can we trust review sites?

The reason I am asking this is because after playing a couple of weeks now with my new DS I am very happy with the unit.

If I read reviews/tests on the so called professional review sites they compare everything with the Canon D350 and the Nikon D50 and D70 as being the holy grail of affordable DSLR camera's.

They claim that the JPEG output of the DS is not good and that the sensor is more noisy then the above mentioned units (from which the Nikon units use the same CCD).

How objective are these reviews? I just received the first printed pictures from an online printshop and I was just blown away by them, when I compare them with my old Minolta Dimage Z1 the Minolta is left in the dust.

I do like the 2:3 aspect better then the 4:3 ratio as well.

The reviews I've seen place the D50 and D/DS/DL as much the same quality of output, however Pentax seem to like to use less in-camera sharpening which can reduce the immediate impact.

The 350D is without a doubt technically the best of the entry cameras at the moment, however whether you like it's handling is another matter. I actually nearly went with the 350D instead of the DS although that was as much because of availablity as anything else. I could have got a 350D just about anywhere but I ended up having to try a couple of different cities before I located a DS (couldn't find one online either).

I still think the Pentax cameras handle better than the others (plus I had a substantial investment in glass) however I think the move away from an exposure ring has reduced the gap significantly.

the problem with for example dpreview & magazines is who is donating money at the back to support the company.

then you will know how they will preview the equipment.

The most sold item is almost never the best item.
People let themselves be intimidated by other users, and advertising. Advertising is a point where pentax is very bad and where nikon and canon do a great job.

Just look at the pentax website and check it with nikon. You'll see the difference... But that does not say anything about the camera quality!

Can you trust reviewers? They tell it as they see it, I'm sure, but, just like Camera Club Judges, they don't see and understand everything.

Those who know me will understand there is some irony in the above statement.....

No.
(Answer to original question)

Why?

First, nobody nowadays is prepared to take the time and trouble and spend the money to do a proper review.

Second, almost all publications (print or internet) make their money from advertising. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

G

I think we should differentiate between a review and a test.

A review, be it brief or detailed, can and probably should have an emphasis personal to the reviewer. Examples should be shot with the camera and/or lens, conclusions drawn and so on.

A test should be more technical. Shutter speeds should be measured. Lenses should have resolution tests. Conclusions could be drawn here also, but based on more technical evidence than just on opinion. This type of task is rarely undertaken these days, and I think that is a great pity.

The sort of tests I particularly liked were extensive ones. A great example was the tests of lenses from all manufacturers found in "Creative Photography" in 1980. They tested all 50mm lenses, all 28mm lenses, all 100mm lenses, all macro lenses, and so on. They gave MTF graphs, distortion readings, brief assessments. Wonderful stuff!

I agree with all of the above, there are many facets to what makes a great camera system 'better' than the rest and it's such a subjective thing that no one test or review can possibly do more than just hint at the possibility of how suitable it is to the prospective buyer.

Assuming that the system is technically sound, the handling is easy and comfortable and it's priced competitively within the chosen market, the final decision should depend upon the quality of the end results ie. the images produced.

Pentax have always been competitive and have developed many innovative products and I think we'd all agree that there's a certain, almost indefinable quality (call it Pentax bokeh - if you like) to the image quality produced by most Pentax lenses, that only regular users can fully appreciate.

Tests and reviews can only tell part of the story and there's no substitute for personal experience.

If you asking the question of the Hi Fi Trade Mags then I'd say "no, they're are corrupt".
I just bought my first DSLR - an *istDS - after trawling reviews both in print and online. On balance I'd say that the reviews pointed out the qualities of the camera.
Maybe I missed some innaccuracies re. deeper technicalities or quality.

Initially in a store I picked up the cheaper and much hyped Nikon D50 (good camera of course) - to just feel it, and then the Pentax.
That alone was enough to rule out the Nikon ... it felt so very clunky. Of course no review can be expected to do what actually picking up a camera does.
I tried most other contenders ... but I came back to the Pentax based on positive reviews in DPReview /What Digital Camera etc ... and the crucial feel of the camera.

I.... ah.... got enamoured with Pentax when I was a kid. Their cameras were regarded as the best and only a selected few could afford them. Seeing a red Pentax logo on a camera strap was sure to earn appreciation from everybody. I dreamed with a Pentax while I struggled along with my father's Zenit EM.

A few years later, I decided to buy a DSLR when I figured they where cheap enough and good enough when compared to film. After reading a lot about them all on the net and on print, I always thought there was a slight tendancy to bash the Pentaxes in favor of Canon or Nikon. I saw no big deal of JPEG "degradation" they talked about from samples on the Net, and I always liked the fact that Pentax images were less sharpned and with less noise cleaning in-camera.

I held digital Canons and Nikons in my hands in a few stores. I ended up buying the Pentax *ist DS via mail order here in Portugal , even without feeling it. I was not disapointed. Six months later, I am not disapointed. In fact, I'm sure I did the right thing!

So, I think most "reviews" are a little biased. And, as an engineer, I too would like to see some real "tests", like John described, even if a lens is not only resolution, distortion and CA.

