DPR review review

Started Mar 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
Richard Butler
Richard Butler dpreview Admin • Posts: 2,666
Re: DPR review review
26

You're not going to like this but, as I think you realise, you're cherry-picking and misrepresenting the situation.

I didn't review either of these cameras, but here's an alternate perspective on your points:

wildkat2 wrote:

Im sorry but you are not considering everything.

Price - The K-01 cost significantly less (even at introduction). That is why the Fuji got a great "value" score wile the K-01 was almost rock bottom in "value."

Value isn't just a consideration of price. It's a consideration of what you get for that money. The X-E1 is around the same cost as the Sony NEX-7 but comes with a considerably brighter, better lens. You also get a smaller, prettier camera with nicer-to-use controls. The K-01 is cheap now they're trying to get rid of stock of a discontinued camera, but it was $899 with a 60mm equiv prime at launch. That's a reasonable price, but you that doesn't mean it's great value.

Screen - The K-01 has twice the screen resolution. That is why the Fuji got a better screen score.

There isn't a 'screen score' there's a screen/viewfinder score. The Fuji's screen may be lower-resolution than the K-01's, but its viewfinder is excellent and the K-01's...

Image Quality (RAW) - The Fuji RAW files can't properly process in Lightroom or ACR (even with the update). They have to be converted using the proprietary RAW processor or shot JPG. That is why the Fuji got better RAW scores.

You're massively over-stating things here. The Raw conversion isn't quite as polished as for Bayer sensors (a 20-odd year head-start can do that), but they're pretty good, as I'll demonstrate later.

Image quality (JPG) - You can see from the image below. The Pentax is far too sharp. And the blacks are not grey enough. That is why the Fuji got better image quality (JPG) scores.

The test scene is 3D, so depth of field comes into play. The X-E1 has to be shot closer to the scene because there isn't currently a 50mm lens for it, so depth-of-field is shallower.

Let's see how it behaves in the plane of focus:

Oh look, the X-E1 is sharper . It's not applying so much sharpening, but the definition on the focus target goes closer to the centre - meaning it's sharper.

Low Light/High ISO - the Fuji only goes to ISO 6400 while the K-01 goes to 256000. That is why the Fuji got better Low light/high ISO scores.

The X-E1 goes to ISO 25,600 in JPEG. Where is does very well against the K-01.

And, when it comes to Raw, the X-E1 scored slightly higher. And the performance isn't the walk-over your attack on ACR suggests .

Plus you are not considering the large selection of lenses for the Pentax. How confusing! its much better to only have 4 or 5.

The K-01 can be used with lots of lenses (as can the X-E1 using the many adapters that its short flange-back distance allows). However, no Pentax K-mount lenses have been designed with contrast detection AF in mind. Not one. As a result, the K-01 is never very fast at focusing and is sometimes terrible.

By contrast, the X-E1 has a growing number of very high quality lenses designed specifically for it and, from what I remember, everything except the 60mm Macro (which I've not used since the last firmware update) is faster to focus than the K-01.

So again, it's not as clear-cut as you imply.

When you take EVERYTHING into account it easy to see why the Fuji was rated so high.

The difference between the best and the worst camera is small, but use both of these for an extended amount of time and it's hard not to draw the conclusion that the X-E1 is among the best and the K-01 isn't.

Richard - dpreview.com

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
ET2
ET2
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow