Kr Review, undeserved bashing???

I've just read the review and its only served to convince me that I'm fine with my KX (yes I'd have liked the high res screen and visible focus points) and now I have a full range of lenses I'm looking forward to my next trip abroad in May.

Having only got into Digital SLR's this last year, (5000 exposures this first year - boy did I buy the right make!)I'm now looking forward to the day when i can afford to buy a K5 or whatever the exciting equivalent is by then. I just hope Hoya don't take Pentax too far up market for my pocket!

Not my work but I agree with it all the same, from Member Yanko on DPreveiw.

Here are some questions on the K-r review. DPR if you read - please answer several questions.

•The DR was reviewed with an omission of the overall steps of DR that the cam can produce and with omission of any comparison to the other cams in this market segment used in the review - I believe that such an action is deliberate as this will prevent the author from downgrading the cam and this would prevent criticizing of the DR without any support. - Here is how the cam compares to the other cams used as benchmark in the review here: http://www.dxomark.com/...-Sensor/Compare/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/672|0/%28appareil2%29/664|0/%28appareil3%29/645|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Pentax/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28brand3%29/Canon - What we have here is 11.3 steps from the Nikon D3100 and 11.5 steps from the Canon 550D and a very good 12.4 steps from the Pentax K-r. Now why on Earth should the review omit this in the DR section - much better than the Nikon and the Canon used in the review and an excellent 12.4 - was this omitted deliberately?

•The DR review in the given case turned to be a page of wining regarding the clipped highlights. No sense to me, as this is a DSLR review not a P&S. If this was a P&S review I would understand the inability of the user to use the EX compensation. As I use as one of my cams a Pentax K-x and I shoot a lot in bright light, high contrast and wide DR scenes. A -1/3 to -1 (usually it just takes -2/3) correction works excellent. I am writing this based on some 20 000 + shots done with a K-x.

•Now what once again - what is the overall DR that the cam can produce? How does it compare to other cams that are used for comparison in the review? I didn't see this in the review...just words no tests, no support. Is this a review and if yes - what is the level of such a review?

•Well and yes the DR page even incorporates mistakes in the wording as: "The real-life samples below that the K-r has a relatively small 'RAW headroom'." Missing words in sentences shows once again that these was another review just for the check mark I believe. No will at least to proof-read the wording. DPR - Please correct such mistakes in the reviews you post.

•The image stabilization, or SR was criticised with no support under this criticism, once again. A wording that the cam SR is worse than others would take a comparison to Sony's and Oly's IS/SR systems. I have no idea weather they are better, similar or worse, but I know that without such a comparison this is an unacceptable and unprofessional statement. It can perhaps be deliberately wrong actually....no prove that it is not anyway.

The reviewer obviously knows nothing about how little of the tonal range is available for highlights and how to expose for the highlights In other words he shouldn't be doing the review

Aaannnd were there! Thanks Algi, you put into very few words just what I was trying to say...

I have a K-x and kind of agree with what they are saying. Probably when they did the review it was still quite highly priced. The video usage and live view in the K-x are it's weakest features, dire in fact. But as I use neither it is no problem. Everything else was and is fine for me on the K-x so an upgrade isn't really worth it for the minor benefits and it is true that the K-r may not be the leader in it's current price range, which the K-x probably was when it came out.
Dave

i never knew i could do video on my k-r and probably never will. to me it is a camera not a video camera. if i wanted to make a film i would buy the right kit for the job.

The image quality from my preferred P&S, a Samsung NV5, is top notch. Most of the reviews I've read say it's "average" or "disappointing". Either they're blind or I am. So much for reviews. Mind you, they agree the build quality is stunning, so they're not entirely fools.

Al

The reviews weren't very complimentary about the Sigma 30mm/1.4

I saw a few sample shots from ordinary users and had to have one. Great lens.

'reviews' have no more weight than any other anecdote on the Net. in fact even less so as most ordinary peeps have no commercial bias to spin.

