Kx or 4/3 rds

[snags]

I have been researching the Kx and the 4/3rds cameras ghi ,gfi ,pen and I must say there are nreasons why both would be great choices.

I know the question is usually what do you use the camera for and the answer is general and grandchildren .

Also the video aspect is also a factor and i have read where the Kx is more difficult to utilize then the 4/3 cameras.

IQ is subjective and any of these cameras will give you very usable pictures so I donr consider that a factor.

Any thoughts from those who have a Kx? thanks.

 

[niderbip]

look thru the opt. viewfinder of the 4/3.......i bought the K-x

 

[audiobomber]

I believe you'll gain about four stops of ISO with the K-x (i.e. at ISO 12800 it will look like the M4/3 at ISO 1600), so you'll have to use your flash a LOT more often on photos of the grandkids. Dynamic range will also be much higher, so where you get a white featureless sky with 4/3, you'll get detailed cloud formations with the K-x and more dramatic looking photos.

You say video is easier to use on the 4/3 cams, I'll take your word for it. The only advantage of the M4/3 cameras is their compact size.
--
Dan

 

[bg2b]

I believe you'll gain about four stops of ISO with the K-x (i.e. at ISO 12800 it will look like the M4/3 at ISO 1600)

We can easily illustrate this thanks to the Imaging Resource comparometer:



I'm not saying that the K-x isn't at least somewhat better, but be serious...

 

[laurynas]

try them and there will be no questions left.

i had GF1 for a couple of weeks and it feels soooo sluggish, i liked the size of it but that was it. it's just a lower league on all aspects.

 

[Roland Mabo]

Also the video aspect is also a factor and i have read where the Kx is more difficult > to utilize then the 4/3 cameras.

Not true, because 4/3-cameras doesn't have video.
It is the micro 4/3 cameras that has video, not the 4/3 cameras.
Also note that the micro 4/3's are more expensive than the K-x.
And no, the K-x is not difficult to use.

But if you are serious with video, you may be more interrested in the Panasonic GH-1 which does cost twice the amount of money the K-x cost.

For the money, the K-x is a great camera with usable video.

Not perfect in video because there is no input for an external mic, and it is manual focus in video with pre-set aperture.
--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo

 

[Sye68]

I believe you'll gain about four stops of ISO with the K-x (i.e. at ISO 12800 it will look like the M4/3 at ISO 1600), so you'll have to use your flash a LOT more often on photos of the grandkids. Dynamic range will also be much higher, so where you get a white featureless sky with 4/3, you'll get detailed cloud formations with the K-x and more dramatic looking photos.

4 stops ! Are you sure chap ? realistically 2 stops and DR about the Same nowadays.

You say video is easier to use on the 4/3 cams, I'll take your word for it. The only advantage of the M4/3 cameras is their compact size.
--
Dan

 

[dragra]

I agree with most of the previous posts. I have also played with the idea to get the GF1, but when the K-x came out this was not a option anymore.

Take into consideration that Micro FourThirds is a completely new system and that existing FourtThird lenses would only fit with an adaptor. You can't truly gain full benefit from miniaturization, because there are just a few lenses available.

Pentax on the other side has a mature system with the largest offering of pancake prime lenses. If you are into high image quality and pocket size go for K-x and 21/40/70 Limited lenses.

I have been researching the Kx and the 4/3rds cameras ghi ,gfi ,pen and I must say there are nreasons why both would be great choices.

I know the question is usually what do you use the camera for and the answer is general and grandchildren .

Also the video aspect is also a factor and i have read where the Kx is more difficult to utilize then the 4/3 cameras.

IQ is subjective and any of these cameras will give you very usable pictures so I donr consider that a factor.

Any thoughts from those who have a Kx? thanks.

 

[SamTruax]

If you can afford the GH1 then you should probably go for it. Great video and they are starting to come out with some nice lenses as well for the m 4/3.

I have two little girls and I have found the Kx to be excellent so far. The video mode starts off a little clunky and you have to work with the manual focus during video but it more than handles my video situations perfectly so far.

I have had Olympus 4/3 DSLRs and they are excellent but I just couldn't afford what I wanted in m 4/3 (GH1) so my second choice was the Kx and I am glad that is how things turned out. The low light ability of the larger sensor (especially on the Kx) is really noticeable as well as the better DOF control. There are so many lens choices as well with the Pentax...especially for low light situations that you just can't match in 4/3 or m 4/3. The new Panny 20mm f 1.7 seems excellent for those purposes but it is pretty much your only choice.
--
Sam

'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it... albeit probably in colour the second time around.'

 

[audiobomber]

Sorry guys. I was mistaken. I should have done some research before I commented on a specific number of stops. I had just finished reading and commenting on 4/3 sensor noise in this thread, http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=33838282 . I mistakenly assumed the E420 4/3 sensor would have the same noise performance as the Micro 4/3 sensors.

It's commonly thought around here that the K100D that's being comared with the E420 in the linked thread is two stops below the K-x in noise handling, and the K100D looks to be two stops better than the E420, so... But in looking at the Comparometer, the numbers are off. I should have said three stops, ISO 1600 on M4/3 is equivalent to K-x ISO 6400.
--
Dan

 

[Sye68]

Sorry guys. I was mistaken. I should have done some research before I commented on a specific number of stops. I had just finished reading and commenting on 4/3 sensor noise in this thread, http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=33838282 . I mistakenly assumed the E420 4/3 sensor would have the same noise performance as the Micro 4/3 sensors.

The 4/3 and Micro 4/3 are the same size and the EP-1 in particular has excelled in noise and DR compared to say the E-420 etc.

It's commonly thought around here that the K100D that's being comared with the E420 in the linked thread is two stops below the K-x in noise handling, and the K100D looks to be two stops better than the E420, so... But in looking at the Comparometer, the numbers are off. I should have said three stops, ISO 1600 on M4/3 is equivalent to K-x ISO 6400.

1600 ISO to 6400 ISO is 2 stops not 3
I would like to see some KX samples to compare to the GF-1 for example
The Nikon D300 is roughly 2 stops better then the G1 looking at the DP reviews

The DR is mixed in 4/3 ie the Olympus E620 and E30 has DR that matches the AP-S sensers but the GF-1 and EP-1 are a bit less esp in the highlights which matters most anyway.
I,m not Brand loyal as i have the K100D ,Nikon D300 and now the Panny GF-1

The K100D as i love the Penatx Primes and will never give them up, The Nikon D300 for serious stuff although will be selling along with all Nikon Lenses etc and I will be investing into the Micro 4/3 system full on from now on.

--
Dan

 

[ManuH]

I have been researching the Kx and the 4/3rds cameras ghi ,gfi ,pen and I must say there are nreasons why both would be great choices.

I know the question is usually what do you use the camera for and the answer is general and grandchildren .

Also the video aspect is also a factor and i have read where the Kx is more difficult to utilize then the 4/3 cameras.

This only applies to the GH1 with the 14-140mm, a combo that cost almost 3 times the cost of the K-x. And then yes video with be easier because you'll have continuous autofocus. With a "traditional" (with mirror and true optical viewfinder) DSLR it's difficult to follow a subject and keep it in focus in video mode. Outdoor it's usually not a big deal because the DOF will be high (video needs about 1/60s and in auto-aperture, it will use high f-stops like f/11) but indoor you need more precision.

IQ is subjective and any of these cameras will give you very usable pictures so I donr consider that a factor.

True up to a point. This point is if you like to use flash or available light indoor. For available light the K-x will be better than the GH-1 probably by about 1 stop for noise performance.

Handling is also quite different between the 2 systems. Right now the optical viewfinder as found in the K-x is still much more comfortable for the eyes IMHO.

--
Manu



http://flickr.com/photos/ensh/
Réflex Pentax: http://www.flickr.com/groups/pentaxfr/

My PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=ARTIST&subSection=1312871&subSubSection=3929608

 

[Meuh]

i have a gx10 with sigma 24-60, DA* 50-135, a d3 with similar range lens and a gf1 with the 20mm f1.7

The one thing the GF1 with the 20mm f1.7 dose better than the other two.. is look discreet. I dont know if you have ever noticed this but people notice SLRS with big lens, hell even just SLR's in general.

With the gf1 people just go about there thing as if im using a normal camera (ie point and shoot) to them.. but when using my gx10 with DA*50-135 i had some guys shouting.. " hay look theres a guy taking photos of kids* even when theres no kids around : .

The 20mm lens on the gf1 is good to, has a pretty close focus distance.. (closer than my sigma 24-60 at 60mm and its closest focus) pretty sharp and nice bokeh and being f1.7 any difference the k-x is better at high iso is took away with the kit lens on the k-x.

The gf1 can also focus when you stop moving the camera.. it might not sound like much but with face detection enabled its normally ready to take the photo before you are.

Im waiting on an adaptor to mount my pentax glass onto the gf1.. When i get that ill do some samples comparing the gf1 and gx10 with the same lens. I know the gx10 sensor isnt as good as the k-x in some ways (high iso) but it should let people see the dynamic range and sensors ability to resolve details anyway.

But after getting the gf1, i can say that unless im going to take photo's for a specific reason (ie.. a party, concert) i leave my gx10 and/or d3 at home and the gf1 is with me all the time.

The best camera after all is the one you have with you
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31735225@N02/

 

[Meuh]

A photo i took with my gf1 using face detection and just hold it out with my arm at full length.



100% crop



In camera JPG.

Yoshi (my parrot) Tallons were out of focus in the shot because of the narrow Dof.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31735225@N02/

 

[EagerBeaver]

I have been researching the Kx and the 4/3rds cameras ghi ,gfi ,pen and I must say there are nreasons why both would be great choices.
....................................
Any thoughts from those who have a Kx? thanks.

Hi Snags

I have both a Panny G1 and the K-x. They're both good cameras but have different qualities. I use the G1 for holidays and general use, and the K-x for more demanding applications, like wildlife, sports etc.

The Panny bodies and lenses are smaller, lighter, the camera is heavier on batteries (you'll always need to carry a fully charged spare), but the standard 14-45mm optic is very sharp. If you intend to do much video, the GF1, GH1 Pannys would be a better choice than the K-x.

The K-x has a wider choice of lenses, a set of Lithium AAs will last forever (well, nearly, much faster focussing, it's sensor has a wider dynamic range than the Panny and images are much less noisy at high ISO. Although it's video isn't quite as flexible as the GF1 / GH1, it's still adequate if it's not a prime concern.

That about sums it up from me. Hope you find this useful

--
Tony-H

 

[Sye68]

I have been researching the Kx and the 4/3rds cameras ghi ,gfi ,pen and I must say there are nreasons why both would be great choices.
....................................
Any thoughts from those who have a Kx? thanks.

Hi Snags

I have both a Panny G1 and the K-x. They're both good cameras but have different qualities. I use the G1 for holidays and general use, and the K-x for more demanding applications, like wildlife, sports etc.

The Panny bodies and lenses are smaller, lighter, the camera is heavier on batteries (you'll always need to carry a fully charged spare), but the standard 14-45mm optic is very sharp. If you intend to do much video, the GF1, GH1 Pannys would be a better choice than the K-x.

The K-x has a wider choice of lenses, a set of Lithium AAs will last forever (well, nearly, much faster focussing, it's sensor has a wider dynamic range than the Panny and images are much less noisy at high ISO. Although it's video isn't quite as flexible as the GF1 / GH1, it's still adequate if it's not a prime concern.

That about sums it up from me. Hope you find this useful

--
Tony-H

How does the G1 say for example compare @ 800 ISO Vs KX @ 1600 ISO in your opinion ? Or maybe 3200ISO compared .
Regards

 

[EagerBeaver]

How does the G1 say for example compare @ 800 ISO Vs KX @ 1600 ISO in your opinion ? Or maybe 3200ISO compared .
Regards

I haven't done any tests, as such, but I wouldn't normally use the G1 above 400 ISO, 800 is just too noisy for my liking, whereas I feel quite happy using the K-x at 1600 ISO. The K-x really is that good ISO-wise. So let's say the K-x is at least 2 stop better, and maybe more !
--
Tony-H

 

[Sye68]

How does the G1 say for example compare @ 800 ISO Vs KX @ 1600 ISO in your opinion ? Or maybe 3200ISO compared .
Regards

I haven't done any tests, as such, but I wouldn't normally use the G1 above 400 ISO, 800 is just too noisy for my liking, whereas I feel quite happy using the K-x at 1600 ISO. The K-x really is that good ISO-wise. So let's say the K-x is at least 2 stop better, and maybe more !
--
Tony-H

Seems like the dream ticket as my D300 i rate about 2 stops better but the size of the thing compared to the KX ! Big bonus is the frame rate very good for such a small DSLR/Entry level DSLR.
Whats the Viewfinder like ? and focus speed .
Also is the screwdriven lenses still quite noisy ?

 

[EagerBeaver]

Seems like the dream ticket as my D300 i rate about 2 stops better but the size of the thing compared to the KX ! Big bonus is the frame rate very good for such a small DSLR/Entry level DSLR.
Whats the Viewfinder like ? and focus speed .
Also is the screwdriven lenses still quite noisy ?

I can really only compare the K-x with the K10D, as I haven't used a D300, but it's viewfinder is smaller than the K10's (mirror vs prism also), focus seems pretty snappy and the screwdrive is still as noisy as ever

But we're not comparing like with like here are we. Pentax rate the K-x as an entry level DSLR, but its spec is far better than that. I was originally thinking of upgrading from the K10 to the K7, but was seduced by the K-x's priice / performance ratio. I'd say you'll proabably find it worth looking at the K-x, but you might not find the handling (less buttons etc.) as nice as your 300.
--
Tony-H

 

[Angevinn]

Go for the Pentax KX! The KX has a larger sensor for improved Image Quality (IQ) and the icing on the cake is the great selection of Pentax lenses. Olympus is only bringing out two zooms in 2010 for M4/3, with more lenses to follow in 2011. Hmmm... that's too long to wait. The Panasonic lenses haven't been stellar performers either.