Practical Photography

Just for info.
The November issue has a review of the k30. In it is stated in a section on image stabilisation that the Pentax system works with newer lenses. The inference being it does not work with older ones.
Now we know!!!

This sort of thing is a constant frustration with reviews - you never know if it indicates that the writer doesn't actually know, or that they're writing to various constraints and its been edited poorly by someone who doesn't understand the review.

Never assume magazine reviewers have any more authority or knowledge than your average forum poster.

Agreed Smeggypants, I read a review of 50mm lenses in Digital Camera recently and they reported the DA 50mm f1.8 has Quick Shift - it doesn't!

And vice versa? It's logical though to assume that those who get paid for writing actually do have some justification that they can offer those who pay them. I wouldn't expect to chip in on a forum about, say, fishing and be given equal weight to those who write the magazine.

As for mistakes, everyone is human and errors do happen for all sorts of reasons. Once in print it's difficult to do anything about them. I think in general the people who write professionally do a pretty good job under a lot of time pressure.

Comes with the job, this is one of those things they don't want to happen, and if it does, they're at the mercy of the readers. It doesn't help when the review is about a brand that is known to have some very loyal fans!

Mistakes can happen. I should know-the article in fact is about the k50-oops!!!!

I've not read the magazine yet as it's sent to my parents house and my dad get's the first read..

Perhaps what PP infers that with newer lenses SR is pretty much automatic but with a number of 3rd party lenses and older Pentax stuff you have to input the focal length for the system to work at its best...

Any assumptions can lead you astray - I believe the name or renown of any individual is less valuable than the writing itself and what it encompasses.

For example, when I was writing about my comparisons of two images from the K5II models, I did not hear (after the reporting actually began) any dispute or questioning of the validity of what I was saying - yet this acceptance could hardly have been based on my own reputation for this sort of thing, as such a reputataion did not exist.

Instead this acceptance was based on the description and detailing of the methodology and processes I was using (in 'Nigel-esque detail' to coin the latest Smeggyism), which reassured that there was an applicable basis for what the conclusions were.

But even if I was a professional writing in a respected magazine, I would not expect the readers to unquestionably accept only my conclusions and recommendations, without the details and descriptions, based soley on my being a professional writing in a respected magazine. To have validity there always needs to be an understandable context and method, in whatever format or medium, or whoever is writing.