My belief in Pentax at low light is shattered
891 posts
Link
Posted 04/11/2018 - 10:43
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.
Pentax K1-ii and MZ6
Pentax Lenses 28-80 F, 300 DA*, 80-200 F, 35 F2.4 AL, M50 F1.7, 28-105 DFA, 20 F4 SMC
ONE UNITED Member
Pentax K1-ii and MZ6
Pentax Lenses 28-80 F, 300 DA*, 80-200 F, 35 F2.4 AL, M50 F1.7, 28-105 DFA, 20 F4 SMC
ONE UNITED Member
Link
Posted 04/11/2018 - 11:14
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
Bjørn
PPG
Flickr
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
Bjørn
PPG
Flickr
Last Edited by bjolester on 04/11/2018 - 11:15
Link
Posted 04/11/2018 - 11:21
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.
Link
Posted 04/11/2018 - 11:28
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.
Link
Posted 04/11/2018 - 13:27
Rob,
I'd be interested in what you think of the Light and Land workshop when you've done it please.
Chris
www.chrismillsphotography.co.uk
" A Hangover is something that occupies the Head you neglected to use the night before".
-------------------------------------------------------------
K1 - Sigma 85mm F1.4, Pentax 150 -450 F4.5 / 5.6, Pentax FA 24 - 70 F2.8
Sigma 100-300 F4, Samyang 14mm F2.8, Sigma 70-200 F2.8,
K5iis - Sigma 17 - 70 F2.8, Sigma 70 - 300 F3.5/F5.6, Sigma 18 - 200 F3.6 / F4.5.
I'd be interested in what you think of the Light and Land workshop when you've done it please.
Chris
www.chrismillsphotography.co.uk
" A Hangover is something that occupies the Head you neglected to use the night before".
-------------------------------------------------------------
K1 - Sigma 85mm F1.4, Pentax 150 -450 F4.5 / 5.6, Pentax FA 24 - 70 F2.8
Sigma 100-300 F4, Samyang 14mm F2.8, Sigma 70-200 F2.8,
K5iis - Sigma 17 - 70 F2.8, Sigma 70 - 300 F3.5/F5.6, Sigma 18 - 200 F3.6 / F4.5.
Last Edited by Chrism8 on 04/11/2018 - 13:27
Link
Posted 04/11/2018 - 13:34
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.
But cropped, processed and noise reduced gave me this:
I know it could be a bit sharper, but not bad in the circumstances.
Last Edited by RobL on 04/11/2018 - 13:59
Link
Posted 04/11/2018 - 13:37
Chrism8 wrote:
Rob,
I'd be interested in what you think of the Light and Land workshop when you've done it please.
Rob,
I'd be interested in what you think of the Light and Land workshop when you've done it please.
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.
Last Edited by RobL on 04/11/2018 - 13:59
Link
Posted 04/11/2018 - 16:23
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.
Best regards, John
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. Best regards, John
Link
Posted 04/11/2018 - 16:35
johnriley wrote:
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.
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?
John K
Last Edited by JAK on 04/11/2018 - 16:39
Link
Posted 04/11/2018 - 17:24
johnriley wrote:
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.
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. 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.
Link
Posted 24/11/2018 - 11:30
Abe_Normal wrote:
(Mind you, their "Other articles you might find interesting..." leads to Top 13 Best Full-Frame DSLRs 2018 with the Pentax K-1 in first place).
I'd have said they feel the need to give their articles clickbait titles, and include keywords to get picked up by search engines. Either "Top 20 Cameras..." or "20 Best Cameras..." would be neater, while still being inaccurate.
(Mind you, their "Other articles you might find interesting..." leads to Top 13 Best Full-Frame DSLRs 2018 with the Pentax K-1 in first place).
I'd have said they feel the need to give their articles clickbait titles, and include keywords to get picked up by search engines. Either "Top 20 Cameras..." or "20 Best Cameras..." would be neater, while still being inaccurate.
Again, illogical, the K1 gets 5 stars, the improved K! ii gets 4.5 stars?
Pentax K1-ii and MZ6
Pentax Lenses 28-80 F, 300 DA*, 80-200 F, 35 F2.4 AL, M50 F1.7, 28-105 DFA, 20 F4 SMC
ONE UNITED Member
Link
Posted 24/11/2018 - 11:44
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
--
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
https://www.dpreview.com/products/slrs/statistics/highestrated
--
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Link
Posted 24/11/2018 - 15:02
walkeja wrote:
Again, illogical, the K1 gets 5 stars, the improved K! ii gets 4.5 stars?
Abe_Normal wrote:
(Mind you, their "Other articles you might find interesting..." leads to Top 13 Best Full-Frame DSLRs 2018 with the Pentax K-1 in first place).
I'd have said they feel the need to give their articles clickbait titles, and include keywords to get picked up by search engines. Either "Top 20 Cameras..." or "20 Best Cameras..." would be neater, while still being inaccurate.
(Mind you, their "Other articles you might find interesting..." leads to Top 13 Best Full-Frame DSLRs 2018 with the Pentax K-1 in first place).
I'd have said they feel the need to give their articles clickbait titles, and include keywords to get picked up by search engines. Either "Top 20 Cameras..." or "20 Best Cameras..." would be neater, while still being inaccurate.
Again, illogical, the K1 gets 5 stars, the improved K! ii gets 4.5 stars?
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".
Barrie
Too Old To Die Young
.
Pentax K1 K5-IIS K-01 K20D A50/2 A50/1.7 DA10-17 DA18-250 DA18-135 DA18-55 DA300 DA40 DA50-135 DA50-200 DA55-300 DA70 F35-70 DFA150-450 FA20-35 FA100 FA135 FA35 FA28 FA43 FA50 FA77 K55/1.8 M135/3.5 M200/4 M28/3.5 M28/2.8 M40/2.8 Q 01 02 MX-1 I-10 Sigma 15 24 105 180 8-16 10-20 17-35 17-50/2.8 24-70 400/5.6MF Tamron 70-200/2.8 17/3.5MF 24/2.5MF 28/2.5MF 90/2.5MF
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/barrieforbes
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
bforbes
Member
Co. Durham UK
Barrie
Too Old To Die Young
.
Pentax K1 K5-IIS K-01 K20D A50/2 A50/1.7 DA10-17 DA18-250 DA18-135 DA18-55 DA300 DA40 DA50-135 DA50-200 DA55-300 DA70 F35-70 DFA150-450 FA20-35 FA100 FA135 FA35 FA28 FA43 FA50 FA77 K55/1.8 M135/3.5 M200/4 M28/3.5 M28/2.8 M40/2.8 Q 01 02 MX-1 I-10 Sigma 15 24 105 180 8-16 10-20 17-35 17-50/2.8 24-70 400/5.6MF Tamron 70-200/2.8 17/3.5MF 24/2.5MF 28/2.5MF 90/2.5MF
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/barrieforbes