My belief in Pentax at low light is shattered
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
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'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 DFA 150 -450 F4.5 / 5.6, Pentax DFA* 24 - 70 F2.8
Samyang 14mm F2.8, Pentax DFA* 70-200 F2.8
K3iii + K3ii + K5iis converted to IR, Sigma 17 - 70 F2.8, Pentax 55 - 300 F4.5 / F5.6 PLM
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.
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

Best regards, John
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

Well no, the first one was September 2015 and has been superceded.
Could you have an inside word here?
John K
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

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.
(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

https://www.dpreview.com/products/slrs/statistics/highestrated
--
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
(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
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/barrieforbes
https://www.flickr.com/photos/189482630@N03/
bforbes
Member
Co. Durham UK
Barrie
Too Old To Die Young
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/barrieforbes
https://www.flickr.com/photos/189482630@N03/