Digital Camera Magazine - Pentax K-30

This months Digital Camera Magazine has a test on 'Top Low-Light Cameras'. In the test are the Canon 60D (£730), Nikon D7000 (£790), Olympus OM-D (£995), Panasonic DMC-G5 (£540), Sony Alpha A77 (£990) & the Pentax K-30 (£500. Can be bought for £400 from SRS).

Unfortunately the Pentax didn't come out very well in the test. In fact it came last. I suppose being a Pentax user I am protective towards Pentax (just as Canon & Nikon users are towards their cameras). I saw this as an unfair test on the Pentax. As can be seen the 'Bottom of the range' Pentax has been pitched against competitors models which aren't bottom of the range. Hardly fair in my opinion. Surely in this company the K-5 or K-5II should have been tested.

Perhaps I am over sensitive towards Pentax, but time and time again I see Pentax getting the rough end of the stick.

Out of interest why did it come last???

Pentax is not the only one of the 'smaller' camera companies to suffer this type of comparison. http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-d800-vs-olympus-om-d-e-m5-comparison-202...
I really don't know what the point is of these comparisons and feel it shows the shortcomings of the journalism of these sites/magazines more than anything else.

As a comparison I was looking at an Olympus OM-D before buying my K-30. The OM-D with 12-50 lens as a proper non-grey import cost £1049. I bought my K-30 for £379. Unless you are blind and arithmetically challenged you've got to realise you are not comparing apples with apples.

In this months What Digital Camera magazine 2012 Awards , the K30 was voted the Best Aps-c Dslr, and that was at a body only price of £499 ! this was against the canon 650d nikon d3200 and sony alpha s7.

Inaccurate white balance
Lack of saturation in low-light
AF performance disappointing in low-light

So basically not picking then?

I don't know how the af is poor in low light as its better than the original k-5

Another reason why Photography magazines are irrelevant. I haven't bought one since 1987 and never will again. Why pay for propaganda when you can get it free on the Net? Commercially corrupt nonsense IMO.

The people who work for these magazines have no special powers or special knowledge or skills. What's printed in a magazine has no more authority than any random post on a photography forum.

I was taking plenty of photos in low light (dark) last week in Budapest at 1600/3200 ISO. The AF worked perfectly, the white balance was fine on auto and I'd be hard pushed to see any grain at the 3200 ISO unless magnified an awful lot.

Magazines... lol! mostly they list their advertisers offerings in order of who spends more and call it a review.

It must be good then. I posted this picture on Monday, taken in Durham Cathedral in total darkness apart from a few candles.The procession was walking towards us, exposure detail iso 12800,1/8 sec , f3.5. The picture is lighter than it was on the night,one of the press guys who was using white lenses was moaning about the conditions.
I thought this was the ultimate test in low light conditions, unless you have a black cat and a coal hole
link

John:

1/8 sec ..handheld ?

Agree. Unfortunately these are the magazines that pour off the shelves every week. Many are bought by people intending to buy a dSLR for the first time. What do they see? In my opinion misleading tests. At least they sould have compared like for like. One camera costing twice as much as another is not really a comparative test.
On the plus side, they said there was very little image noise at high ISO settings and retention of fine detail was impressive.

Correct and the verticals were only 1.5 degrees off as well: better than most of my shots in daylight

John

I really do think that is incorrect in every respect. How can we agree that someone who has worked professionally and has spent all their lives in a photographic environment has no more knowledge than any random poster on the internet?

I find the premise absurd to be honest, especially considering some of the drivel that gets posted on the internet.