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