Friday, November 28, 2008

My Initial Impressions on the K-m

I had a chance to try out a K-m today, inserted four Energizer AA lithium batteries (not new but the camera still shown full power for the green LED indicator). Below are my initial impressions to share:-

1. The body felt really small and solid (very good built quality) but obvious not lightweight, even with the lightest AA lithiums. The weight is just somewhat very similar to the K100/Super but it is more compact;

2. The silver rim on body is not good looking in real than what I got the impression from the product photos seen before. I just feel that it is just too shiny and too much and too long. This little thin and long shiny thing is not matching well with the dull old type black matte plastic material of the whole body afterall, IMO;

3. The AF speed is not as fast as what some new K-m users have told. I tested the camera in a moderate well lit room with white lighting, set single AF, with the 18-55 DAL kit. There were huntings most of the time. Yes, there were huntings and the AF motor didn't move really that fast. Nonetheless, the huntings would stop just after one to two times. Actually, the behaviour is very similar to that of the K200D but it seems that the camera just simply gave up with a *limited number* of times, as pre-defined. In fact, the K20D's AF motor is obviously stronger and faster (but yet it could hunt endlessly!);

4. Exposure accuracy seems to be good enough/improved as performed in the room but I had no chance to shoot in tungsten lighting environment nor outdoor, as it was rather dim outside and thus I didn't test it;

5. The K-m is not as responsive/immediate in releasing the shutter as I thought before, against what I measurebated last time, for the shutter lag time of the K-m, which was found to be 114 millisecond (or, 0.114 second). Well, it is not scientific of course, but it did feel not so responsive and the delay was yet quite noticeable. The mirror action is smooth and has a light touch, though.

Well, after the trial, I think I now have no more strong incentive to acquire the K-m (which I have been really quite interested in). Well, to be fair, the K-m is not bad for an entry level DSLR, but I think those new owners have created some myths of its performance, which IMHO have been overstated, e.g., the high speed and "much faster" AF (which I guess the firmware just limits the maximum number of times of hunting which the camera would allow).

8 Comments:

Matthew Miller said...

C'mon, man. Instead of griping about perceived flaws in the specification, just buy the thing and start taking some pictures. Anyone can pick on the camera in a store and give "impressions". Instead, use the thing for a month and then come back with what you think.

RiceHigh said...

Okay, we shall wait for your report then. You are most welcome to post what you think here again after the first month you have been using your new K-m. See you.

bazzie said...

My partner has the K-m; I have the K100D. On an indoor shoot at the camera club, I suffered with white balance (the pics was too blue). Also my pics were underexposed and needed EV comp. Her pics were almost perfect on both counts.

RiceHigh said...

I noticed this too. Just read back my recent last blog entries about the K-m. But anyway, I still have reservation on the improved exposure accuracy until this is to be verified more concretely later on - this problem has just been staying too long with many of we Pentax DSLR users! And, the K-m is told to be having the same 16-segment metering system, hasn't it? (At least in hardware sense, although the software can be different.)

Bad logic said...

Quote from you:
Nonetheless, the huntings would stop just after one to two times. Actually, the behaviour is very similar to that of the K200D but it seems that the camera just simply gave up with a *limited number* of times, as pre-defined.........

Now this one:
Exposure accuracy seems to be good enough/improved as performed in the room


Sooo lets THINK about these 2 statements and how they interact.
IF the AF doesn't hunt much AND it is accurate how does one get to the conclusion "that the camera just simply gave up with a *limited number* of times, as pre-defined. "
SEEMS to me that the camera focused and then gave up... would you prefer it moved more just for the sake of moving??
As usual your logic is baffling..

RiceHigh said...

IF you have ever used a DSLR or just an AFSLR that does not hunt like a SAFOX VIII DSLR (including the K-m, as I've verified), then you probably could know what I am saying. But anyway whether you could face the reality is yet another issue..

for what it's worth, said...

A quote from a dp review post,:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=30269754



Hi,

German ColorFoto Magazine (1/2009) has tested the K-m vs. Nikon D60 vs. Canon EOS 1000.
Those lenses(!) where uesd:
K-m: DA 3,5-5,6/18-55mm ALII
D60: Nikkor 2,8/24-70mm G ED
EOS 1000: EF 2,8/16-35mm L II USM

They liked the K-m AF the best :)

ColorFoto: "Im AF-Vergleich hat 'Pentax unterm Strich die Nase vorn' "

When it comes to AF comparison "All in all Pentax is the leader of the pack"
(very free translation, but the meaning should be covered)

No comment on the good report? said...

as usual...

Post a Comment

Related Posts

 
Creative Commons License
RiceHigh's Pentax Blog by RiceHigh is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.