I like what you did though uinder cons for the KX has to be the AA Batteries making live or movie mode very week and that the A330 pricewise is a better comparsion to the other models.

one of the better comparisons out there on the net, now that I've had a look to see if anything has been done in this way.

Carl

It really drives home how much content Sony removed from their entry level cameras. Sometimes I don't think people realize how much more the a200 actually has to offer over its replacements.

It seems that Pentax has found a good compromise between features/content and cost savings. I do think it's a pity they couldn't find a way to indicate the AF point in the VF though. I have only read good things about the image quality so far.

... That is presented very well. Kudos to you.

A330 is not widely available in most regions, in the UK it's only sold through one retailer. But it's easy to interchange any of the entry models, you just add the fast AF live view as a pro, and put the viewfinder size as a con.
AA batteries, well I thought about that one, and I decided it's hard to clarify as a pro or a con. I have a bucket load of them around the house, and they are easy to find out and about. But I've never had a problem with the usual proprietary lithium ones either.

I have loads my issue is > teh rechargeable don;t hold a charge when in use and the affordable akaline just don;t work in electronics but because of the live view and video which use a lot more power not even the Lithium non rechargables hold much of a charge.

I've not had a chance to use a Pentax K-x, so I cannot really be of much use in this. I would imagine that Alkaline is pure emergency use only for a high drain device such as a digital camera. On the other hand I do use Duracell re-chargeables, and they seem pretty good to me using them in a variety of devices. No way for me to really know about battery performance without an extended test with this model.
The CIPA figures are I believe: Ni-MH 1900mAh
640 no flash
420 50% flash

In my experience CIPA number tend to overestimate normal use battery consumption. Obviously live view and video will drain that. But the CIP figures are higher than for my Km5d, which is 550 shots I think no flash, the A200 is around 750. In actual use I'd say I get near 400 per charge from the 5d, and 500 with the A200, near enough. So in that case, looking purely at the K-x CIPA figures, it would appear to be reasonable to get around 400 shots with a decent set of batteries for mostly OVF shooting, can't say for sure unless I try one..but that's ok really, there are better, but it was rare for me to change battery on the Km5d..so going on that..still not sure AA is a disadvantage. Don't forget you have 4 cells with AA, and most lithium batteries are 2 cells (I know as I pulled apart a Km battery) Lithium clearly has better performance, but more cells helps out a bit. Also Ni-MH 1900mAh are only really mid level, I use mostly 2500 mAh ones.

I havent found the The raing on recharable to be very accuarate not sure why pronbbably because of the OEM factor. I would find it hard to believe a 400 shots from AA iunless they were lithium theNIMH or akaline just dont hold up. In there previous units I never heard anything good about their life. I would actually consider th KX if it wasn;t for th batteries I think it is a very nice camera and do have some MF lenses I could use

Hi Barry

Thanks for putting this up, I think it's a good and handy comparison of features which should help people decide which features are most important to them and which cameras to take a closer look at in store.

I agree that Pentax is looking particularly strong at the moment and Sony somewhat lacking. I agree with some of the comments on AA batteries, personally I like the simplicity of a "pack" rather than double AAs, but then if you run out in the middle of nowhere you are more likely to find AA batteries. One thing I would say is to purchase the most powerful AAs you can, and for people to look at the Sanyo Eneloop batteries or similar. These are simply superb and see regular service in my SB900s.

Nice job putting these specs together. It seems odd to me that these camera manufacturers think that amateur photographers moving up from compacts want features like "smile detection"... Or is it really so that these cameras are just sold to non-photographers. I wish there was at least one entry model with just strong basic features and none of the nonsense these models have. Think a100 with updated sensor and VF, nothing else.

This is a good review - and this is coming from an A550 owner. Having said that, I would likely still choose my A550 over the Pentax K-X or even the K-7. Why? Well, for my needs the tiltable Quick AF Live View and high FPS are my most important features. We have a 15 month old and the Quick AF Live View has proven to be extremely valuable at getting down to her level and snapping off photos rapidly. And while a gimmick to some, Face Detection has proven to be very useful as well.

That said, I do agree as a photographic tool costing upwards of $900 in the US, it should have more bells and whistles (read fundamental features) than it has. I have not found myself looking for MLU, DOF Preview or P-Shift very often, but would be nice to have those features on this camera at this price. In addition, not having the ISO in the viewfinder is a bit of an annoyance. The A550 is not the last camera I will buy, but for those with certain criteria for fast moving subjects and the need for Quick LV, it is a winner.

Here's to hoping the A7xx or next iteration of the A5xx series adds video and some of the missing features listed on this review. Sony can build great products, but they are wandering a bit looking for a niche...

Very well-written and helpful comparative review.

Sony's response to photographers who want DSLRs with features such as MLU, DOF Preview, P-Shift, A-mode with non-chipped lenses, electronic spirit levels, and ISO readings in the OVF appears to be "Make Believe."

Andy

Do you think there will be a comparison between the Alpha A500/550 and the EOS 550D/t2i? Are they simlar or are they competing in the same market?
Daniel

I did a comparison to the T1i and Nikon D5000. Hopefully that helps you.

Carl

http://www.alphamountworld.com/product-shootouts/sony-alpha-a500-nikon-d5000-and-canon-rebel-t1i

There is a big difference between what's on the paper and what's in the real world. A550's AF is fast and zippy in real world. Kx is slower (for tracking moving subjects). A550 works out of the box. Kx has quality control issues (first it was battery, now blurry photos due to either mirror and/or SR system). A550 also has better image stabilization system.

The laundry list on a paper doesn't tell the whole story.

Relatively few Kx's have either issues. Neither camera are going to be cameras that are great at real action shooting, both will make due- more like. The A550 is also almost 2x as expensive as the Kx, and lacks many of the features (obviously) the Kx has. I think the idea of throwing the A550 in the comparison is to see the value you are getting for the dollar where the A550 is clearly outclassed here, small niggles about the Kx aside- I'm sure most people will gladly save the money.

Also, what comparison do you base "better" image stabilization on?

Carl

It's not a "sweeping” generalization. I had a Kx, and it had every issue that I mentioned. As for image stabilization even A200 SSS was more effective. A550 works as advertized. Good luck in trying to get, for example, HDR on Kx work. There is no mirror-lockup when taking HDR photos, and unlike A550, there is no auto-alignment, so you can get ghostly HDR photos even on tripod . A550 is just a better camera.. I will take A550 over Kx.

I think the comparsion is very good. It tells part of the story. The 550 should be a better camera than the KX because of the price alone, I think the 500 would be a better comparison. The QUick Live view is a feature that definitley doens't get enough props though. It is one of the main reasons Sony picked up as much share as they did in 08/early 09. You just aren't going to capture anything moving on any other LV system. I still don't think the features left off the 2xx/3xx have hurt their sales. I think Pentax did well with the KX, I am sure they would prefer to sell it at 799, which is where the price point probably would be if they had any market share. Pentax had never been teh best bang for teh buck> Like I said I would probably grab a KX if it wasn't for the batteries it is a great buy I would still prefer a 330 or 500 because of my wife though.
Most reviews I have seen do seem to think Pentax way over rates its stabilization system though I am not sure any mag or website has a mediocre test let a lone a good one. I do know that Sony sends anything they say about their product to legal unlike a lot of compaines sans HP and can reproduce their tests.
I will give Sony one thing they haven;t had a major defect in the firmware like the BIg guy always seems to have. People may not like something but the cameras actually have worked out of the box.

Thanks for directing me to the missed article. Odd, I check the site fairly regularly and must not have paid attention to it when it came out (for those interested, I asked about a comparision between the Alpha A550 and the EOS 550D/t2i above) as you know I'm shooting an A300, and still holding tight for the new A700, but a good friend wants to get into the picture bug that I have and asked for recommendations. Since he is not locked into a system, I was truly interested in what would be the better product for someone starting out, and obvioulsy we moved right into the Nikon and the new Canon. Sorry, but the Alpha thing did not come up until I told him the long story of how I got to where I am now. He is not in a rush, because he'll buy from Costco, and they're not in yet. Alpha is really hard to explain, as there is no place to buy one within hundreds of miles (I'm in the Florida capital) but he really wants to be on the same camera as me (go figure). I told him I like my camera and what it does, but other than lenses, I have not purchased anything else. I told him that two things were absolute musts when I bought mine, great live view and stabization. He seems to agree, what to do?
Daniel

Zee, I hope to do a follow up article with a hands on with each model. Obviously that is reliant on the manufacturers sending out a review copy. I have contacted Sony, Nikon, Canon and Pentax to request a review sample of each body.

I'll keep you updated on how that pans out. I'm more than happy to give a balanced report on each one, actual in the field use. Yes you are right, that just going on paper isn't enough, but obviously it can be useful in some ways, for example you want a body with a DOF preview, if it's not got that, then real world testing won't help! But we'll see what turns up, all the makers now have been given an opportunity to provide a sample body for evaluation.

The article was never designed to be a comprehensive review, and I can't say how the in body stabilisation systems compare (for example), until I get the chance to use the cameras for a period of time.

I think in the price range you are using the A500 might have been more appropriate than the A550. I think you have left out a couple of items that would have favored Sony such as in camera HDR and battery life (you just say HDR/DR and don't separate in camera HDR out as a unique feature Sony has that others don't). Also, like others have mentioned, a comparison such as this doesn't tell the whole story. For a beginner, something like fast live view might trump a number of the features the kx has that the Sony's doesn't. It all depends on what one is looking for in a camera. Overall, however, you've done a pretty fair comparison that correctly illustrates that the Pentax kx is truly a great bargain for some users.

Just curious, are you now working for/with Carl over here on this site?

It would have been nice to see the Olympus E600 or E620 listed. Both cameras are about as fully featured as the K-x. They don't offer video mode, their user interface isn't as good as that of the Pentax (which is very good for such a camera), and of course image quality is half-a-notch lower. However, they do include a swivel screen, Li-ion batteries and an external WB sensor (which works better than dpreview.com's test would lead you to believe). Most of the other features on the table are also included.

