My belief in Pentax at low light is shattered

The ePHOTOzine top twenty and Pentax don't get a mention link

That review is pointless and not justified. They never showed a low light shot from any of the cameras so it proves nothing, just the testers opinion.

They should have changed the heading to: «The Best Sony, Nikon, Canon and Fuji cameras for low-light photography»

I have never seen a juxtaposition of an expensive camera and popcorn, like in the first photo (Sony A7S mark II). I always keep popcorn away from my camera equipment, especially when changing film

Other tests have shown that the K1 outperforms their top choices from Sony and Nikon. The reality is that in some places Pentax doesn’t come to mind just the best selling brands, which begs the questions as to thoroughness and independence. I have booked for a Light and Land creative landscape course and the bumf that came describes functions on the usual brands but not Pentax, yet in the chosen features it matches or way outperforms the rest and if you have a Sony you need to keep buying apps for features like multi exposure and star trails. I am looking forward to it! Anyhow the proof is there to find, I have been amazed at the results and details I get in low light and when noise gets intrusive it can readily be smoothed out.

It is not even a test of the best camera for low light. Rather a test of the high ISO performance of some selected brands. If you really need a camera for low light, then something like the Leica M10 with an F1 lens would outperform all of those. ephotozine is even worse the dpreview. They are solely driven by commercial pressure and advertising.

Rob,

I'd be interested in what you think of the Light and Land workshop when you've done it please.

I took some last night, and here is one I was about to write off:


But cropped, processed and noise reduced gave me this:


I know it could be a bit sharper, but not bad in the circumstances.

Hi Chris

It is Northumberland Coast and Castles with Doug Chinnery and Valda Bailey; making good a New Year promise to myself I booked this early in the year and going the week after next. I will let you know how I got on.

FWIW the photograph they show at the start the article wasn't taken with any of those featured! link

Try this list instead: link

The K-1 is superb at low light photography, in fact one of the best I use.

But it isn't fair to say that the list provided had no images, because the technical shots were shown that could be compared to show the results at all ISO values.

It's also not fair to say that EPZ are "solely driven by commercial pressures and advertising." I do plenty of reviews for them and there is no pressure of any kind involved.

I've noticed as well it was a 2018 list, so the K-1 (released 2016) wouldn't be on it anyway, although arguably the K-1 II (released 201 should be. I presume the other cameras listed are all 2018 releases.

Well no, the first one was September 2015 and has been superceded.

Could you have an inside word here?

I didn't mean that there was commercial pressure put on the reviewers John. However, I do believe it is fair to say that there is commercial pressure on the "editorial side". Any publishing business whether online, in print or indeed the TV/radio is a business. With any business if you make a loss, you go bust and have to cease publishing. With the exception of perhaps the BBC which is a law unto itself, the majority of the income comes from advertising. The greater your circulation, the greater the chance of attracting advertisers. Whilst that may not be in the mind of the person doing the review, it will be on the mind of the editorial staff.

I have had many dealing with the various forms of "publishing" in the past and indeed have been offered jobs at various times. Often if you ask the question "why has there not been a review of this lens or that camera", the answer comes back that one hasn't been sent/loaned for review. So, if a Pentax was not sent for review, it will not be in the test. There may be the odd one, but I have yet to hear of a site or magazine which will purchase new equipment to review. So the amount of reviews is strongly influenced by the manufacturers or retailers. They are not likely to keep sending equipment to a particular publisher if they get a series of very negative reviews. Again the editorial staff will be aware of this. I wonder how many "negative reviews" are rejected by the editorial staff.

There is also a factor of "personal preference". Maybe not so much on the part of the reviewer. On here, if there is a review of a Pentax camera, nearly everyone will quote the highlights of that review. But on another forum biased toward one of the other makers, only the lower scoring parts of the review will be quoted. Human nature, we all want "our" equipment to be the best. And so, the choice of reviewer probably also plays a role. A dedicated Canon enthusiast is more likely to find positive things in a Canon and overlook the weaknesses and vice versa when reviewing another make. Again, that is not to say the reviewer is being inaccurate but rather choosing what to include and what might be glossed over or omitted.

But then again the so called "user reviews" tend to be far worse for a variety of reasons. Reviews are useful but should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

Again, illogical, the K1 gets 5 stars, the improved K! ii gets 4.5 stars?

Over on Depressing Review the Pentax K-1 is the Highest rated interchangeable lens camera and that includes mirrorless

https://www.dpreview.com/products/slrs/statistics/highestrated

--

I would give the K-5lls more stars than the K-3ll. Just because a company said it's improved it's not necessarily so. I've had too many "improved" food stuffs that turn out to be worse to not be very sceptical about "Improved".