Web Analytics RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: The K-x Is Just So Strong!

Saturday, April 03, 2010

The K-x Is Just So Strong!

As everyone knows, DPR's 550D full review has been (promptly) out!

So, how is the 550D compared to the K-x? First, we look at this:-

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/page14.asp

I found that the K-x wins everything at all ISO speeds over all the others for noise, colour rendition and details retained! And, if you read the noise graphs, the K-x is clearly the winner there! But then still, the DPR's reviewers needed to say this, quoted:-

"Once more the Pentax K-x gives the lowest measured results where it counts, towards the top of the ISO scale, but the differences you can see here don't translate into huge discrepancies in image quality, as you can judge from the images above."

So, when the differences are just so obvious for the picture crops as well as the charts they plot speak for themselves, they yet have to say that "the differences you see here don't translate into huge discrepancies in IQ.."! To explain, I have to say and recall for my old saying: "Pictures don't tell lies but people will!" :-o

In fact, I just have a strong feeling that the writers just don't want to embarrass Canon against what they have found out and noticed themselves, which is just so obvious and easily noticeable. So, they have to write some words to counter-balance the facts!

Well, I think my above "wisdom" should apply well unless some people are even so inhonest to an extent that they purposely manipulate the pictures that they post, with careful selection, pictures taken under particular conditions and particular settings so as to purposely show something (either for the strengths or weaknesses). It is actually not difficult to do that, for people who know well of the gear, but whom are just inhonest, when there are just too many different kinds of interests that are involved.

Next, I think we should see these "Compare To" pages:-

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/page23.asp

"Although it might sound like a rather obvious point, the main difference between default JPEG output from the EOS 550D and Pentax K-x is that the 550D's files are larger. There is very little difference in actual detail resolution, although the slightly more aggressive sharpening being applied by the 550D makes detail a little more obvious. Closer examination reveals that the K-x can resolve almost as much of the finest detail in this scene, but it is slightly masked by the fractionally softer default output."

And..
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/page26.asp

"The difference between the raw output of the EOS 550D and the Pentax K-x is pretty much the same as we've seen in the JPEGs. Both cameras are capable of excellent resolution, but the EOS 550D just edges ahead thanks to its greater pixel count. However, the difference is so subtle as to be almost irrelevant to normal photography at print sizes smaller than A3."

These times, it seems that their comments are fairer and more objective..

I don't comment further on the particulars of their ratings, fairness and consistency of the marks given (that's what many Pentax fans have been arguing these days). It is because I found those marks are meaningless and of no reference value of any kind at all! In fact, when you read any review, I do encourage you do read facts and evidence and then make your own judgement (but not rely too much on the "comments" that the reviewers write)! Don't read too much and in-depth into those words and comments if you don't believe too much in them! Instead, read the facts which don't and won't lie and they are having little and much less subjectivity!

Last but not least, specifications wise, if you have a more careful mind, you should have been able to notice that they do not compare to K-x but only the other two models which they selected for their "Compared To" tests. That's somehow strange (but possibly intentionally, again), if I have to say. Well, why the specifications comparison is only for three whereas the comparisons have been made for four? The only reason is just simple, if comparisons are to be made, some results are just not so favourable (to the Canon and Nikon), the K-x actually wins in frame rate, size, weight (without battery and card) and some other aspects, so it would be better to avoid!

Well, sorry for the conspiracy theory and tone contained in my this Blog post, but I think I would like to air these out! :-)


Read All Other K-x News:-


http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/search/label/K-x

and my own last K-x Full Review:-

http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2010/01/my-k-x-review-is-here-with.html

Comments (16)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Eric Calabros's avatar

Eric Calabros · 780 weeks ago

dont be sorry.. we, as photographers or costumers,need to know what u said in this post TOO. DP-ish websites are respected sources, but we need RiceHighs to remember us the fact that there are some guys who sPoNsOr them.
And I wonder why they changed the resolution comparison. To me this does not look better than the 12MP cameras like K-x or D5000.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/page...
...although the Pentax K-x offers the best combination of smoothness and detail retention at default settings up to and including ISO 6400.

it's the words of DPR, but K-x's JPEG and RAW IQ in conclusion (see K-x and 550D review) is lower than 550D...funny.

and the real resolution of 550D is just a bit higher than 12.2 MP cameras...NO ANY 18 MP. It's just size of image.
With regards to ISO comparisons, DPR clearly says the Pentax K-x has better results. I think you are just trying to make a big fuss over nothing.

