DPR review review

Started Mar 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
wildkat2 Contributing Member • Posts: 899
Re: DPR review review

First, thank you for responding.  I may not agree with everything you said but I understand your point of view.

R Butler wrote:

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.

There is no argument from me that the K-01 was expensive at launch but when you considered that it had essentially the same sensor as the $1000+ K-5/D7000 (body only) it represented a VALUE for still shooters seeking the best IQ.  It also represented a value for Pentax shooters wanting better video.  For better or worse the K-01 is still the best solution for Pentax video.  And of course you are throwing into the value proposition things like looks and nicer controls - both VERY subjective.  And its not just that the K-01 was given a low "value" rating, it might be the lowest ever.

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...

Fair enough.  But you are talking about a screen that would have been on a mid grade camera from 2005 - like my K200D.  Given the importance of screens in digital photography (for most users) this would seem to warrant a bit more of a mark down.

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.

That RAW conversion is an issue with this is a big deal.  Anyone spending $1400 for a camera probably shoots RAW.  Yes it got better this week but its still not up to standard.

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.

Maybe the fact that there is no 50mm lens should be highlighted.  And doesnt it ship with an 18-55 lens that is "better" than the Pentax.  Seems if the need was for a 50mm lens you had one.

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 .

I will admit that I did not check high ISO in JPG.  I cant think of another camera that has different max ISO ratings for RAW and JPG.  Since all images start as RAW I wonder why Fuji doesnt want high ISO RAW images in the wild.  Unfortunately you left of the old standard "US Bank" shots so we could compare "real world" use.

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.

Ah but one of the key "value" points was that the Fuji was not big and clunky like the Pentax.  never mind that as soon as you put a lens on it it gets bigger than the K-01 with a whole range of lenses.  And adapter might a way to make up for lens shortfalls but then you make the camera even bigger, lose autofocus, lose image stabilization and introduce a kludge in the photographic process.  And of course you add cost.  What is the "value" of a system that limits you to a few, very expensive lenses that have all the "normal" features or more lenses at the cost of any automatic settings? I wish we could compare autofocus times but unlike the K-01 review, the Fuji does not include them.

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

It is entirely up to you to make subjective ratings on which camera is better than another.  But dressing up a subjective opinion in a ratings system that is sold as objective makes the opinion less credible.  $1400 is a LOT to spend on a camera that shows signs of being a beta release with severely limited lens selection and issues with the most important part of image processing.  When you consider a D600 cost just a fraction more and a whole host of far more capable cameras cost less it seems crazy to call it a "value."  Fun, retro, groundbreaking, innovative maybe.

They are your ratings so you decide.

-- hide signature --

Very happy K5 & K200 owner!

 wildkat2's gear list:wildkat2's gear list
Pentax K200D Pentax K-5 Pentax K-01 Pentax Q7 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 +21 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow