Absolutic: Boy...these were the most how should I say it nicely.... uninspiring samples ever from you guys. What happened to gorgeous London samples of yester years. Seattle is just not that picture-friendly? If there are no more interesting subjects to shoot, at least find some attractive people to take pictures of!!!! Sorry if I sound harsh, but I used to love the samples when they came from London. These days I don't even want to open the samples anymore.
Seattle is 162 years old with mostly modern structures, and London is many thousands of years old. I'm told it was very easy to walk out the door from DPR's office and get great shots of London's many landmarks, at least when weather permitted. Seattle has very nice vistas as well, but they're not just outside the office. We do our best, but the days of easily accessed London subjects are in the past (except for Andy Westlake). We'll continue to try to improve our galleries, but I believe the more important mission is to produce more reviews more quickly so you can pick the right camera to make great art.
CaseyComo: Aren't _these_ the golden days of camera design? Features, functionality, optics, and prices that photogs of previous eras could not even imagine. Nostalgia is one thing, but there's a reason that we don't all shoot manual focus rangefinders or big 4x5s and carry a lightmeter and exploding flashbulbs.
And yet many of those 40+ year-old cameras still work.
MikeNeufeld30: Pricing? Or did I miss it.
Yep, you missed it. From the specs, above: $699 body only, $799/£679.99 with 16-50mm
verheyph: Does anyone know that kind of service with french speaking reviewers ?
We checked with Eyeist about French speaking reviewers, and found that Barbara Bordnick 'lived and worked in France for years.' Here's a link to her profile: https://www.eyeist.com/rev/barbarabordnick
Flying Snail: Interesting concept, but how do you hold this thing without accidentally touching the back button with your thumb? The onscreen settings wheel also looks odd and complicated to use.
It wasn't much of a problem, as we mention on the body page, because of the grip design. Your results may vary. Samsung also said they did a lot of work on 'thumb rejection' in that corner of the screen.
Sergey Borachev: Hi, Shawn and Lars,
You said first Android 4.1 and then in the features list 4.2. Which is it?
(43rumors said 4.2.2)
Actually, we said 4.1 when referring to the Galaxy Camera, which is their first Android model. The confusion is partly because Samsung calls everything Galaxy, which makes referring to more than one of their products in the same paragraph rather confusing. The firmware photographed in our screen captures is 4.2.2.
schaki: A review first now - One year late. I've already had a D20 but returned it.
It's part of a group test of current waterproof cameras. This is Canon's current camera in that category.
AngryCorgi: Why is it that waterproof cameras always produce images that appear to have been taken underwater even when they are not?!? Is waterproofing THAT detrimental to optical lens performance??
The TG-2 is also a folded optic.
Marcin 3M: Any news about CaptureOne competitive upgrade from LR?
Cloud subscription is not required for Lightroom 4 or 5.
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.
You're right, that's an important feature we should have mentioned, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Added. (Breathe.)
HubertChen: Asking the dpReview community to be nice:
I was very sad that for a long time I have not really seen a dpreview staff participate in discussions in comments. Now one reviewer did. And what happened to him?
* He is greeted with cynicism* It is suggested he is part of a conspiracy against Pentax* Bad intentions are suggested in many occasions
No surprise dpReview staff was not really present in comments and maybe after today will not be again.
I am not asking you to agree. I am asking you to write politely and accurately when you disagree. Always believe the Author has good intention and never suggest otherwise. If you believe you found a mistake or misjudgment by the Author, point it out and provide fact or reasoning why this shall be a mistake / misjudgment.
Following these rules will turn this place to be much more pleasurable and will attract more competent and more knowledgeable posters too. So you will be rewarded with more information in comments and more joy reading them
You have been disrespectful, actually. Re-read your own posts. I did respond in those threads on the day the review was posted, look again. But I've been busy here lately trying to respectfully respond to you, among others.
MikePursey: Quote: The battery door has a tendency to open during normal operation. Taping it shut when working in wet conditions might be prudent ....
I have to say I have had the K-7 (same body as the K-5/K-5II/K-5IIs), the K-5 MKI and now the K-5II and have taken thousands of shots with each camera. The only time the battery door has opened is when I was changing the battery, not once has it done it otherwise.