"The real star of this comparison is the Pentax K-x though, which at its default NR setting delivers an impressive amount of detail right up to ISO 12800."

DPR’s conclusion about the 550D:
“Acceptable – although not outstanding – image quality at highest ISO settings.”

DPR’s conclusion about the K-x:
“Class-leading image quality in low light, very good retention of fine detail at high ISOs”
I hope you have opened a huge can of worms here. DPR's maligned truth (call it BIAS if you like) favouring Canon (and Nikon) has been its key characteristic for many years now. What you write here does not surprise me. Instead I am happy to see that FINALLY someone has decided to speak up. I hope that you can rouse up even more people to voice their disapproval and create enough momentum to force DPR to back down and be more credible than it has ever been. Thank you for your boldness. I hope you start an avalanche.
It's not the first time that DPReview has been caught posting reviews that are biased against the smaller brands (and for the big sponsors). If I recall, a few months back, their readers were quite incensed when they failed to review what was then the highly rated Panasonic TS-1 water proof pocket camera. Giving some lame excuse which didn't make sense. Unsurprisingly, the review was made and presented in such a way that the likes of Canon come out looking good, i.e. as the choice that consumers should buy. Only after various complaints did they include the Panasonic model.

Subsequent to being purchased by a big group, DPReview ceased to be independent. It's probably wise for consumers to look elsewhere for more independent reviews of new cameras.
DPReview has always been a little biased to the Canon/Nikon world, and this should not come as a surprise to anybody considering that they are for-profit venture. Canon/Nikon have huge advertising budgets, and a miss-step could result in the loss of their sponsor ship. (The teaser page for the 550D review had a fancy flash advert for Canon)

Like everything on the Internet, you need to take it with a grain of salt, read multiple reviews, and look at lots of sample images. More importantly, go and see the camera that you want to purchase in person, at a real camera store.
Toomas Kadarpik's avatar

Toomas Kadarpik · 779 weeks ago

dpreview is biased definitely, K-x has excellent IQ compared to Canon and it is visible in test. But we must admin, most of the Canon rebel buyers just do not see with the eyes but work with ears more. In this segment people do not see even the images dpreview has. From this point dpreview does good balancing, all who can read really the reviews SEE the differences and dpreview gets huge money from Canon because most of them do not understand. Canon has serious sensor problems in last models.
Speaking of objectivity - dpreview also seems to be trying hard not to antagonize Canon .. In their latest review of the Canon MKIV they stated that it was about as good as the Nikon D3 in low light capabilities - which is not true - and I pointed out the DxOMark objective numbers. Well they did try still to defend their position. Going against what all the pros know -and many are now switching from Canon to Nikon for that reason...
It is hard of course to be honest sometimes ..
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?fo...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?fo...
I guess it was easier when it was a one man show who didnt have to consider sponsors.
It's interesting that dpreview didn't pick up on the K-x having obvious NR applied to raw!!! How is it raw if the camera has already applied massive amounts of NR? You might think that dpreview is being biased towards Canon, but to ignore such a blatant deficiency in the K-x seems to imply that they're biased towards Pentax.
Dear RiceHigh please correct me if i'm wrong, but

1. at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/page... one can clearly see, that for jpg the noise graphs for all parameters are better for 550D (at least up ISO 3200)

2. at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/page... one can clearly see, that the jpg-engine of the 550D is doing a better job, which is essential for jpg-shooters

3. at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/page... one can clearly see, that the RAWs of Kx and 550D are comparable BUT the 550D has a slightly better resolution

4. put aside the the MUCH better video capabilities of the 550D and just looking through the viewfinder of the Kx, how could you say what are you focusing at without the focus point highlightning?