Lets look forward to the death of the 'review'. Let's put them out of their misery.

Such as...? Panasonic GH2? Canon 600d? The k-r loses potential market to those models because they do video better.

Canon obviously thought that their 550D was lacking in some way to replace it so quickly, kinda hard to see where really!
There is no doubt that the best video implementation award goes to the Panny GH2! Currently at the expense of an Optical Viewfinder, there doesn't seem to be a way around that really. Does anyone else here feel a bit uneasy about not actually seeing what you are seeing???? I think I'm a Luddite...

I see your point here actually, do you think the reviewer was dissapointed at the apparant lack of "New Tech"? I wonder if He like many was suffering from the endless desire for "more"?
I think I place a lesser importance on Video too but I suppose the reviewer has to look at the Picture differently?

That's not true really is it? People put a good deal of effort into building a reputation for theirt reviews. Cameras and lenses are shipped all over the place to individuals who test them and write a report, generally freelances being used quite a lot. The idea that anybody's opinion, no matter how new they are to photography, carries equal weight is in my opinion not tenable as an argument. Reviews are definitely not anecdotal.

The more I think about it the more I think that reviewers can have a hard time. I enjoy the Writing of Thom Hogan who reviews a lot of Nikon products, He gets called out a lot for being a "Nikon Fanboy" because he writes something good about their products yet if he writes something not so good he doesn't know what he's talking about! I've heard you being called a Pentax Fanboy John but I think some of your articles are amongst the most unbiased I have read (Not being a crawly Bum Lick here either Yuk!) I think most people whether they know it or not base their purchase around reviews as well as Brand loyalty and Personal reasons (Trying the product etc) but the Reviews play a part, it's a shame that the Web is open to so much Mediocrity in Publishing but it would not be what it is if that were the case. Reviews express an Opinion and as such have great power when they are available to Millions of viewers, especially when written by a Person or organisation that has or seems to have Credability.
That can be both a Good and a Bad Thing...

Conclusion - Pros

Good detail and color in JPEGs at base ISO (ok, nice)
Good high ISO performance (might say "best in class")
Compact dimensions for a DSLR
ISO range up to ISO 25600 (again, might say best in class)
6.0 frames per second continuous shooting is class-leading (ah, finally)

Option to use AA batteries (with optional adapter) (only one in any class to do this)
Decent Live View AF
Good viewfinder
LCD color fine-tunable

Good control over high ISO noise reduction (actually, could also be called best)
User-definable Auto ISO
AF fine adjustment (not sure, do others in class have this?)

Distortion and chromatic aberration correction for DA and DFA lenses (also available in RAW conversion when using supplied software) (99% sure this is unique in this class of camera)
Choice of two RAW formats (ONLY Pentax does this)
In-camera RAW conversion
Good bundled RAW converter (based on SilkyPix)


The Cons:

Conclusion - Cons

Outdated Motion JPEG format produces very large movie files (um, its a DLSR = Camera)
No direct movie button (its a camera)
Tendency to clip highlights in high-contrast scenes (fair enough)

Relatively little RAW headroom means it is difficult to pull back blown detail even when shooting RAW (not good)

Slightly unreliable auto white balance in overcast conditions and in artificial light (but very good presets and WB fine tuning) (kinda reaching dont you think?)

Shake-reduction not too efficient compared to other systems (never proven - ever)
No HDMI-connector (um, its a camera)

Very Video Centric...

The pro's outweigh the con's, by far even. Most won't care about the video mode, it's a nice extra but not the reason why you buy a DSLR.

Having downloaded and tried to watch AVHDC video from other brands, and 1080p footage, I'd call the motion jpeg format a bonus.

It's the only format that plays smoothly on my PC!

I would say that in a sector where, to be honest, ALL cameras take pretty much equally good pictures, and are well designed, video is becoming a differentiator between models. Therefore it seems to be given a slightly unfair prominence. The mere fact that the K-r takes K-mount lenses would more than cancel out any slight shortcoming in the video mode.