OK. You can quibble if you like. I came to the K-x from a K200D and
the difference in high ISO was superb, IMHO.
I pointed to the first K-x I could find (at KEH). I'm sure you can buy
the body alone if you want to for a little less but in the used market
the kit lens is probably nearly a "gimme".
I have no idea regarding the performance of Canon point & shoots in
the AF arena (and after all, the P in PDML stands for "Pentax").
Also, since I am in the mood to quibble, the main cameras that the K-x
compares to pricewise (that John was considering) are the G12 and G15
(not the more expensive G1x). If you like Dx0mark as a comparison,
compare the K-x to *those* two models:
G15 G12 K-x
overall 46 47 82
color depth 19.9 20.4 22.8
dyn. range 11.5 11.2 12.5
high iso 165 161 811
You can compare the G1x if you like (at more than double the price of
the K-x, I feel it had better outperform it in multiple areas... it
does in none). In addition, the K-x gives you the OPTION of different
lenses (just in *case* when the 747 crashes in front of John's car on
the interstate he requires more than 28 or 55mm).
:)
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Aahz Maruch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013, Darren Addy wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Aahz Maruch <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013, Darren Addy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The K-x has superb high ISO and runs on AA batteries.
>>>
>>> By the standards of the K-5 II, it only has "good" high ISO, not superb
>>> (based on my experience with Larry's K-x). But you've got a good point.
>>
>> True, but the discussion was comparing it not to Pentax models that
>> came after, but to Point & Shoots (and, I would suggest, it
>> outperforms any Pentax model that came before it with its Sony
>> sensor).
>
> Even by point-and-shoot standards, I would only call the K-x "good"
> rather than "superb"; DxOMark rates the K-x for 811 and the Canon G1X for
> 644, which is not much of a margin for something bigger and heavier than
> the G1X. You suggested the K-x with the kit lens, which would be F3.5 at
> 18mm (27mm 35mm equiv) where the G1X is F2.8 at 28mm equiv -- wiping out
> the K-x advantage. In addition, I had some autofocus problems with
> Larry's K-x that I haven't experienced with the G1X (nor the K-5 with the
> similar 18-135).
>
> Note that I still agree that you have a good point: the K-x would be
> cheaper than even a used G1X, it takes regular AA batteries, and the
> feel will be more familiar to someone who mostly uses other Pentax
> bodies. I'm just quibbling over one word of yours.
> --
> Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
> <*> <*> <*>
> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> [email protected]
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
> the directions.
--
"Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art" -
Peter Galassi
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
