K-x v K10

One of the frustrating things about my K10 has been its performance in low light, at high ISO. While it has been demonstrated on PU that a K10 can take less noisy images when properly exposed, I perhaps haven't been as skilled or as fortunate.

I was asked to shoot the rehearsal of some orchestra members two weeks ago. It was indoors (former convent, high ceilings etc), and not well lit at all. Lots of black music stands, clothing and seating, lots of shadows, and one K10 struggling in low light at ISO 800. Flash was not an option, neither was a tripod. Result - lots of noisy, blurry pictures, and one less than happy snapper.

Rather than become embarassed again, the available option seemed to be a second / back-up body with good performance in low light and at high ISO. That led to a hard look at the K-x. The K7 is out of reach.

Having now taken a whole 41 images with the 16-45 on the K-x, I am impressed. I deliberately set out to trip it up, with the way poor light and shadows tend to show up the K10. In low light / high ISO situations, it is a stark contrast. Outdoors, shadow detail is resolved beautifully. 1600 indoors handheld with no flash gives me sharp, useable images at f5.6. The faster glass is yet to be tried, and it can only get better. 3200 and beyond is something I haven't got my head around yet.

While the Kx is a cut-down camera in terms of its body and external controls (only one e-dial and far fewer buttons), that doesn't take away from the images its sensor produces. To me these are acceptable compromises for the sake of clean, sharp images (and its price was nearly down to a half of the street price of a K7 body).

Having got this far, some comparison shots may be in order on the weekend, all things being =.
Happy to post some if there's any interest.

Always interested to see low light shots.