Simon, thanks for replying. Of course the "corruption" issue is just a provocation
.
The first big mistake was the introduction of this senseless % scoring at the end. You have never established what the 100% is, for each level/type of camera/body. So, it became an endless source of confusion for readers. For example, what's 100% for a midrange camera like the 60D/D7K? Why isn't the K5 a midrange camera, given its body specs are much closer to the D7k/60D class than to the real semipro/pro ones like the 7D and the D300s?
Here is how the reviewers have put it:
"Ultimately, we have no hesitation in recommending the Pentax K-5 to anyone - not only existing Pentax users, and despite its high cost (for the moment- we expect it to drop once the K-7 leaves dealers' shelves) it earns a solid gold award. A note on categories though - the K-5 is a hard product to categorise. Although it competes with the Nikon D7000 and even the Canon EOS 60D in some respects, it's introductory price clearly indicates that Pentax wants the K-5 to be viewed alongside the likes of the Nikon D300S and Canon EOS 7D. For this reason we have classified the K-5 as a semi-pro model (as we did the K-7), and scored it accordingly."
This is really the worst of it for me: it performs and is spec'd as a midrange, but is priced as a semipro, like D300s/7D. Then what? It's scored "accordingly", i.e., higher!!! It should have been penalized for that, not prized!
Now some more specifics:
The D7K had list of cons and end comments like buttons positioning, buffer, AF at lowlight, etc. Ok, how much better is the K5 in those areas? The problem is even more patent since the reviewer used older firmware for K5 that didn't showed any difference, actually it was worse than the D7K's, and it didnt' get any mention.
The review explicitly mentions the inaccuracy of K5'sAF in low light. For D7K it says it's "hesitant" in low light, which I take to mean "hunting". For K5 it says, in page 11, bottom: "In the dull interiors of bars and museums, the K-5 doesn't give 100% accuracy, but out of the hundreds of frames which we shot, only a handful are marred by focus errors." Nikons are known to be exactly in focus when they say so (I have one and it's like that).
Hunting is not uncommon with any camera and depends also on lenses, speciallly in low light. Now, "innacuracy" is a design problem, if camera says it's focused and image comes out oof. If the K5 does that, it's a major CON, even if it only happens now and then. For that, Canon has paid a high price in their pro line, as you certainly know. If this is supposed to be a semipro camera, that would by itself have costed it many points, it's not even mentioned in the final comments.
Next: IQ. The report says it shows jaggies. Next, if one checks the RAW samples at and above 3200 ISO, it's clear detail is being lost for K5. DxO MArk has detected and all Pentax users know that Pentax has used NR in RAW for some time, and it's the case here, with IQ losses. Pentaxians have asked in their forum for that to be optional. Not mentioned by your team. There are other issues, but I'll stop here with K5/D7K.
But just one finla question: how come a flawed design (ghosts), like A55's, gets a "Gold" from DPR?
To me, it seems DPR has decided that IQ and basic flawless functioning, not fancy gadgetry, are not the main issues when reviewing better cameras like dslrs and other intechangeable lens bodies. Maybe just my impression, but it's getting more and more widespread, at least in the lower Nikon forum.
After reading the last 3 dslr reviews from DPR (60D, D7K and K5), with the final comments and scoring the present group of reviewers gave, I can't help but think that DPR has gone astray, not sure if just because of incompetence or because economic interests have taken charge.
Phil, IMO your product has lost a lot of its original luster, maybe a comeback is in order.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
Interestingly, Phil's last full review was March 2008, and his involvement with the reviews had pretty much ended completely by April 2008. I've not been able to do any reviewing since he left in June, but I do intend to return to it. If you have specific examples of incompetence or corruption (as opposed to 'things you don't agree with') I would, of course, be interested to hear them.
Simon
--
Simon Joinson, Editor
dpreview.com
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
