K-x? Or Micro 4/3?

SO, I have the Olympus EPL2 micro 4/3 camera and like it for the most part, but no viewfinder (I know you can add one but it's a bit clunky). I'm not too impressed with the IQ of the EPL2, even though It suppose to be a good camera. I was in a photo shop today and they had a K-x and it was a nice looking camera and one thing I did not realized is that the pentax lenses are relatively small and not much larger than the micro 4/3 lenses!

Anyone have input if the K-x is a good JPEG type camera, and any good samples, wisdom. thanks!

Kevin Peters said:

SO, I have the Olympus EPL2 micro 4/3 camera and like it for the most part, but no viewfinder (I know you can add one but it's a bit clunky). I'm not too impressed with the IQ of the EPL2, even though It suppose to be a good camera. I was in a photo shop today and they had a K-x and it was a nice looking camera and one thing I did not realized is that the pentax lenses are relatively small and not much larger than the micro 4/3 lenses!

Anyone have input if the K-x is a good JPEG type camera, and any good samples, wisdom. thanks!

Click to expand...

I just recently sold all my m43 gear and jumped into the Pentax system. I started out with the ep-1, then sold it for gf1. Then picked up a GH1 to go with the GF1; i bought it for the view finder so i can better enjoy my manual legacy pentax 50mm f1.4. It was with the GH1 that i realized that i might as well go with a more responsive and larger sensor dSLR, after all, slap a lens on the GH1 (with adapter) and it starts to get "bulky." the m43's were great. Specially the GF1 20mm f1.7 combo; I had a lot of fun. But it was time to move on for me.

One reason for choosing Pentax over the mainstream Nikon or Canon was the in-body image stabilization. Also, like you said, their DA limited lenses are small!! I just recieved the DA 70mm limited and i'm still so excited at the size. I just can't believe it. Plus the selection of primes is great. I also liked that I can use ANY Pentax lens ever made without an adapter. I slap my legacy glass on my K7 and i'll get a confirmation when in focus; love it.

Speaking of focus confirmation; i don't believe the Kx will give you that as it doesn't display the focus dots in the view finder. If you're serious about the Kx then seriously consider the Kr. For me it was a tough decision between the Kr and K7, but at the end i really wanted the silent shutter, weather sealed body, and the external controls of the K7.

While i'm glad i got a chance to use m43 and enjoy it's size (GF1), I don't miss it. With larger sensor comes overall improvement in IQ. Look on flickr for samples. I'm sure there is a Kx or Kr group. I'm glad i made the jump to Pentax and i'm sure you will to.

eadrian75 said:

Speaking of focus confirmation; i don't believe the Kx will give you that as it doesn't display the focus dots in the view finder.

Click to expand...

just a small correction to you otherwise great post:

the K-x does have the same focus confirmation as your K-7, that is a peep sound and a hexagon lighting up in the viewfinder. Focus confirmation has no relation at all with the focus dots and the one of my K-x is very accurate! ( more as that of my prior *istDs )

--
http://flickr.com/photos/kuuan/
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/andreasgriesmayr
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=kuuan

i have both Pentax DSLR (K-x & K10d) and M4/3 (G1, E-PL1) gear & lenses.

I use m4/3 for general walk around stuff and also for overseas trips 'cos it's small & light (my Pentax kit takes up too much of my airline luggage allowance). I have the standard Oly 14-42 zoom together with the M-Zuiko 14-150, Zuiko 9-18, Panny 45-200 & 14-45. The E-PL1 with the VF-2 viewfinder and 14-42 is my standard walk around kit.

I usually use the K-x for anything the m4/3 might not be up to like sports, car races, air-shows, wildlife etc., and particularly when fast focus and continuous shooting is needed (the K-x can shoot at upto 6 frames/sec). When absolutely necessary I use the K10D with a Sigma 50-500 & monopod, but the combined weight is a real killer.

So it's very much horses for courses. I can't really see any differences in quality between the PEN and the K-x except at high ISO where the K-x really excels.

My advice would be to get the K-x to give you more flexibility, but hang on the E-PL2 if you can because it's a lot smaller and lighter than the Pentax gear. The Oly lenses are a LOT smaller and lighter than the K-mount lenses for equivalent fields of view.

Hope this helps
--
Tony-H

Thanks for the response, I really only want one system and one not to small nor too big, GH2 is an likely choice but dont love the OOC JPEGS. it really just didnt feel at all like the K-x was significantly larger than the EPL2 with 14-140 and EVF2 on it...

EagerBeaver said:

i have both Pentax DSLR (K-x & K10d) and M4/3 (G1, E-PL1) gear & lenses.

I use m4/3 for general walk around stuff and also for overseas trips 'cos it's small & light (my Pentax kit takes up too much of my airline luggage allowance). I have the standard Oly 14-42 zoom together with the M-Zuiko 14-150, Zuiko 9-18, Panny 45-200 & 14-45. The E-PL1 with the VF-2 viewfinder and 14-42 is my standard walk around kit.

I usually use the K-x for anything the m4/3 might not be up to like sports, car races, air-shows, wildlife etc., and particularly when fast focus and continuous shooting is needed (the K-x can shoot at upto 6 frames/sec). When absolutely necessary I use the K10D with a Sigma 50-500 & monopod, but the combined weight is a real killer.

So it's very much horses for courses. I can't really see any differences in quality between the PEN and the K-x except at high ISO where the K-x really excels.

My advice would be to get the K-x to give you more flexibility, but hang on the E-PL2 if you can because it's a lot smaller and lighter than the Pentax gear. The Oly lenses are a LOT smaller and lighter than the K-mount lenses for equivalent fields of view.

Hope this helps
--
Tony-H

Click to expand...

Pentax DAs are actually smaller
i would go for k-x anytime
(have k-x and it completely replaced my E-620 in real use)

Vladimir Yanushkevich said:

Pentax DAs are actually smaller
i would go for k-x anytime
(have k-x and it completely replaced my E-620 in real use)

Click to expand...

Smaller than the field equivalent M-Zuikos? I just can't believe that and would like to see what you're comparing. Perhaps you're thinking of the E-System 4/3 lenses with M4/3 Adapters?

--
Tony-H

Kr is 598 grams with battery. EPL2 is 362 grams with battery.

A M Zuiko 17mm f2.8 is 71g for a total all up weight of 433 g. According to SLRGear the 17mm is not one of the better lens out there in terms of performance. But its light and reasonably priced for the performance it has.

For an equivalent lens we'd be looking for something like an 24mm f3.5 or thereabouts for the Pentax. Maybe the closest thing currently would be the SMC-DA 21mm f3.2. It weighs in at 140g for a total all up weight of 738g. The Pentax lens is a better performer than the M Zuiko and depending on reviewer quite a bit better.

You could either look at the DPR reviews or DXO but I think the Kr and EPL2 perform roughly similar in IQ with the Kr better at high ISO than the EPL2. Noise would be better (less) in the Pentax. You could select a different lens but the Pentax would have more choice in most cases and short of mounting a 12-60 Zuiko on the EPL2 (somewhat defeating the purpose of small) the Pentax lenses would outperform the current M Zuikos.

The Kr would be bulkier and almost 300g heavier. And to be completely serious to most of us 300g is not a great deal of weight. Its the bulk that most would notice - the EPL2 can fit in a (slightly oversize) pocket. The Kr - well no.

In the end it would come down to your style of photography and what you would like in a camera. For example I have tried a EPL1 and frankly I want a viewfinder integral to the camera. So having decided that I would consider the GH2 but not the Olympus PENS. To each his own I guess but I'd go with the Kr, but if you want a superlative model, the K5.

Thanks for the specs! How about compared to gh2?

Size-wise, the K-x is slightly smaller than the K-r above the eyepiece...a bit more of a bump there. I chose the K-x because of its small size... for me, even the K-r 3mm increase is unwelcome and I would not switch. It fits in my man bag for travel along with my three tiny prime lenses...DA40, DA21, DA70. So convenient and great quality images!

I had both the Pana GF-1 with 20mm f/1.7 lens, and K-x for a while. I found the GF1 a great camera to put in my pocket and bring everywhere, especially to parties or other indoor events where the light was low and a DSLR had no place.

But once you start to consider investing in lenses it stops making a ton of sense. The little things are quite expensive as you know. Consider the Lumix 7-14mm wide-angle lens at around $1000, which seems like a great lens. But so long as you're hauling a tripod etc then the small size of the GF-1 stops being an advantage.

In the end I decided I'd rather go with one system fully than try for two half-assedly. This was largely a function of budget over anything else. So I kept my Pentax DSLR gear and sold off the GF-1.

Besides which for every other aspect of photography the K-x was better. I do think the MFT idea will eventually overtake DSLR's once they mature, just due to their size and versatility. Perhaps if you're a pro or advanced enthusiast (or very well-heeled, viz: not me) it's not a big deal to keep up both systems but as an amateur on a budget I had to make a choice. You do not see a lot of people dumping their DSLR's for MFT's, more often than not it's the other way around. That is based purely on my anecdotal observances so could be entirely untrue.

inlawbiker said:

But once you start to consider investing in lenses it stops making a ton of sense. The little things are quite expensive as you know. Consider the Lumix 7-14mm wide-angle lens at around $1000

Click to expand...

That's exactly the way i started seeing it too. Just too much $$ for the good glass on m43. Just to expensive of a system to build. I wanted the leica 45 ($900 lens) and like you said the 7-14 another thousand $$. Geez, you got a sweet K5 kit right there in the cost of those two lenses.

I can justify spending $1K on the classic Pentax FA 31mm, but not on a plastic m43 lens.

I'm happy i made the switch to K7. If anything i may add an LX5 for more portability. Or ... see what comes of the rumored Pentax APS-C mirrorless camera. By then I should have a nice DA Limited Collection to go along with that.

eadrian75 said:

I wanted the leica 45 ($900 lens) and like you said the 7-14 another thousand $$. Geez, you got a sweet K5 kit right there in the cost of those two lenses.

Click to expand...

and that sweet K5 hit has 14mm eq. FF FOV (or eq to ~12.5 mm FF horizontal coverage in GH2/GH1 16:9 mode) ? 45/2.8 may be not, but 7-14/4 is a very worthy lens.

--

Spend some time viewing DPR's E-PL2 test comparing different camera's IQ at different ISO's in both JPEG and raw output. Move the location of the crop area around on the image to see noise as it relates to different tones and colors.

I ended up spending the most time viewing the E-PL2, K-x, GH2 and D5100, all cameras I'd consider (I currently shoot with an Olympus E-510 and E-620, both anything but low-noise champs).

The E-PL2 fares well up to about ISO 800, and is okay at 1600, but then starts to become seriously noisy. Is that good enough? It's up to you given how you typically shoot (fine for my landscapes).

But for low light shooters, go to ISO 6400 and the K-x just jumps out as a great little DSLR. It's significantly lighter and smaller than the K-5 yet it's IQ stands right up to it in raw. The K-r is also a bit heavier and larger than the K-x, plus more expensive.

All the DSLR's mentioned above are excellent for low noise at high ISO's, but the K-x is the value leader and it's inclusion of IBIS really sets it apart at its price point.

But for those who like zooms, Olympus is IMHOP ahead of Pentax (vice versa for primes),even in its mFT's which offer lenses including the 9-18 (18-36 35mm equivalent), 14-150 (28-300 35mm equiv.), 14-42 (28-84 35mm equiv.), 40-150 (80-300 35mm equiv.)and 75-300 (150-600 35mm equiv.), most at affordable prices.

We're in a funny spot at the moment with mirrorless cameras, they all have compromises since its early in their development. Olympus has IBIS and the best JPEG output, Panasonic has built-in EVF's and the 16MP GH2 sensor, but no IBIS . Sony has better high ISO quality than the similarly priced mFT's, but their lenses are oversized, they don't have IBIS and their user interface is apparently convoluted. Samsung shows promise but, like Sony, doesn't have IBIS and their lenses are large for the format.

So for the near term I'm afraid many of us will be using a combination of DSLR and mFT to meet two different needs. The E-PL2 kit as a take anywhere along with the K-x for high ISO and fast focusing needs seems like a nice compromise, offering the greatest capabilities for the least amount of money at this time.

Be fun to look back in a couple of years once Nikon and Pentax jump into the mirrorless ring.
--
Sailin' Steve

Thought this might help you in your evaluation:

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2011/01/olympus-epl2-final-installment-kirks.html

Kirk Tuck provides an entertaining read and gives a nice sense of what mFT is all about: small, discrete cameras with high IQ that allow for spontaneous shooting and, in the E-PL2's case, low price ($550 for the kit). I'll likely get one myself, I've been eyeing them long enough!
--
Sailin' Steve

I have both (K-x and E-P1).

My K-x + lenses + flash is my main gear kit. Every investment in lenses for this system has been worthwhile and I'm not considering selling anything.

I really like my Pentax system as a compact and versatile DSLR. The JPEG output of the K-x is very good as well as the high ISO performance. My Pentax system is definitely a keeper.

2 months ago I couldn't resist an offer in my local camera store: A brand new Olympus E-P1 + 14-42 lens for only € 299,-. So I bought it because I really love the size, look and feel of this small camera. I'm not going to invest in other lenses, I use the 14-42mm kit lens 90% of the time and I see the E-P1/14-42 combo as my compact, take anywhere kit. The JPEG image quality and the default colours of this combo are outstanding, the kit lens is a very decent and sharp lens.

Buying other Micro 4/3 AF lenses is useless for me, because I lose the compactness and might as well take my K-x. The bigger K-x body also balances better with the larger lenses than the E-P1. So I just keep my E-P1 plain, compact and cheap as a compact camera replacement.

I have bought 2 Pentax adapters though, so I can use my Legacy (M series and 110 series) lenses on the E-P1 as well if I want to.

Some size comparisons:

E-P1/ 14-42kit vs K-x/ Sigma 17-70



E-P1/ 14-42kit vs K-x/ DA40 Limited



My compact, take anywhere combo

kuuan said:

the K-x does have the same focus confirmation as your K-7, that is a peep sound and a hexagon lighting up in the viewfinder. Focus confirmation has no relation at all with the focus dots and the one of my K-x is very accurate! ( more as that of my prior *istDs )

Click to expand...

Quite true. One further point: what is in focus? The camera does not tell us; only that something is, or else that nothing is.

When a manual focus lens is mounted, the confirmation only uses the central AF sensor .

So some models' ability to show a viewfinder LED that can move around , to follow different AF sectors, is irrelevant in this case. All you will get anyway is a single YES/NO confirmation for the middle sensor; the beep (if enabled) and the green hexagon and (where available) a red light in the middle of the viewfinder, are all doing the precise same job.

A red light overlaid in the viewfinder may be hard to give up once we are used to it, but we must also remember: it is never going to give an accurate indication even of the size, shape or location of the AF sensor pair (two linear sensors at right angles forming a cross) it is wired up to - let alone, of what particular feature in the subject has just triggered some part of this sensor pair to report a "lock".

RP

smarter said:

I'm not going to invest in other lenses, I use the 14-42mm kit lens 90% of the time and I see the E-P1/14-42 combo as my compact, take anywhere kit. The JPEG image quality and the default colours of this combo are outstanding, the kit lens is a very decent and sharp lens.

Buying other Micro 4/3 AF lenses is useless for me, because I lose the compactness and might as well take my K-x.

Click to expand...

To me, your missing out on the essence of what mFT is all about: small bodies and small lenses. You can make a DSLR body as small as you want, but won't get around their lens size which reflects their registry distance.

The Four-Thirds website's has a simulation feature that's interactive, a lot of fun as well as informative: : http://www.four-thirds.org/en/special/matching.html

Take a look at the E-PL2 with Panasonic's highly regarded 20mm f1.7 prime (40mm at 35mm equiv.), a great street photography set-up.

Same with the Olympus 9-18mm (18-36mm at 35mm equiv.), which tests as well as my full-size version yet is the same size as your mFT 14-42mm.

The Olympus 40-150mm (28-300mm at 35mm equiv.) zoom, while not tiny is certainly much smaller and lighter than equivalent non-Olympus DSLR zooms of its range, and a bargain given its performance.

As for the E-P1, I'm glad you bought this beautiful camera for a bargain price. I looked long and hard at it when introduced at an MSRP of $799 and couldn't justify it, but now it's quite a deal.