Flink, here's my two cents on trusting reviews and magazines:
I am self taught. My love of photography started, twelve years ago.
(I had done photography for a school yearbook, before that, but, was unhappy. I had learning disabilities and did poorly in school. They kept taking everything away from me to punish me for bad grades. I made the football team, but was not allowed to play, I took great pictures but was forced out of the yearbook club, I scored 100% on seven out of eight exams, and failed every single course due to my inability to keep up with written work etc.).
I had been dropped off on a streetcorner in Toronto, at sixteen by child and family services, with nothing.
I had been working as a bouncer at a local bar, in my hometown, until I got a shoulder and neck injury, and so was at the time a part time dishwasher and also a single parent with twin enfant daughters.
A friend sold me a secondhand pentax k1000 for $20.00.
A neighbour gave me a box of old photo magazines (Popular Photography mostly), that didn't sell at thier yard sale.
I used to pick up empty bottles along the road, while walking my dog, and cashed them in to buy film.
Within six months I had restaurants, flowershops, a church group all promoting and selling my work, and made my first wedding sale for $1200.00
My girls are thirteen now.
My reasons for telling you all this?
A) over the years I've seen those same magazines shifting from valuable learning tools for would be photographers, to "paid for" catalogs of ads for large companies. Ironically the newer mags have alot of the same stories, tips and teckniques as the old mags from the early sevenites, just less content and more ads. Of course whomever spends the most on ads is getting the better reviews....I was blowing away pros and thier expensive hassleblads with with a k1000 and vivitar 285. What else do you needs to create great images?

B) the bussiness end if this industry requires a thick skin and tough attitude (honesty helps too).
You want tough? here's my take on tough:
"You knock me down, and you're dumb enough to leave me breathing know this: I WILL get back up and when I do, You better have a whole new bag of tricks ready, because I just learned your old ones."
"There are a million ways to lose a fight, but only three ways to win:
A) you are tougher/smarter/better trained than your opponent, and you dominate.
B) you are lucky.
C) if A&B are both in his favour, you get knocked down, then you have to get back up. and you keep getting back up until your opponents are too tired to knock you down again and are starrring at you in disbelief thinking "this guy can't be human" then you get up one more time and finnish it. Attrition is the worst way to win, but when all else fails, it's still better than the alternative.

I am seeing that most of the people share the same views here and that those views are about the same I am having. I bought the DS because I loved my Pentax MZ-10, which while being a 'budget' camera at that time worked better then my dad's Canon EOS-1000FN for which he had 3 lens failures because of the USM motors in those lenses (pentax sticks to the good old motor-in-body design which just works better). My brother bought a Minolta which was at the same price of my MZ-10 but it only offered an automatic mode, you couldn't do anything by hand. Both the Canon and Minolta were raved in reviews but my MZ-10 blew both of them away in terms of user friendlyness. The only two flaws the MZ-10 had for me was the lack of AF assist and the small grip. Both flaws are 'corrected' in the DS for me.

The thing I did notice on the new Pentax lenses, which I do not like is that there is no aperture ring on the lens. But I feel that this is something to get used to.

I have never owned Pentax, however I have to say after trying in shops, Nikon, Canon, Minolta and others, I picked up the *ist DL, and that was it. Pancake 40mm lens and that camera were the ones that felt like I had always handled. 2 Months down the line, I am convinced the lens is sharp and the camera is super.

I thought the reviews were pretty good, although I take the point of advertising dictating the sorts of reviews (good, bad or indifferent).

When I first learned that Pentax had - at long last - introduced a DSLR, I immediately went to all the sites mentioned above (DPreview, etc.) and came to the tentative view that the Pentax DSLR was being studiously ignored. Made little sense to me as every two-bit new point-and-shoot seemed immediately and extensively reviewed. Later I came to the same conclusion as many of you: money talks.

However, having used Pentax cameras and lenses since 1967 (when Nikon ruled the roost) and found them well-built, user-friendly, and durable, I thought Pentax - coming so late into the DSLR market (as did Minolta) - might have been studying the technology and just might, as a consequence, have an ace up their sleeve. In my opinion they came rather close.

I learned more about the Pentax DSLR on this forum than I did anywhere else on the internet, which I found a bit ironic as I live in the US, and it was your collective impressions of the camera that led me to my purchase of a DS.

I also belong to the Yahoo Pentax Spotmatic Users Forum - a very good place to learn about Pentax cameras - but only recently have a few members come out of the closet and said they owned a DL or a DS or a DS2, which is all to the good as now they are beginning to discuss the intricasies of using old M42 and K-mount lenses.

So far, being rather too long in the tooth to ever feel comfortable (or competent) in the computer world, I find my DS mostly quite like an actual camera rather than a computer with a lens fitted to it. My current kit is the DS w/18-55, a black Spotmatic SP w/135/2.5, and stowed below, an SMC 55/1.8, and Super Takumars 105/2.8 and 28/3.5. As I now have the M42 to K mount Pentax adapter, I will begin fooling with these old sweethearts on the DS.

If I were affected solely by automobile advertising volume here in the US, as many of us are by NikonCanon advertising volume, I'd be driving a Ford instead of a Passat.

But my son, so struck, has this huge Canon (always the latest version) which I find as heavy and unwieldy as a small watermelon, but he loves it and wouldn't consider anything else. He played around with my DS and said, "It's cool. Nice and small, but my hands are too big. But you're a street shooter - probably be just right for that." The implication being, I suppose, is that it wouldn't do as a professional instrument.

Ted

OOps, forgot to log in. That was me as "guest."

Ted

It isn't the camera that makes a professional photographer, I'm sure it's the photographer.

The Pentax range have always been nicely made, highly ergonomic and of superb quality optically. You should get some cracking shots with your screw mount lenses on the *istDS. Canon users can't do the same with Canon lenses of the same vintage!