Well, I just recieved the July issue of Outdoor Photography and guess what? They printed the letter (having edited out the sections in red above). It's actually their Prize Letter, so I've got a Giottos tripod and head coming my way too.

The Editors reply was this:

Thank you for your views. Obviously we try to provide accurate information as well as a considered opinion about the products we test. I don't expect everyone to agree with our conclusions, but ultimately theis was a very positive review of the K10D, it's just that James felt there is still room for improvement in the areas he highlighted. I suppose the best endorsement for the camera is that you are a very satistfied owner of a Pentax K10D.


Well he's certainly right about that last bit! And to be fair, the title of the review was "On the Brink of Genius".

Anyway, I'm off to write another letter to Photography Monthly about their Macro lens tests...

Dan

I subscribe to Outdoor Photography, because generally I like the photos and content. But I have to say recent things like this have made me consider whether the quality's there - if they're making mistakes like this with reviews, what else can I trust? Certainly not the other reviews, but news? Features?

I cancelled the subscription I had a few years back with Photogrpahy Monthly because the proof reading (amongst other things) was awful. I wrote to them, gave them a few months to sort it out, they didn't so I left them to it.

Outdoor Photography this month reviews the Finepix S6500FD, which has an Electronic Viewfinder, and the reviewer states "I kept looking through the viewfinder to line everything up - pretty pointless, considering this is not an SLR, and lacks the through-the-lens view I'm used to." Er...

Dan

I too have had reason to contact a photography magazine recently. Outdoor Photography reviewed the K10D in a recent issue, and it got a verdict along the lines of "some superb features, but the camera's cripple by basics being poor, such as speed of image previews and flash delay, and jpegs are poor too".

I sent the following email to Keith Wilson, the editor, on 9th May. To date, no response...

-------

Dear Keith,

I was interested to see the review of the Pentax K10D in the current issue of Outdoor Photography, as I had been on the verge of buying one anyway (I've been an *istD user for 2 years), and the release of an update for Capture One LE now adds support for the K10D's PEFs.

Having read many users views on internet forums, as well as handling a couple of examples, I was already aware of the quality of the camera, and the obvious speed increases over the older Pentax DSLRs. So I was a little surprised to see James's comments in his summing up that the camera was 'sluggish'. I wasn't suprised to also see the comment 'JPEG colours lack punch', but I'll come to that in a minute!

Reading the review, there are two features that James thought slow. As I now have a K10D, I've been able to check these features. First the preview image, which takes a fraction over a second to appear. Granted, if you're timing it, it seems to have a slight delay, but in practice it's negligable - you take the shot, move the camera away from your eye, the preview appears. Perhaps other brands are quicker at this, I don't know.

The second 'slow' feature is, apparently, the flash. James says there is a 'long delay between the metering pre-flash firing and the exposure being made'. I can't even see that there are two flashes firing, so I can only assume that James had the red-eye reduction mode activated, when the delay is around half a second. Otherwise, there is no delay.

As far as the quality of the jpegs is concerned, Pentax provide a default jpeg from camera suitable for post-processing. It states in the manual 'Images are finished naturally and suitable for retouching'. The other option for the Image Tone is 'Bright', in which 'Images are finished brightly, with high contrast and sharpness'. This is the option that should be chosen if you want jpegs 'ready to go' from camera.

Perhaps James had selected this and still felt they were disappointing, but I suspect not, as I have seen plenty of comparisons which show no such short-comings.

With this in mind, I find the last paragraph of James's summing up a little damning, certainly unfair.


A couple of other points lead me to believe that James didn't do a proper review of this camera. He refers to the autofocusing by saying '...the autofocus now features 11 autofocus points, of which nine are cross-type sensors'. This is the same system that has been used in most of the Pentax DSLRs, the D, DS, K100D and K110D all have 11 points as described, as did the film *ist before them.

Finally, a look down the 'Data File' revealed some surprises. Incorrect ones include 'Autofocus', 'Storage Media' and 'Power Source'.


I'm sorry to sound negative, but as a Pentax user I'm often dismayed by the reviews their cameras receive, and I can only attribute these to the reviewer being unfamiliar with the brand. The exception I can think of was your own look at the K100D.

The K10D is a superb camera, with many features not refered to in the review (I realise limited space accounts for this), and at a very keen price point (£550 body only at most retailers). I feel this review is inaccurate in it's summing up, and that deserves re-addressing.

I know I'm biased, but I can't help it!

Many thanks,
Daniel Bridge


------

The incorrect Data File items said that the camera to Compact Flash cards, used a Canon battery and vertical grip , and that there were 9 autofocus points.

Incidentally, they usually refer to the Samsung GX-1L as a 'rebranded K100D', which it obviously is not. I've pointed this out to them, but they seem to want to persist with this.

If I hear anything, I'll let you all know.

Dan

I read it that you could install the software on as many machines as you like in one location, and a further 5 portable ones. I've emailed you the Licence Agreement!

Dan

What you can't do (easily), is profile a dual monitor set-up, although there are ways around it, certainly for Windows. Haven't tried it myself, as I've only got the one...

Dan

The Spyder2 Licence Agreement states:

"With respect to any monitor calibration software, ColorVision grants to you, and you accept, a personal, nonexclusive, nontransferable license to install and use the Software in object code format on one or more computers at a single physical location, and on five additional laptop, notebook or other portable computers."

So you should be okay to do your 5!

Dan

Hi Pete,

Not sure exactly what you're after information-wise, but I have the 10-20mm, and recently got the K10D. Only used the combination once so far to illustrate something when doing some one-to-one tuition, so it's not the best pic in the world.

Link to full size (4.5Mb) image is here: www.DanielBridge.co.uk/pentax/1020full.jpg

A couple of crops of it are shown here at full size.

First, from the centre of the image:




and here, the extreme top right hand corner. Note the day was overcast but bright, usually one of the worst situations to avoid purple fringing, but this shows a remarkable lack of it, as far as I'm concerned.




I like the lens, used it a fair amount with my *istD.

Hope that helps,
Dan

According to this review of the 50mm f/1.4 "At f/4 the center reaches an outstanding performance which will surely be hard to be matched during future Pentax tests". In fact it is bettered by a few Limited lenses, but it is still very good.

Unfortunately they haven't reviewed the macro.

Dan

Of course, with the K10D, you can always shoot RAW+jpeg, and have the jpeg set to whatever you want (even 2M if that suits).

Then, if/when the Martians land, you can get your jpegs off to the National Enquirer no problems, then still have the RAW files to play with for the exhibition.

Dan

Peter,

When I 'went digital' I swore blind that I'd still use film for my exhibition prints. But when I critically looked at what the 6mp *istD could produce I knocked film on the head. The K10D is a big step up from there, from the brief comparisons I've done so far.

If you're refering to the slides you get from your 6x7, perhaps that's a bit different, but as far as 35mm is concerned, I really don't think you can say film is better.

But that's just my opinion!

Dan