I'm leaning towards the E-PL2 given its improved featureset: faster AF kit zoom, 3" high-res LCD, pop-up flash, ability to use the VF-2 EVF. At $550 for the kit, it's a very good deal. Regarding the OP's comment on IQ, haven't heard this before and wonder if its when shooting in low light (not an E-PL2 strong point, though not awful either).

And for the OP's question, I'd wait a bit for the K-r's price to fall more, same camera as the K-x but with 3" hi-res LCD and visual confirmation of focusing. I tend to keep my cameras, so I'll spend a bit more to get features I'll enjoy over the years.

--
Sailin' Steve

thanks for the links! I do have an EPL2 now and do like it and it's colors, but when you but the view finder on it, it's not so "small" and a bit awkward in my opinion. Thats' why I am considering either the K-x/r or the GH2 SO My BIG question is if I go with GH2 it doesnt seem much smaller at all (even with the lenses as Pentax are small)... unless I am missing something.. guess I am missing something a little "substantive" feeling..

sderdiarian said:

smarter said:

I'm not going to invest in other lenses, I use the 14-42mm kit lens 90% of the time and I see the E-P1/14-42 combo as my compact, take anywhere kit. The JPEG image quality and the default colours of this combo are outstanding, the kit lens is a very decent and sharp lens.

Buying other Micro 4/3 AF lenses is useless for me, because I lose the compactness and might as well take my K-x.

Click to expand...

To me, your missing out on the essence of what mFT is all about: small bodies and small lenses. You can make a DSLR body as small as you want, but won't get around their lens size which reflects their registry distance.

The Four-Thirds website's has a simulation feature that's interactive, a lot of fun as well as informative: : http://www.four-thirds.org/en/special/matching.html

Take a look at the E-PL2 with Panasonic's highly regarded 20mm f1.7 prime (40mm at 35mm equiv.), a great street photography set-up.

Same with the Olympus 9-18mm (18-36mm at 35mm equiv.), which tests as well as my full-size version yet is the same size as your mFT 14-42mm.

The Olympus 40-150mm (28-300mm at 35mm equiv.) zoom, while not tiny is certainly much smaller and lighter than equivalent non-Olympus DSLR zooms of its range, and a bargain given its performance.

As for the E-P1, I'm glad you bought this beautiful camera for a bargain price. I looked long and hard at it when introduced at an MSRP of $799 and couldn't justify it, but now it's quite a deal.

I'm leaning towards the E-PL2 given its improved featureset: faster AF kit zoom, 3" high-res LCD, pop-up flash, ability to use the VF-2 EVF. At $550 for the kit, it's a very good deal. Regarding the OP's comment on IQ, haven't heard this before and wonder if its when shooting in low light (not an E-PL2 strong point, though not awful either).

And for the OP's question, I'd wait a bit for the K-r's price to fall more, same camera as the K-x but with 3" hi-res LCD and visual confirmation of focusing. I tend to keep my cameras, so I'll spend a bit more to get features I'll enjoy over the years.

--
Sailin' Steve

Click to expand...

Definitely depends on your micro-4:3 kit. The Oly gear is small and stabilized, so lenses can be smaller. Here's a k-x with 75-300 equivalent lens, compared to a Lumix GH1 with 90-400mm equivalent lens - pretty close!



I bought into micro 4:3 to replace my compact, and the G/GH is great with flip screen and live-viewfinder. That has saved me numerous white-balance and exposure errors that an OVF cannot do. Being in auto mode with a PK lens that has an aperture ring is quite nice.. but a 50mm is 100mm equivalent with the tighter crop factor. On the other hand, batteries last far longer with the K-x and more versatile gear is available, especially if f/4-5.6 is not fast enough. I have an Oly 17mm pancake that makes the GH1 pretty small if I need to.

EagerBeaver said:

Vladimir Yanushkevich said:

Pentax DAs are actually smaller
i would go for k-x anytime
(have k-x and it completely replaced my E-620 in real use)

Click to expand...

Smaller than the field equivalent M-Zuikos? I just can't believe that and would like to see what you're comparing. Perhaps you're thinking of the E-System 4/3 lenses with M4/3 Adapters?

--
Tony-H

Click to expand...

--

Jim in Oregon.. granitix.blogspot.. Alpha & Pentax veteran, now shooting K-x + G1