I am considering for a while to buy one of both, 550D or Kx but aftter the dpreview tending strongly to 550D, too bad actually, i hate 18 MP files...
Michael A.'s avatar

Michael A. · 779 weeks ago

Dear Dimitri, only you can decide for yourself. But as you put it, one can clearly see the superior K-x RAW performance in higher ISO over $150 or so more expensive 550D as well. And personally, I definitely wouldn't ever consider the orange hue of Canon's sensor.

Mostly Neutral colors of K-x (and of Pentax gear in general) is what makes sense to me (landscape color mode seems best choice for my needs). BTW, why do we have video on DSLR's anyway..... Take care.
I agree - the KX was marginalized but after carefully reading several professional reviews I think there's a good reason as to why the Pro reviewers think the Canon 550D is better:

One simple reason, the KX left out the AF points and to a non-beginner this is a big deal. Several pro review sites have mentioned it. I think if Pentax didn't cut that corner the KX would be king.

Other 550D pluses:
manual control in video mode
Higher Res LCD Screen
External Mic input
1080p video at 30fps
Less tendency to clip highlights (according to some)

The 550D isn't perfect but these included features puts it over the top and some reviewers call it the ultimate personal video machine. Still....the KX is way more affordable - $499 at buydig.com.
I honestly agree with "Tieri". But there are advantages on both sides. The non visible AF-Points are a huge and unforgivable loss. I really don't know why Pentax considered this in the first place. On the other hand, the K-x is really small. I mean really, really small, but it still does its Job. For my taste the 550D feels still way to much like plastic only and is way beneath the build quality of the K-x. And then there's the option to mount old Lenses. There aren't any real cheap (and good lenses) for the 550D for Starters as far as I know (I left the 50mm f1.8 II out this time). And the equipment, besides the flashes (which are considering the prices of other brands a bit pricey) there are many useful lenses (but still not everything we need) for normal users and they're not that pricey (imho). I could easily buy the 300mm f4 (looks funny on a K-x though) for under 1000€, and even lower from Pentax directly (best offer was 639,78€ without taxes).

But now back to the topic.

I've heard that Pentax uses 1% of the money Canon spents on comercials for theire comercials. And I honestly think it's true, as I only see Canon Advertisments in Prints or on the Internet etc. Nowadays even more often the Nikon D5000. I thinks thats the way it is.

But in terms of IQ the K-x really rocks. The 18MP Sensor (which is solely based on the 7D one) is inferior in every way, atleast I think it is. The K-x has a 14MP Sensor and hasn't got the Pixel density of a 18MP one (which is why there is less noise) but the Processing in camera is way better and leaves even .jpg shooters (which most of the buyers will do, sadly) with a really visibly better result. Even my father (who hates every Digital Camera, still shoots with his Minolta X-700) said that there are really big differences and was astound how clean it looked even with ISO 3200.

But in the end the costumer has to decide. Kudos to the one who reads, good luck with the one who doesn't. Just don't bother with the rest and leave them dumb as hell. I don't want to spent all my time getting ballsy everytime I hear from my uncle how much better his 1000D is then my K20D. If I would, I'd have probably killed him by now, trust me.

With those words closing my short resume ( :-D ) I leave you with two things:

Good light, better pictures folks!

And my Homepage:

http://www.moritzschwertner.de/
BTW, I am not sure if it really make sense to compare details at 100% crop. IMO, usually a camera with lower MP would probably get better sharpness per pixel. This is because the pixels are less cramped and they can get more light.

However, when it comes to the sharpness of the overall picture, the extra pixels do count. I am not saying extra pixels is better. But I just think that comparing details using 100% crop seems to be misleading, as it takes away the benefits of the higher pixel count.

Post a new comment

Comments by