Heie2, sounds about right. For you, the score is critical. I get that. It must go up, never down. I get that too, and disagree with the notion, even as i understand your point. But you won't respond to evidence that it's a very positive review. The person you stand to defend, who reads only the bars in the score, apparently can't read the very first lines of the Overall Conclusion, which I quoted. Or the review summary, which is right in the same box as the bars.
I frankly expected to be fried by fans of other camera platforms for being so positive about the K-5 II and K-5 IIS, not by its fans.
For more on our scoring system, read this rather comprehensive document: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained
The review is quite objective and quite positive. If you can't see that a new camera with few changes should be re-evaluated when it is reviewed again several years later, I can't convince you. Your insults are ill-aimed at someone who did his level best to judge the cameras fairly and give people good advice.
Re-evaluating a camera based on the evidence and comparing it to the current market is objectivity. Some of the scores even went up relative to the K-5, which is hard to see with the bars. You put too much importance in numerical increase, when our intent for the scores has always been stated as relative to the current market, not as judgments set in stone for all time. So your expectation that they should always go up is based on a mistaken impression. You can disagree with that, but you needn't be so concerned with it. Most people who can read will understand my words more than minor nudges in green bars in a score chart: The K-5 II is a very good camera.
maxola67: "Pentax cameras are great, but Pentax as system seriously lacks lenses. Beside several excellent primes (which still do not cover the whole range), there is literally no good zooms for the system."For Pentax-K there are about 80 different lenses in the current production line.Isn't it enough?I've got DA*16-50 and 55-300 and those are very good lenses.Why to propagate info trash?!
To be clear, the review doesn't say that. He's responding to something ThePhilips said further down, a paraphrase of something someone else said.
Zvonimir Tosic: If DPR didn't wait 9 months, the K5II(S) would have scored better — according to DPR's own words of balancing expectations of a camera relative to its current situation and peers.So where is the logic in that — be late to make a review for 9 months, and honour it with "today's relative value"? Someone could even think that you have waited for a new model of Nikon to come out, so that the K5II would not look as good as its newer peer, from a brand you'll always favour with timely reviews (as Simon acknowledged few weeks ago).In a way, you guys on DPR do protect Nikon's interests. You care more about Nikon. If this Pentax camera is often overlooked even if full of unique treats for photographers, to paraphrase your words from the review, you do contribute a great deal to it, by writing damn late reviews, when camera is almost to be replaced with a new model.
Okay. You're obviously inconsolable. Every review has cons. Try not to take them personally. I really liked the Pentax K-5 II and K-5 IIS and strongly recommend them to fans of cameras and photography. I said so in a fairly detailed review, offering photographic evidence. If you prefer to see me as saying something else, I clearly can't change your mind.
HubertChen: @ Shawn Barnett
I very much appreciate you take the time and reply so many comments. Thank you so much! I am hoping this will become a dpreview standard mode of operation.
Thanks. I'm trying.
Heie2: And how about this gem from the first paragraph of the conclusion:
"Though they don't represent hugely significant upgrades to the original K-5, the Pentax K-5 II and K-5 IIS still hold their own in the current SLR market, with excellent image quality, solid build, and a proven interface. We appreciate the tight, simple design of the K-5 II, one that offers quick access to a rich feature-set. Where the K-5 II shines, though, is its quality sensor, which seems essentially unchanged from its predecessor."
And a little further down: "Thanks to the sensor we liked so much in the K-5 and Nikon D7000, the Pentax K-5 II still turns out excellent images with a wide dynamic range and low noise, while maintaining good shadow and highlight detail."
Heie2, had you read the review, you'd see statements like these: "Much as other manufacturers generally update internal components of their professional SLRs while leaving the controls untouched, Pentax focused on what needed updating in the K-5 - namely the autofocus and sensor - and left the rest alone. That leaves less to talk about in a review of this sort, but most of the camera's old tricks - dating back to the K-7 - are unique enough that they still seem new."
"As far as the number and arrangements of control points are concerned, there are no external differences whatsoever. This is good news - as far as operational handling is concerned, these cameras are quite pleasurable to use."
So Gold isn't good enough for you.
"Could it be a testament to being ahead of its time in the first place, and then having the smarts to keep what works?"
Its high score is reflective of that sentiment. Please don't hold me accountable for the parts of the review you didn't read.