Just look at the image comparisons.
The Kr still thumps the competition with much better detail retention with low noise at high ISO levels. (D3100, 600D, A33)
Main 'weakness' for it is video.
No need to have shaken confidence
Seems silly to me to judge a DSLR by its video capabilities. That should be a bonus. I don't even use the video on my K-r.
Ha..ha.
I only every used the video on my K7 twice, both times for testing out only.
Never even bother to try it on my K5.
Take photos already 'bo-eng' (no time), where got time for video.
Esp. the really good ones that needs a whole new ball game of editing.
I guess some folks justify it as another Singaporean 'must have' when having a baby (other than the car and maid):bsmilie: (ie. take video as well as photo of children);
but frankly, that 'standard' of video taking (mine included :embrass, I personally can do without.
A photo montage with music would do better for me.
Ya lor, it's different from a phone in some ways.
Next, if Canon slaps GPS capabilities on its cameras, then all cameras will be judged by that standard. People have forgotten to ask themselves the question of whether the feature is needed. I guess in this age where everyone owns a DSLR, DSLRs have started to emulate the consumer P&S... Last time only consumer P&S have video function mar.
Yes, this list was somewhat tongue in cheek ;-)
I think people will only be satisfied when dslr's can also:
- open a wormhole for instantaneous travel to other star systems.
Only a tad much..
(Sorry if this is viewed as a side track...)
DPreview article aside, would like to know any hands-on feedback from someone who has used both the K-x & K-r and honestly tell me if there's that much difference besides the High ISO performance, which I understand K-r has benefited from improvements and also a focus indicator + Batt type options?
Reason being, I have a friend who's going to Angkor Wat sometime next month, he's on somewhat of a tight budget and wondering if he should try the K-r or get a new in Box or used K-x, I've demo-ed and let him have a feel/try out my K-x over drinks.
As his friend, I'm curious if he should just get the kit K-r and run with it for awhile. My original suggestion was to get the Dual-kit with the DAL 55-300 (which I also got) and I told & showed him what a good piece of glass the 55-330 is.
So friends, is there a major "real world" gap between the K-x & K-r? Your thoughts much appreciated...
Cheers!
Only a tad much..
(Sorry if this is viewed as a side track...)
DPreview article aside, would like to know any hands-on feedback from someone who has used both the K-x & K-r and honestly tell me if there's that much difference besides the High ISO performance, which I understand K-r has benefited from improvements and also a focus indicator + Batt type options?
Reason being, I have a friend who's going to Angkor Wat sometime next month, he's on somewhat of a tight budget and wondering if he should try the K-r or get a new in Box or used K-x, I've demo-ed and let him have a feel/try out my K-x over drinks.
As his friend, I'm curious if he should just get the kit K-r and run with it for awhile. My original suggestion was to get the Dual-kit with the DAL 55-300 (which I also got) and I told & showed him what a good piece of glass the 55-330 is.
So friends, is there a major "real world" gap between the K-x & K-r? Your thoughts much appreciated...
Cheers!
i have both...
i prefer the K-r over than K-x (and i believe is of a better stepping stone)
reason being the missing AF points and faster AF.
better screen, better HDR, ISO no diff
that's all i've found so far. haha