All Forum Comments
Comment by jules posted on Kr Review, undeserved bashing??? at 15/03/2011 - 06:55
http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf
http://focustestchart.com/focus10.pdf
http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/focus-chart
http://www.dphotojournal.com/download-free-focus-test-chart/
http://photocamel.com/forum/photography-talk/15450-focus-test-chart.html
http://www.photo.net/learn/focustest/scale45.jpg
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/test_images.html
http://focustestchart.com/focus10.pdf
http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/focus-chart
http://www.dphotojournal.com/download-free-focus-test-chart/
http://photocamel.com/forum/photography-talk/15450-focus-test-chart.html
http://www.photo.net/learn/focustest/scale45.jpg
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/test_images.html
Comment by jules posted on Lens calibration question at 14/03/2011 - 16:49
Comment by jules posted on Lens calibration question at 14/03/2011 - 15:00
Conclusion - Pros
Good detail and color in JPEGs at base ISO (ok, nice)
Good high ISO performance (might say "best in class")
Compact dimensions for a DSLR
ISO range up to ISO 25600 (again, might say best in class)
6.0 frames per second continuous shooting is class-leading (ah, finally)
Option to use AA batteries (with optional adapter) (only one in any class to do this)
Decent Live View AF
Good viewfinder
LCD color fine-tunable
Good control over high ISO noise reduction (actually, could also be called best)
User-definable Auto ISO
AF fine adjustment (not sure, do others in class have this?)
Distortion and chromatic aberration correction for DA and DFA lenses (also available in RAW conversion when using supplied software) (99% sure this is unique in this class of camera)
Choice of two RAW formats (ONLY Pentax does this)
In-camera RAW conversion
Good bundled RAW converter (based on SilkyPix)
The Cons:
Conclusion - Cons
Outdated Motion JPEG format produces very large movie files (um, its a DLSR = Camera)
No direct movie button (its a camera)
Tendency to clip highlights in high-contrast scenes (fair enough)
Relatively little RAW headroom means it is difficult to pull back blown detail even when shooting RAW (not good)
Slightly unreliable auto white balance in overcast conditions and in artificial light (but very good presets and WB fine tuning) (kinda reaching dont you think?)
Shake-reduction not too efficient compared to other systems (never proven - ever)
No HDMI-connector (um, its a camera)
Very Video Centric...
Good detail and color in JPEGs at base ISO (ok, nice)
Good high ISO performance (might say "best in class")
Compact dimensions for a DSLR
ISO range up to ISO 25600 (again, might say best in class)
6.0 frames per second continuous shooting is class-leading (ah, finally)
Option to use AA batteries (with optional adapter) (only one in any class to do this)
Decent Live View AF
Good viewfinder
LCD color fine-tunable
Good control over high ISO noise reduction (actually, could also be called best)
User-definable Auto ISO
AF fine adjustment (not sure, do others in class have this?)
Distortion and chromatic aberration correction for DA and DFA lenses (also available in RAW conversion when using supplied software) (99% sure this is unique in this class of camera)
Choice of two RAW formats (ONLY Pentax does this)
In-camera RAW conversion
Good bundled RAW converter (based on SilkyPix)
The Cons:
Conclusion - Cons
Outdated Motion JPEG format produces very large movie files (um, its a DLSR = Camera)
No direct movie button (its a camera)
Tendency to clip highlights in high-contrast scenes (fair enough)
Relatively little RAW headroom means it is difficult to pull back blown detail even when shooting RAW (not good)
Slightly unreliable auto white balance in overcast conditions and in artificial light (but very good presets and WB fine tuning) (kinda reaching dont you think?)
Shake-reduction not too efficient compared to other systems (never proven - ever)
No HDMI-connector (um, its a camera)
Very Video Centric...
Comment by jules posted on Kr Review, undeserved bashing??? at 14/03/2011 - 06:42
MartynUK wrote:
I'm debating whether to go for the ACMAXX or a delkin shade on my K5. Any comments on the delkin shade?? Looks more useful, but I wonder if there are disadvantages???
Martyn
Used to use a Delkin shade on my Nikons but the damn thing used to catch on everything when I took it out of the bag, thats about the only downside I seem to remember, I use the ACMAXX on both my K5 and Kr and love em! If you get sick of it or it gets too scuffed up to see just heat it up with a Hairdryer (Sadly thats my only use for a Hairdryer) and off it pops, Simples...I'm debating whether to go for the ACMAXX or a delkin shade on my K5. Any comments on the delkin shade?? Looks more useful, but I wonder if there are disadvantages???
Martyn
Comment by jules posted on Screen protection for Pentax K-r: Do you use it? Is it needed? at 14/03/2011 - 06:29
johnriley wrote:
The more I think about it the more I think that reviewers can have a hard time. I enjoy the Writing of Thom Hogan who reviews a lot of Nikon products, He gets called out a lot for being a "Nikon Fanboy" because he writes something good about their products yet if he writes something not so good he doesn't know what he's talking about! I've heard you being called a Pentax Fanboy John but I think some of your articles are amongst the most unbiased I have read (Not being a crawly Bum Lick here either Yuk!) I think most people whether they know it or not base their purchase around reviews as well as Brand loyalty and Personal reasons (Trying the product etc) but the Reviews play a part, it's a shame that the Web is open to so much Mediocrity in Publishing but it would not be what it is if that were the case. Reviews express an Opinion and as such have great power when they are available to Millions of viewers, especially when written by a Person or organisation that has or seems to have Credability.Quote:
'reviews' have no more weight than any other anecdote on the Net. in fact even less so as most ordinary peeps have no commercial bias to spin.
Lets look forward to the death of the 'review'. Let's put them out of their misery
That's not true really is it? People put a good deal of effort into building a reputation for theirt reviews. Cameras and lenses are shipped all over the place to individuals who test them and write a report, generally freelances being used quite a lot. The idea that anybody's opinion, no matter how new they are to photography, carries equal weight is in my opinion not tenable as an argument. Reviews are definitely not anecdotal.'reviews' have no more weight than any other anecdote on the Net. in fact even less so as most ordinary peeps have no commercial bias to spin.
Lets look forward to the death of the 'review'. Let's put them out of their misery
That can be both a Good and a Bad Thing...
Comment by jules posted on Kr Review, undeserved bashing??? at 13/03/2011 - 11:51
Pentaxophile wrote:
Canon obviously thought that their 550D was lacking in some way to replace it so quickly, kinda hard to see where really!geordie01 wrote:
i never knew i could do video on my k-r and probably never will. to me it is a camera not a video camera. if i wanted to make a film i would buy the right kit for the job.
Such as...? Panasonic GH2? Canon 600d? The k-r loses potential market to those models because they do video better.i never knew i could do video on my k-r and probably never will. to me it is a camera not a video camera. if i wanted to make a film i would buy the right kit for the job.
There is no doubt that the best video implementation award goes to the Panny GH2! Currently at the expense of an Optical Viewfinder, there doesn't seem to be a way around that really. Does anyone else here feel a bit uneasy about not actually seeing what you are seeing???? I think I'm a Luddite...
dcweather wrote:
I have a K-x and kind of agree with what they are saying. Probably when they did the review it was still quite highly priced. The video usage and live view in the K-x are it's weakest features, dire in fact. But as I use neither it is no problem. Everything else was and is fine for me on the K-x so an upgrade isn't really worth it for the minor benefits and it is true that the K-r may not be the leader in it's current price range, which the K-x probably was when it came out.
Dave
I see your point here actually, do you think the reviewer was dissapointed at the apparant lack of "New Tech"? I wonder if He like many was suffering from the endless desire for "more"?I have a K-x and kind of agree with what they are saying. Probably when they did the review it was still quite highly priced. The video usage and live view in the K-x are it's weakest features, dire in fact. But as I use neither it is no problem. Everything else was and is fine for me on the K-x so an upgrade isn't really worth it for the minor benefits and it is true that the K-r may not be the leader in it's current price range, which the K-x probably was when it came out.
Dave
I think I place a lesser importance on Video too but I suppose the reviewer has to look at the Picture differently?
Comment by jules posted on Kr Review, undeserved bashing??? at 13/03/2011 - 07:43
Aaannnd were there! Thanks Algi, you put into very few words just what I was trying to say...
Comment by jules posted on Kr Review, undeserved bashing??? at 12/03/2011 - 16:43
Not my work but I agree with it all the same, from Member Yanko on DPreveiw.
Here are some questions on the K-r review. DPR if you read - please answer several questions.
•The DR was reviewed with an omission of the overall steps of DR that the cam can produce and with omission of any comparison to the other cams in this market segment used in the review - I believe that such an action is deliberate as this will prevent the author from downgrading the cam and this would prevent criticizing of the DR without any support. - Here is how the cam compares to the other cams used as benchmark in the review here: http://www.dxomark.com/...-Sensor/Compare/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/672|0/%28appareil2%29/664|0/%28appareil3%29/645|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Pentax/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28brand3%29/Canon - What we have here is 11.3 steps from the Nikon D3100 and 11.5 steps from the Canon 550D and a very good 12.4 steps from the Pentax K-r. Now why on Earth should the review omit this in the DR section - much better than the Nikon and the Canon used in the review and an excellent 12.4 - was this omitted deliberately?
•The DR review in the given case turned to be a page of wining regarding the clipped highlights. No sense to me, as this is a DSLR review not a P&S. If this was a P&S review I would understand the inability of the user to use the EX compensation. As I use as one of my cams a Pentax K-x and I shoot a lot in bright light, high contrast and wide DR scenes. A -1/3 to -1 (usually it just takes -2/3) correction works excellent. I am writing this based on some 20 000 + shots done with a K-x.
•Now what once again - what is the overall DR that the cam can produce? How does it compare to other cams that are used for comparison in the review? I didn't see this in the review...just words no tests, no support. Is this a review and if yes - what is the level of such a review?
•Well and yes the DR page even incorporates mistakes in the wording as: "The real-life samples below that the K-r has a relatively small 'RAW headroom'." Missing words in sentences shows once again that these was another review just for the check mark I believe. No will at least to proof-read the wording. DPR - Please correct such mistakes in the reviews you post.
•The image stabilization, or SR was criticised with no support under this criticism, once again. A wording that the cam SR is worse than others would take a comparison to Sony's and Oly's IS/SR systems. I have no idea weather they are better, similar or worse, but I know that without such a comparison this is an unacceptable and unprofessional statement. It can perhaps be deliberately wrong actually....no prove that it is not anyway.
Here are some questions on the K-r review. DPR if you read - please answer several questions.
•The DR was reviewed with an omission of the overall steps of DR that the cam can produce and with omission of any comparison to the other cams in this market segment used in the review - I believe that such an action is deliberate as this will prevent the author from downgrading the cam and this would prevent criticizing of the DR without any support. - Here is how the cam compares to the other cams used as benchmark in the review here: http://www.dxomark.com/...-Sensor/Compare/Compare-sensors/%28appareil1%29/672|0/%28appareil2%29/664|0/%28appareil3%29/645|0/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Pentax/%28brand2%29/Nikon/%28brand3%29/Canon - What we have here is 11.3 steps from the Nikon D3100 and 11.5 steps from the Canon 550D and a very good 12.4 steps from the Pentax K-r. Now why on Earth should the review omit this in the DR section - much better than the Nikon and the Canon used in the review and an excellent 12.4 - was this omitted deliberately?
•The DR review in the given case turned to be a page of wining regarding the clipped highlights. No sense to me, as this is a DSLR review not a P&S. If this was a P&S review I would understand the inability of the user to use the EX compensation. As I use as one of my cams a Pentax K-x and I shoot a lot in bright light, high contrast and wide DR scenes. A -1/3 to -1 (usually it just takes -2/3) correction works excellent. I am writing this based on some 20 000 + shots done with a K-x.
•Now what once again - what is the overall DR that the cam can produce? How does it compare to other cams that are used for comparison in the review? I didn't see this in the review...just words no tests, no support. Is this a review and if yes - what is the level of such a review?
•Well and yes the DR page even incorporates mistakes in the wording as: "The real-life samples below that the K-r has a relatively small 'RAW headroom'." Missing words in sentences shows once again that these was another review just for the check mark I believe. No will at least to proof-read the wording. DPR - Please correct such mistakes in the reviews you post.
•The image stabilization, or SR was criticised with no support under this criticism, once again. A wording that the cam SR is worse than others would take a comparison to Sony's and Oly's IS/SR systems. I have no idea weather they are better, similar or worse, but I know that without such a comparison this is an unacceptable and unprofessional statement. It can perhaps be deliberately wrong actually....no prove that it is not anyway.
Comment by jules posted on Kr Review, undeserved bashing??? at 12/03/2011 - 15:12
johnriley wrote:
Let's not forget that there was a very long list of good points as well. For the stills photographer the negative points aren't really relevant.
Reviewers are allowed to have their opinions, otherwise they're not doing their job. If that's what the reviewer honestly thought, then those are his or her conclusions.
I have seen truly biased reviews elsewhere and that's another matter altogether!
Yes indeed! I did point that out in my original post...Let's not forget that there was a very long list of good points as well. For the stills photographer the negative points aren't really relevant.
Reviewers are allowed to have their opinions, otherwise they're not doing their job. If that's what the reviewer honestly thought, then those are his or her conclusions.
I have seen truly biased reviews elsewhere and that's another matter altogether!
Pentaxophile wrote:
The DSLR market is so fast moving and competitive no camera is going to stay on top for too long!
You have the K-r. It's still an excellent camera whether it's the 'best in class' or not... just go out and use it! What's the point of reading reviews after you've bought the camera?!
I did not consider that to be "Bashing" either.Quote:
The final word
The K-r is in many ways a very competent upper entry-level camera. It delivers decent image quality across the ISO range and at six frames per second comes with one of the fastest continuous shooting rates in this class of camera. The only reason that we can't get as excited about it as we got about the Pentax K-x is that its imaging pipeline and the largest part of its specification are based on the latter and while the K-x offered an awful lot of bang for the buck when it was launched in 2009 the competition has slightly moved on since then, making the K-r not quite as a good deal as the K-x was.
This isn't Pentax bashing - it's just reality! The K-x was ahead of the rest when it was introduced, now the competition has caught up and slightly exceeds the K-r. The Canon 600D has an 18MP sensor for gawd's sake, and rivals the K-5's high ISO quality! Pentax will no doubt respond in their next model. And the K-r has been out for a while, so prices will be lower than the competitors.The final word
The K-r is in many ways a very competent upper entry-level camera. It delivers decent image quality across the ISO range and at six frames per second comes with one of the fastest continuous shooting rates in this class of camera. The only reason that we can't get as excited about it as we got about the Pentax K-x is that its imaging pipeline and the largest part of its specification are based on the latter and while the K-x offered an awful lot of bang for the buck when it was launched in 2009 the competition has slightly moved on since then, making the K-r not quite as a good deal as the K-x was.
The DSLR market is so fast moving and competitive no camera is going to stay on top for too long!
You have the K-r. It's still an excellent camera whether it's the 'best in class' or not... just go out and use it! What's the point of reading reviews after you've bought the camera?!
That said after having owned a 24Mp "Full Frame" (Hate that term!)
I cannot see all the fuss about Megapixels really, you have to look really close and print really big to see much difference really. It doesn't set my World alight anyway...
More the downgrading of the Camera because of it's particular take on Video, a feature that will be used seldom by most and if used more it will be by a real minority. I had a 5DMKII for quite a while and Video implementation was slightly better when they upgraded it via firmware perhaps? However by the time you rig one out to be used as a pro spec Video Camera you may as well buy a "Proper" Video Camera.
Just my opinion...
Comment by jules posted on Kr Review, undeserved bashing??? at 12/03/2011 - 13:19
I was kind of expecting it, but "bashing" would be a harsh word imho. I completely agree on DPR banking on the video features.
Or maybe it's a way for them to tell Pentax to up their game. I don't know about you, but sometimes you can tell that they drop hints that Pentax is a favorite in their offices.
Video is here to stay for at least a while I think in DSLR's like it or not (I don't!) but I do wonder if the more video centric firms like Sony for instance (I came from and A900 as well as my D300s Nikon)Are gunning too much for the mid ground bursting with features but nothing to aspire too when you get there? No real Photographers Camera? Don't "bash" me I'm not sniping at anything just my opinion...
Will this end up biting thenm in the long run???