Note that I've made a similar comparison after dpreview.com published their K-x review (as a response to their decision to compare the camera with higher priced cameras). You can see it here:

http://imapnet.com/boren/Pentax-K-x/kx-d3000-1000d-comparison.png

The K-x again is the clear winner which is why I recommended the camera to several friends. Suffice to say they're all very satisfied with it. The only complaint I hear from them is about the slow AF during LV, an issue that Sony should be credited for solving. Too bad they decided to take away so much while doing so.

A couple of responses to some of the points raised:

- Lack of AF point notification in the viewfinder. In my opinion (as someone who does use the peripheral AF points frequently) - this is a non-issue, for several reasons: (1) It's quite easy to see the points in the LCD with the eye still in the viewfinder by just looking down. The display isn't sharp at this close distance, but it's very much possible to tell which one is selected. No need take the camera away from the eye. (2) Both the LCD and the viewfinder show the same brackets, making it easy to tell where the points actually are without having them etched in the viewfinder. (3) The Green button can be programmed to select the central AF point an enter manual point selection mode. From this point just use the arrow buttons to select the desired point. No need to even look at the LCD. It's not an ideal solution, but I would still take the K-x compromise with its 9 cross-type points (!) over the nice AF point notification I have in my KM 7D. The peripheral points simply hunt too frequently, forcing me to use the central point a lot more often than I'd like. With the K-x, there's no viewfinder notification, but at least the peripheral points are dependable.
- AA batteries. The main problem with rechargeable AA batteries is their fast self-discharge. This is solved in the new type of "hybrid" batteries such as Sanyo Eneloop or GP RecyKo. Li-ion packs are still more convenient to use and I personally prefer them, but it's important to mention that AA batteries also have their own advantages. I gave a few here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=34052555

Prog.

Just saw this:
I think this is pretty fair.
I would add that Sony should designing between Pentax (needs market desperatly) and Nikon solid 2nd place
I am curious to see what is up during this gap in updates. It might be that just as you predicted they lost momentum by taking too much feature value out and are now looking at changing that.

I would say this is pretty fair article.
You forgot Face Detect as a feature in entry level on the table and that is useful feature for this market.

Ken

Nice job as a features comparison table/comments. However, the table should also show the street price, which for many is the most important "feature"... I know price varies a lot, but a reference based on a reputable store, for example, would be quite valid IMHO.
Some features can always be considered of less importance or even unecessary for the buyer when the price fits the pocket.

Street prices vary from country to country. This forum has readers from many different countries. What holds true in the U.S. at B&H Photo or Adorama, for example, may be quite different in Australia, Japan, Poland, Great Britain, Sweden, etc.

Anyway, just for reference, below are the prices for the cameras compared ( plus some other Sonys ), at B&H - New York City. I believe that's also a valid comparison item.

Sony A230 ------ 399.95
Sony A330 ------ 499.99
Sony A380 ------ 699.99
Sony A500 ------ 749.99
Sony A550 ------ 949.99
Pentax K-x ------ 520.95
Nikon D3000 ---- 549.95
Canon 1000D --- 529.95

Prices in US$ for the body + 18-55mm lens in all cases

Food for thought...

Pentax K-X Tamron 24-135mm lens

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4477442661_fe493e1c85_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2647/4477448419_d17a08efe1_o.jpg

I think it does a very good job!!

Glad you like the Kx, it seems a big bang for the buck.

Carl

It does a very fine job at higher iso's and I like the controls as well..
Maybe raw is a tad light (not much room to adj.) but that is about it.. and all those manual focus lenses!!

See YA

I really feel this list does not capture what is important to me about a camera, and I feel that many camera purchasers would be better off ignoring "bullet point lists" like this.

For example, you left off the fact that the K-X does not indicate the active AF point in the viewfinder, while harping on the ISO missing from the Sony. To me, I would always want to see the active AF point while shooting, but I can afford to look at the back to change ISO.

In terms of AF performance, "11 point 9 cross type" is irrelevant to me. I want to know if the camera can autofocus quickly and accurately, and track objects in motion. From what I hear, the Alpha 550 has it all over the K-X in this department.

I have read that the Alpha 550 stabilization is a lot more effective than the Pentax version. This is important!

There are a bunch of "features" on the list that I find of somewhat or extremely marginal benefit -- "DOF Preview" that isn't accurate, program shift, jpeg modes and parameters, RAW developing in the camera?!!!!, "digital filters" and the like. Most of your "score" is based on these (to me) unimportant and even excessive features, while the basic fundamentals (price, AF, sensor performance, liveview usability, antishake performance) many of which favor the Alpha 550 are given very little weight.

I suspect that most serious photographers use RAW, so all the jpeg methods in the above (which I count 4!) have no relevance to them at all.

There are some legitimate failings of the Alpha offerings -- lack of MLU, lousy bracketing mode, and the marketing problem of not offering video. But there are some huge plusses for the Alpha 550 over some or all of the other cameras listed: fast LV, high performing AF, high resolution screen, and built in antishake.