Pentax K-X, best 1.5 crop sensor going?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: shell
Next: Photo software suitable for multiple users
From: nospam on 28 Feb 2010 18:12 In article <41df2b0e-03ee-4ea1-b60d-6de84dd99e97(a)f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Better in terms of image quality. Read what the owners say in the > Pentax forum on Dpreview. that doesn't mean anything. owners of every camera think their choice is the best, otherwise they wouldn't have bought it.
From: Ray Fischer on 28 Feb 2010 18:13 RichA <rander3127(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? -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: RichA on 28 Feb 2010 22:23 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, I think the owners and Dpreview's both show the sensor is top notch.
From: RichA on 1 Mar 2010 02:29 On Feb 28, 11:49 pm, Peabody <waybackNO784SPA...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <112a0826-1a5a-43e2-a783-16aedde98057(a)15g2000yqi > .googlegroups.com>, rander3...(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. > For $520 at Amazon for the camera with kit lens, you get > live view, video, and in-camera HDR. And they said there's > no better low-light performance this side of full frame. > That's quite a statement if it really means it's as good as > the 7D at three times the price. > > Well, of course it's not as good as the 7D in many respects, > but on paper it does seem to be an excellent value for the > money, particularly in low light. > > But everyone has these nagging doubts about Pentax being > able to successfully compete with the big guys. 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.
From: Ray Fischer on 1 Mar 2010 03:30
RichA <rander3127(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 rfischer(a)sonic.net |