Hello forumers!
I used to shoot film on Pentax bodies, still have my ME Super and MX but sold all my lenses years ago and went m4/3. Anyhow, with the recent release of the K-5 and the K-r, I wonder how much "lesser" of a camera is the K-x next to the K-r? I read about the lack of AF illumination, it frustrates some but others seems not to be affected with the absence of illuminating points.
I haven't had time to read everything on the K-r, thus would like to learn especially from K-r users who moved on from the K-x, what their thoughts are. Essentially, I would like to learn :
1) is the K-x still a value proposition in light of the K-r (K-x high ISO performance was a key selling point).
2) Is the K-r really a "bigger & better" product over the K-x, and
3) Is the K-r a variation of the same theme; i.e like the K-x but with its own idiosycrancies (i.e the equivalent of the K-x lacking AF illumination)
Tks!
I used to shoot film on Pentax bodies, still have my ME Super and MX but sold all my lenses years ago and went m4/3. Anyhow, with the recent release of the K-5 and the K-r, I wonder how much "lesser" of a camera is the K-x next to the K-r? I read about the lack of AF illumination, it frustrates some but others seems not to be affected with the absence of illuminating points.
I haven't had time to read everything on the K-r, thus would like to learn especially from K-r users who moved on from the K-x, what their thoughts are. Essentially, I would like to learn :
1) is the K-x still a value proposition in light of the K-r (K-x high ISO performance was a key selling point).
2) Is the K-r really a "bigger & better" product over the K-x, and
3) Is the K-r a variation of the same theme; i.e like the K-x but with its own idiosycrancies (i.e the equivalent of the K-x lacking AF illumination)
Tks!