Pentax K-X, best 1.5 crop sensor going?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: shell
Next: Photo software suitable for multiple users
From: Ray Fischer on 1 Mar 2010 03:31 Peabody <waybackNO784SPAM44(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > rander3127(a)gmail.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. Nope. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Bruce on 1 Mar 2010 07:31 On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:29:13 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> 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.
From: RichA on 1 Mar 2010 18:29 On Mar 1, 3:30 am, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Feb 28, 6:13 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Feb 28, 2:15 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> >> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Feb 28, 5:41 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:28:23 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > >> >> >> 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 > rfisc...(a)sonic.net I also said, look at the tests, and they point out the camera produces good images.
From: Ray Fischer on 2 Mar 2010 03:37 RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 1, 3:30�am, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> RichA �<rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Feb 28, 6:13 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Feb 28, 2:15 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: >> >> >> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On Feb 28, 5:41 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:28:23 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> >> >> >> >> 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 rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: RichA on 2 Mar 2010 05:29
On Mar 2, 3:37 am, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Mar 1, 3:30 am, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Feb 28, 6:13 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> >> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >On Feb 28, 2:15 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> >> >> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >On Feb 28, 5:41 am, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:28:23 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > >> >> >> >> 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 > rfisc...(a)sonic.net 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. |