replaced with relevant then instead. Why not just compare it with images taken with 1Dmk3? I get the impression the K-X has a target market of people crossing over from P&S.
Ok, I'll type this more slowly this time. :)

Skid said the high ISO is outstanding. I posted sample pics of ISO 1600 showing a loss of detail due to NR. ISO 1600 isn't exactly considered super high these days.

Would this be less confusing for you if I hadn't posted a comparison image? How else would you have seen the lack of detail?

:thumbdown:
Why be an asshole about it? I just pointed out that the comparison is using a camera that costs almost twice as much. Why not compare the "outstanding" ISO to something more in the same price range. Maybe it is "outstanding" in that regards.
Ok, one more time then I'm giving up because now you're name calling which is unnecessary.

Do you consider ISO 1600 to be "high ISO"?

I don't consider it to be "high". For me ISO 1600 is at the very beginning of what I would consider high, like at the foothills of the high ISO mountain. When someone says "high ISO" I think of ISO 3200 or even 6400.

Skid said he likes the "high iso" performance of the K-X. I showed an example of ISO 1600. As a reference I showed two other cameras so you could see the detail that was lost at ISO 1600.

It's nothing to get angry about.
 
Ok, I'll type this more slowly this time. :)

Skid said the high ISO is outstanding. I posted sample pics of ISO 1600 showing a loss of detail due to NR. ISO 1600 isn't exactly considered super high these days.

Would this be less confusing for you if I hadn't posted a comparison image? How else would you have seen the lack of detail?

:thumbdown:
Why be an asshole about it? I just pointed out that the comparison is using a camera that costs almost twice as much. Why not compare the "outstanding" ISO to something more in the same price range. Maybe it is "outstanding" in that regards.
Ok, one more time then I'm giving up because now you're name calling which is unnecessary.

Do you consider ISO 1600 to be "high ISO"?

I don't consider it to be "high". For me ISO 1600 is at the very beginning of what I would consider high, like at the foothills of the high ISO mountain. When someone says "high ISO" I think of ISO 3200 or even 6400.

Skid said he likes the "high iso" performance of the K-X. I showed an example of ISO 1600. As a reference I showed two other cameras so you could see the detail that was lost at ISO 1600.

It's nothing to get angry about.
Uh....I must be retarded because you are still not typing slow enough for me. I guess I am the one who is name calling...
 
Uh....I must be retarded because you are still not typing slow enough for me. I guess I am the one who is name calling...
I can't type any slower. We're just going to have to give up. :) <--- ever seen one of those before? I didn't call you retarded. When someone doesn't hear something you've said, it's normal to repeat yourself and to make your point in a more deliberate (e.g. slower speech) manner so you can emphasize your point. You kept glossing over my actual point.

Now, back to the topic. Do you agree ISO 1600 isn't really all that high? Don't you find the lack of detail in the ISO 1600 shot to be somewhat interesting?
 
Uh....I must be retarded because you are still not typing slow enough for me. I guess I am the one who is name calling...
I can't type any slower. We're just going to have to give up. :) <--- ever seen one of those before? I didn't call you retarded. When someone doesn't hear something you've said, it's normal to repeat yourself and to make your point in a more deliberate (e.g. slower speech) manner so you can emphasize your point. You kept glossing over my actual point.

Now, back to the topic. Do you agree ISO 1600 isn't really all that high? Don't you find the lack of detail in the ISO 1600 shot to be somewhat interesting?

Fair enough.

I don't disagree that 1600 is not high today. I disagree in comparing of a $1200 combo -vs- a $650 combo to compare the quality.....just like I would disagree with telling someone the 50D is a poor performer because of what the 5D or 1D offers. Its two separate market segments..which was my point I feel you glossed over.
 
I don't disagree that 1600 is not high today. I disagree in comparing of a $1200 combo -vs- a $650 combo to compare the quality.....just like I would disagree with telling someone the 50D is a poor performer because of what the 5D or 1D offers. Its two separate market segments..which was my point I feel you glossed over.
I didn't gloss over your point, I tried to explain that this wasn't my point. I wasn't trying to compare the K-X as much as I was showing what ISO 1600 looked like on other bodies. Perhaps I could have just posted the ISO 800 K-X image and then followed up with the ISO 1600.

Either way, my point is that ISO 1600 isn't all that impressive. That doesn't mean the camera is flawed, but I would expect pretty clean ISO 1600 from a body that is being held up as a high ISO performer.
 
Perhaps I could have just posted the ISO 800 K-X image and then followed up with the ISO 1600.

Either way, my point is that ISO 1600 isn't all that impressive. That doesn't mean the camera is flawed, but I would expect pretty clean ISO 1600 from a body that is being held up as a high ISO performer.

I see what you mean now. Yes, the K-X looks awful at 1600 after looking at the 800.
 
Perhaps I could have just posted the ISO 800 K-X image and then followed up with the ISO 1600.

Either way, my point is that ISO 1600 isn't all that impressive. That doesn't mean the camera is flawed, but I would expect pretty clean ISO 1600 from a body that is being held up as a high ISO performer.

I see what you mean now. Yes, the K-X looks awful at 1600 after looking at the 800.
Yeah, it looks pretty bad actually. I suspect it's because there's tons of Chroma noise being produced by the sensor and the NR is wiping out the red channel trying to correct it and in the process causing a color shift in the pink as well.
 
Actually, I still consider the high ISO performance to be outstanding. I consider high ISO to be at least up to 6400. I get very useable images even at 12,800 ISO

My K-x doesnt destroy patterns like I saw in the example. Maybe they had the NR settings turned way up. I set mine very low and let the sensor do it's job. A sensor that I suspect is the same sensor used in some of the cameras it is being compared to? (Sony CMOS 12.4mp).

Anyway, I personally think it is outstanding, but I upgraded from a 6 year old DLSR. Maybe other more expensive units will outperform it, but it still holds its own for a $600 DSLR.
 
Actually, I still consider the high ISO performance to be outstanding. I consider high ISO to be at least up to 6400. I get very useable images even at 12,800 ISO

My K-x doesnt destroy patterns like I saw in the example. Maybe they had the NR settings turned way up. I set mine very low and let the sensor do it's job. A sensor that I suspect is the same sensor used in some of the cameras it is being compared to? (Sony CMOS 12.4mp).

Anyway, I personally think it is outstanding, but I upgraded from a 6 year old DLSR. Maybe other more expensive units will outperform it, but it still holds its own for a $600 DSLR.
The odd default noise reduction settings on Pentax cameras have been a major source of scorn by the Nikon/Canon masses. Tests are generally done with these default settings. On my K20, the default goes the other way on JPEGs and I had to bump it up to "weak". However, if you shoot RAW, the whole issue is mostly moot. I think the K-x is a very good camera value with excellent lenses.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top