How can this product be awarded five stars when it does not provide the most basic function of any tethering solution?
Whenever a new image is shot, one should have the option of having it transferred to a nominated folder so that one can immediately inspect / edit it (-> e.g., using the 'watched folder' concept in Lightroom).
If the USB3 port of the K-3 supported the above, the FLUcard would not have to as urgently, but as it stands, the K-3 still does not have a full tethering solution.
It does not appear justifiable to me to criticise the lens for any AF issues, unless you have confirmed any issues with other cameras / mounts.
This isn't the first time I read about Canon AF being quicker than precise and maybe the camera you tested the lens with has additional issues.
Getting the best possible focus is the responsibility of the camera. Some lenses (usually through decentering or spherical aberration) make it impossible for the camera to achieve optimal focus. But a good copy, and in particular after micro-AF-adjustments that can deliver spot on AF, should do so every time (within small tolerances, of course).
If it doesn't, you are seeing the tolerances of the camera's AF system / algorithm.
So again, I don't see how you can blame inconsistent AF on a lens in the first place and before you have ruled out the particular camera you have used.
Kudos to the DPReview staff who did not go gaga over the retro styling but maintained a sober perspective on a camera that is neither here nor there.
Thank you for this measured review. Instead of going "drool, drool, drool", you point out the shortcomings as well as the good aspects.
AFAIC, you nailed with the sentence "The danger is that the design gets in the way of usability."
The Pentax K-01 had the same problem. The fashion statement got in the way of usability.
"Pure photography" cannot be about fashion over function.
Class A: Dear Shawn,
could you please explain why "in-body image stabilization" is not listed as one of the "Pros"? Is that feature counted towards the K-5 II score at all?
I know that many, many Pentaxians made a decision for Pentax because of this feature.
Given that every reader of your reviews must make up their mind anyhow whether a "Pro" or "Con" really applies to them, would it not be in the best interest of your readers to be given the chance to check whether they feel it is a "Pro" or not?
You know as well as I do that the majority of readers skips to the "Conclusions" page directly and just skim through the "Pros" and "Cons" and then compare the numerical score to other cameras. I've written reviews myself and have the Google Analytics numbers to prove that.
I'm afraid that for many users of your site, generous comments and praise for a camera somewhere in the review will not repair any damage any inadequate summary will cause.
the D7100 uses a Toshiba sensor, not the 24MP Sony sensor from the NEX-7.
Whether 24MP are better than 16MP is for every reader to decide. For some it is an advantage, for some a disadvantage.
I agree with you that there is little point to moan about the weighting used to obtain the overall percentage. This is for DPReview to decide and any self-respecting reader would not just go by the overall score on its own anyhow.
However, when the subscores are wrong with respect to inter camera comparisons, this is not a matter of a DPReview choice. This is a matter of fairness.
Say the K-5 II wins in terms of "build-quality" (as it should, but doesn't) and wins in terms of "value" (as it should, but doesn't), etc. Let's say it wins on almost all scores but still comes out with a lower overall score. That's OK, AFAIC.
But the subscores must make sense in comparison to other models in the same class so that readers can make informed decisions based on correct data.
scunning14: Shawn can answer this if he wants, but I just wanted to add this to the conversation. The d7100 is obviously one of the k5II's main competitors. How is it possible that the d7100 scores a 13/14 for value while the k5II scores a 10/14? The k5II is currently $800 while the d7100 is $1200. That is 2/3 the price! Also the d7100 scores a 9/14 for performance while the k5II scores a 7/14, yet the K5II performs better in low light, has a faster burst, and a much larger shot buffer. I am not saying that the k5II is the better camera, but it seems like these two categories should be a little closer.
I hope Shawn will find the time to respond to your comment.
He did respond to the question of why "in-body image stabilisation" hasn't been listed as a "Pro" by adding it to the list, which was awesome.
It'll be fantastic if he could also respond to your question and some others I posed here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51581984
I'm sorry for having mixed up some of the scoring (because the bars don't line up with the categories on two browsers I tried), but most of the arguments still make sense.
thank you very much for adding the in-body stabilisation to the list of "Pros". That's fantastic!
I very much appreciate you taking the time to do this.
thank you very much for responding to posters here.
Would it at all be possible for you to also respond to a few questions raised in the thread you started (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3498186)?
I do not understand how you defend your review scores by questioning how a "Gold award" cannot be enough. Even Nikon fans would not agree to your scoring on "build quality" and other features.
I'm very surprised that you seem to argue that it does not matter whether the D7100 or the K-5 II comes out ahead with 5% more. I'd bet my bottom dollar that a nuance like that directly translates into camera sales.
I feel you are not living up to your responsibility as a leading review site if you leave the current unjustified scoring in place and seriously claim that the K-5 II needs tape over its SD card door.
I would be extremely delighted to be hearing from you in the thread you have started (see above).
Pentax K-5 II (leading the DxOMark APS-C ranking, and beating some FF models) not available as a choice???
It is nice to see that user feedback here has led to many error corrections (thanks Lars).
However, if small typos like "viewo" are fixed, could someone please add "two control dials" to the "Pros" list and mention "focus peaking" somewhere?
Come on, guys, you are reviewers, aren't you?
Is the "Hands-on preview" video supposed to work?
I get a message that it is "private"?
BTW, Richard I understand your frustration about focus-peaking not being available in video. But there is probably a good reason for it (performance?) and I wouldn't make a negative out of a positive (i.e., that focus peaking is available for stills. Awesome feature that).