Pentax K-30 in depth review

Stunning review on the "other" forum, if I'm allowed to mention it here.

Talking about other brands isn't allowed, but I've been here for nearly 2.5 years and I've never seen any restrictions on other forums being mentioned. And rightly so.

Which other forum are you referring to?

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/ ??

http://pentaxslr.eu/Forums/ ??

Or another I'm unaware of?

Reads like an advertising peice to me...
I know these things are built to a price but...
If the camera was marketed towards video, they pretty much got the button placements correct but then why cripple it with no support for external Microphones??? No HDMI-out? It's mid level not entry, people like to play! If this camera was aimed at stills, why the clunky shutter, weired feeling narrow grip (For Asian size hands?), and lower quality 12 bit image pipeline? The build, top LCD, IQ, ergonomics, shutter, and FPS make the K-5 a superior camera, until the K-30 drops to a significantly more realistic price, which it will.
It also looks like the only AF changes were to CDAF - which is a bit disappointing considering the hype.

Sorry to come over all negative but since I read their peice on the K-01, I've begun to think that they may be on the Pentax Ricoh Payroll...

It's no doubt a lovely camera and yes I have held one but lets not get carried away. In short "DON'T, DON'T, DON'T, DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!"

Flame suit on, mud flinging barrier in place...

I have no prejudices on the K30, but is it fair to compare it to the K-5, considering how much the K-5 was priced at when it was first released?

Are you talking about this review

http://www.pentaxforums.com/camerareviews/pentax-k30.html - I couldn't find a review on http://pentaxslr.eu/Forums/

If so it's just one person ( as are all reviews )

If anything that forum is on the payroll of two sister Brooklyn retailerz

Yes thats the one Smeggy! I have no predjudices either I want it to be a success, I really do but everywhere I read it is being compared to the K5, probably because the K5 is old tech now, it is two after all!
It's not a K5 and thats sort of my point, yes it's just one person and only one review but that review will be taken as the view of that community by pretty much everyone, their K-01 Review raised my suspicsions about them, I have no hard evidence but I smell rats, lots of em!
I just read it as a gushing peice of journalism by someone payed to like something, it's ok for Magazine type sites to do it but I would expect more objectivity from a community site, thats all. Hey maybe it's me and it really is that good! In which case I'll take two please!

Even though reviewers with a platform on some magazine site are well know nfor biased reviews it doesn'texcuse it. they are just one person like the person who did that review.

once again I think the lesson is: Take no notice of individual reviews.

There's no easy solution. It's the same with news media. It's all tainted by an agenda and propaganda is rife. All you can do is read as much diverse sources as possible and average things out

On that logic, why take no notice of reviews but take notice of everyone else's random preconceptions, often made before something has been tried.

I've said it before, but I've done reviews and there is no pressure whatsoever to reach any particular conclusion. It would be counter-productive to the reputation of a site. In fact, items are just sent, review is submitted and that's that. Oh yes, invoice is submitted and duly paid as well.

Conspiracies can be seen everywhere if we have a mind to.

Personally I think it's best to average out information one has sourced from a multitude of places as I stated in my previous post.
it would be folly to give more weight to a magazine reviewer than to average Joe on a forum.

In fact given the commercial bias of magazine type reviews they shoudl probably have less of a weight in one's analasys



Problem with claiming something you disagree with is a conspiracy is that it's easy to forget that others have been in the business and seen how commerce gives bias to reviews.

I know for a fact that reviews are often commercially biased. I've had people admit it in the business I was in. Please don't tell me the photographic equipment business is a special non-corrupt case.

Regardless of direct testimonies people all over the world actually notice the bias, so trying to convince people otherwise is fruitles sreally

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, but I don't subscribe to the theory that someone with no technical knowledge carries equal weight in assessing something new to someone who has technical knowledge. That's patently ridiculous.

Some see conspiracy in every dark corner, others realise that life is more complex than that. Usually people are just making a living the best way they can.

Some of the bias you mention may well exist, but very often it's simply that we don't like what people are saying. If I say the K-5 is better than the Nikon D7000 is that bias, or just my conclusion? If someone else says the Nikon D7000 is preferable to the K-5 is that bias or just their conclusion?

Using you logic I could conclude that your post is biased and therefore need not be taken note of. On the other hand, you might well mean it and believe it.

Moving on from the same olde, same olde discussions ......

Seems like a very good camera. A reduced version of the K5 with improvements added using the technology from the K-01.

Anyway .. back to the review.

After 2 years I was hoping for a decent leap in the AF department (not liveview, never use it) but it looks like yet again I am to be disappointed.

I await the K-5 successor with interest ...

It's also ridiculous to prejudge some random person on a forum as having no technical knowledge and a magazine reviewer has. I've heard nonsense from magazine reviewers just as much as random forum commentators.

And in any case the level of knowledge is not proportional to bias.

Some people have a lot of lifelong photography experience and knowledge and are very biased and thus incapable of making an impartial appraisal of their favourite brand




Dunno why you keep goign on about conspiracies?



It's not my logic. IN fact what you've just said is illogical. There's no mutual inclusivity between something someone genuinely believes in and it being accurate. Some people genuinely and heartfelt believe the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

Which is why I await your review with bated breath John!

I'm afraid you may have to wait until I buy one. EPZ have taken on permanent staff and don't seem to call much on freelances at the moment. No point paying someone to do something when you're already paying someone a salary to do the job.

However, I've never had a problem buying Pentax cameras. It's different now because a film camera could last a lifetime if you wanted it to. Upgrading was replacing as they all produce the same quality of result.

DSLRs are different in that image quality has steadily improved. The K-5 is good enough at this point so is unlikely to be replaced until we get a catastrophic failure or mishap. Then replacement would be another K-5. There's also the matter of sharing layout and accessories so putting a K30 in the mix may not be a logical step.

Apart from the low light noise performance and high ISO superiority of the K-5, the K20D also delivers quality which is absolutely fine and the K-r IMHO handles slightly better than any of them. No WR on the Kr though, which is a shame, as I need that feature.

I'm sure I'd be happy if we had two K30s, but we'd need them at the same time and there's no point for us at this juncture.

It is a very good review. It's useful in that it comes from a long-time Pentax user, as well as a Nikon user - so he is used to the way Pentaxes are set up (other reviewers miss a lot of stuff because they are so used to Canikon) but he is also a user of high-end Nikon's so can bring that experience to bear.

Interesting comments re the AF, although you really need to try the camera yourself IMHO... I think the 'generalised comments' about the AF in real-life use are probably more telling than attempting to perform controlled AF tests which aren't actually that true to life.

The dynamic range / underexposed image recovery test was very useful, with full sized images showing there's no meaningful step down from the K5 in this regard, despite using 12bit RAW.

K30 -5 EV recovered
K5 -5 EV recovered

I think they're probably right to slip over into superlatives, when you consider this is intended more as a Kr replacement than a K5 replacement.