DPR review review

Started Mar 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
wildkat2 Contributing Member • Posts: 899
Re: DPR review review
3

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.

So I decided to do some digging on "value."  I came up with two cameras that have received lower "value" scores than the K-01 - The Ricoh GXR A12 and the Ricoh GXR S10.  If I were conspiracy minded.....During my search I found this description "Handling isn't great, nor is low light performance, and unless you find one very cheap indeed, it's best avoided."  The camera in question was priced almost the same as the K-01 and received an overall score of 59% and yet some how the Sony A380 was rated a better value than the K-01.

And about those GXR values, here is what DPR said "Viewed in its own right the Ricoh GXR with the S10 24-72mm lens module is an advanced compact camera albeit with a user interface and build quality that can typically be found on semi-pro DSLRs. Unfortunately at $990 ($550 for the GXR body and $440 for the S10 module) the GXR/S10's price tag is also quite close to the latter category of cameras."

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 .

I looked over your examples.  First, given it was shot at F8 I am a little surprised at how shallow the focus is.  That's not a good or bad thing, just surprising.  Second, I think the samples show that the two cameras are VERY close in image quality almost to the point of being a tie - some seem better for the Fuji, some better for the Pentax.  Third, While I agree the JPG output for the Fuji is better at high ISO the fact is that with the Pentax you have the option of processing the RAW and potentially getting better output while the Fuji lacks that option.  Overall I would call them very close to dead even.  All that makes it even more difficult to accept significant and across the board higher ratings for the X-E1 over the K-01, especially the RAW scores.

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.

I never used my K-01 with the 1.0 firmware so I have never had the opportunity to experience really bad K-01 AF.  I have also yet to try using it with any of my long throw lenses.  Given its size, it hardly seems appropriate to try using it with a large 2.8 zoom.  Using it with the small primes like the DA 40 XS the AF is reasonably fast except when I am inside the minimum focusing distance.  Then it gets stuck in a do loop.  Lesson?  Use the right lenses and know what your minimum distance is.

By "growing number" you mean 5 with an announcement for 5 more.  Additionally I found 1 third party lens, a manual focus fish-eye.  All of the native lenses are VERY expensive.  5 happens to be the number of lenses available for the Pentax Q/Q10.  I hope you will be as generous in describing the number of lenses for the Q10 if you ever review it.  5 also happens to be the number of lens "modules" for the GXR.

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

-- hide signature --

Very happy K5 & K200 owner!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ksuwildkat/

 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)
ET2
ET2
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow