ET2

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Aug 25, 2010

Comments

Total: 1100, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: I personally dislike the AF test. I think it weighs a times heavier on scene and image tracking versus what usually happens when you pan and move the camera with the subject as what typically happens.

However this test is repeatable. It's one where if dpreview had enough $$ they could even simulate it in a studio (think a moving focus target mounted on a radio controlled vehicale frame at a on a straight or zig zag track coming to the camera). Then you could also add in back lighting, etc .. and also have controlled acceleration and deceleration.

However AF tests are HARD .. and they are hard to be repeatable across multiple cameras, systems, lenses and nuances.

So I have to respect that dpreview is trying to do something across a VERY difficult problem domain- most reviews don't even try. It's a hard problem, and it's nice to see dpreview try and then put up with all this after the fact.

Leandros S, the tests were performed many times, on different days, in the case of K3, as I remember, they went back and tried even different lenses, same result. Why is that? The simplest explanation: Pentax's AFC is just worse than others, which in fact is actually the real fact, even if fanboys will never admit it.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 16:13 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: DPR writes: "While the AF system of the K-1 can't keep up with some of its peers, it is an improvement over previous Pentax DSLRs."

Then how come the K3's review didn't have a single conclusion "Con" related to AF performance and the K-1 had "Poor AF" listed as the very first con? This is a clear contradiction, and the fact that the K-1 is essentially an entry level FF with specs that trash the competition (5-axis IBIS, 36 mp, weather sealing, build quality) makes it worse. If there is a Con for the K-1 AF based on DPR's testing, it would be more accurate, fair and consistent to say "AF tracking not up to level of peers".

As it stands, the Conclusion bullet points are unfair and inconsistent with their own assessment of the K-1's AF as an "improvement over previous Pentax DSLRs", considering that the K3 and K-5 II had zero AF "Cons" listed in the Conclusion section. Unusually harsh, inconsistent review that I believe Ricoh did not deserve.

No, DPR says Pentax claims K1 AF s improvement, but the tests done by DPR shows it performs same or worse as previous Pentax cameras tested.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 00:33 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

LightBug: KKsniper analyzed how DPR's AF tracking test may have some issues, such as failing to keep focus points on the subjects head:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58016586

KKsniper is simply wrong, as DPR responded to the claim

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4025507?page=4#forum-post-58016958

"We made it easy for the K-1: we focused on the high contrast target in the cyclist's jersey, and kept the single point over this target the entire tim"

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 23:14 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

elixer: "At high-ISOs the K-1 performs on par or better than its peers, such as the Nikon D810, WITH RESULTS COMPARABLE to the Sony a7r II. It even out performs the D810 in ISO's that exceed 6400 which is very impressive for a camera at this price point. The low light performance performance of the K-1 is surprisingly nearly on par with 645Z. When comparing the K-1 to full frame cameras at its price point such as the Sony a7 ii, the camera out performs its competition in nearly every aspect"

Reviewers, please help me to understand why there is such a HUGE gap in the "Low light / high ISO performance" when I compare the Sony A7RII and the Pentax K1 using your resource. Can you break it down just a little more?

A7RII and A7II are two different cameras with different sensors and different low light performance.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 18:21 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Leandros S: The reason I asked about the bicycle test being done equally on other cameras is because it seems to be absent from the D5 review and the D500 review makes a strange excuse for not doing it properly, if I understand correctly, stating: "Even in circumstances where it only has a fraction of a second to acquire both the subject and focus, it does very well indeed, rendering our bike test irrelevant." and "In this instance, the rider started off too far back for us to be able to specify that the camera should focus on his face, so instead it's focused on his shirt, but the consistency between shots is excellent." I don't quite know what to make of this - it almost sounds like the camera focuses on the wrong thing, but we make an excuse for it and declare the test a success because it is "irrelevant". It is often the case that if you believe that a certain outcome is the "correct" outcome, you can generate a test case that bears this out,

LOL @ "we are shown at the shirt not face." Full resolution of images are available if you click on the image. You neither has not read any of the review for past 2 years but you aren't even familiar with how to use DPR site. Also, do you know these tests are done multiple times, 18 times for K1 and same was true for K3 where DPR even tried various lenses.

fanboys will always blame the reviewers and defend their brand.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 18:14 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: Given about all the buzz here - yesterday, in just >1h over 1000 Comments, i hope the K-1 would really sell well, for Ricoh, for Pentax...to survive as a competitor for Canikon & Sony. The market needs alternatives, competition is also good for pricing.

These comments go bak to 5 months, not 1 day. Look at the date on older comments.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 17:47 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Daft Punk: Regarding the AF row clearly kicking off here, I have a question.

Could there be sample variation? Think of all the QC problems Nikon have had with D800 left side focusing.

Did DPR have one just K-1 unit or more ?

Sample variation for all K3, K3 II and now K1? They all performed consistently bad in the AFC tracking tests.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 15:44 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

gravelhopper: "The autofocus tends to hesitate, even in AF-S mode with the center point - it’s nowhere near as fast as most Canon and Nikon DSLRs."

What is not to understand about this statement? It is very clear and I think it is formulated as intended. Now the relevant question to help us understand may be: what does DPR mean with "hesitant"? Hesitant like "I cannot catch the moment, I miss it" or hesitant like "I catch the moment, but it takes 0.2 sec versus 0.1 sec like Nikon"?
(don't shoot me for the figues I put here).

Zvonimir Tosic
"When I first use Nikon DSLR, I would not nail down 50% of the shots. T"

Funny how you are claiming that DPR used the camera first time when they had the camera for 3 months and in some cases for year (like K3) and shot thousands of images with it and performed the AF test (according to the reviewers) over 18 times for K1 and more with K3 with different lenses and settings and got same poor results with K3, K3II and K1 consistently.

The excuses by these fanboys are just hilarious

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 15:20 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: DPR writes: "While the AF system of the K-1 can't keep up with some of its peers, it is an improvement over previous Pentax DSLRs."

Then how come the K3's review didn't have a single conclusion "Con" related to AF performance and the K-1 had "Poor AF" listed as the very first con? This is a clear contradiction, and the fact that the K-1 is essentially an entry level FF with specs that trash the competition (5-axis IBIS, 36 mp, weather sealing, build quality) makes it worse. If there is a Con for the K-1 AF based on DPR's testing, it would be more accurate, fair and consistent to say "AF tracking not up to level of peers".

As it stands, the Conclusion bullet points are unfair and inconsistent with their own assessment of the K-1's AF as an "improvement over previous Pentax DSLRs", considering that the K3 and K-5 II had zero AF "Cons" listed in the Conclusion section. Unusually harsh, inconsistent review that I believe Ricoh did not deserve.

K3 and K3 II performed poorly in AFC tests

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-3/8

And in the comments back then reviewers mentioned they tried various lenses and settings and posted the best results, which were still worst compared to the competition, so K1 results are actually in line with previous Pentax reviews.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 14:58 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Sorry, D610, 6D nor D750 cannot be used as peers to judge AF in the K-1. All those use more forgiving lower-res sensors and don't have anything even remotely as sophisticated as the pixel-shift mode.

K-1 uses the 36MP sensor, and has a new AF with 25 cross points for a very serious reason: the image must be in perfect focus because the 36MP will pay you big penalties — especially in pixel shift mode.

In fact, some more experienced reviewer would presume (and even expect) that K-1 must be slower because of the extreme demands which the sensor, and special shooting modes, put on the camera and its AF system.

This is serious science here in K-1, serious photography stuff, and very serious tech that has certain requirements and needs apt minded folks to appreciate and value correctly.

D810 is more expensive so that's why it has better AF? First time a pentax fanboy admitted that D10 is a better camera. Their usual line is that K1 is both better and cheaper. A7II and D750 both have better AF and they are cheaper. On DSLR sensor plays no part in AF as AF is done by PDAF sensor.

As for K3, both K3 and K3 II performed poorly in AFC tests

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-3/8

so Pentax results are consistently bad for years.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 14:52 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

marike6: From Imaging Resource K-1 review: "Autofocus performance was swift, comparing well with the Pentax K-3 II in my informal, real-world testing. (And our lab testing likewise found autofocus performance to be a strength of the Pentax K-1.)" That's odd. Why would another respected review website have the exact opposite results as DPR? Did DPR have a defective K-1?

Imaging resources do not test AF-C with subject movig towards the camera. They test AF acquisition time by the lens in studio. Not the same tests done by DPR. DPR got the same bad results with K3 and K3II in AF-C mode with subject moving towards the camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 14:43 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jesaja: Wow. More than 1400 posts in lesser than 1 day. I never seen this before. At least, Pentax K-1 is the hottest potato ever been.

These comments go back to 5 months, not one day. That's 1500 comments in 5 months.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 14:26 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Sorry, D610, 6D nor D750 cannot be used as peers to judge AF in the K-1. All those use more forgiving lower-res sensors and don't have anything even remotely as sophisticated as the pixel-shift mode.

K-1 uses the 36MP sensor, and has a new AF with 25 cross points for a very serious reason: the image must be in perfect focus because the 36MP will pay you big penalties — especially in pixel shift mode.

In fact, some more experienced reviewer would presume (and even expect) that K-1 must be slower because of the extreme demands which the sensor, and special shooting modes, put on the camera and its AF system.

This is serious science here in K-1, serious photography stuff, and very serious tech that has certain requirements and needs apt minded folks to appreciate and value correctly.

A7RII has 44 MP (denser than K1) sensor but yet the AF works better than K1

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7r-ii/11

D810 has better AF too.

Your excuse that the worse AF results are due to the 36 MP imaging sensor is a pathetic fanboyish excuse, given on DSLR AF is done separately by PDAF sensor and has nothing to do with the imaging sensor as mirror is blocking the sensor during AF. You also forgot that both K3 and K3II performed similarly before K1 in these same tests, so Pentax's AF results are consistent.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 13:49 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Leandros S: The reason I asked about the bicycle test being done equally on other cameras is because it seems to be absent from the D5 review and the D500 review makes a strange excuse for not doing it properly, if I understand correctly, stating: "Even in circumstances where it only has a fraction of a second to acquire both the subject and focus, it does very well indeed, rendering our bike test irrelevant." and "In this instance, the rider started off too far back for us to be able to specify that the camera should focus on his face, so instead it's focused on his shirt, but the consistency between shots is excellent." I don't quite know what to make of this - it almost sounds like the camera focuses on the wrong thing, but we make an excuse for it and declare the test a success because it is "irrelevant". It is often the case that if you believe that a certain outcome is the "correct" outcome, you can generate a test case that bears this out,

Funny how these fanboys who don't even read the other reviews (as this guy didn't even know this is standard DPR test for past 2 years) are so sure that only Pentax was "rigorously reviewed". Her is A7R III

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7r-ii/11

and low light

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-7r-ii/12

and as you can see K1 performs worst in these tests, just like K3 and K3II before it. The results aren't flukes. They are consistently bad.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 13:36 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Leandros S: The reason I asked about the bicycle test being done equally on other cameras is because it seems to be absent from the D5 review and the D500 review makes a strange excuse for not doing it properly, if I understand correctly, stating: "Even in circumstances where it only has a fraction of a second to acquire both the subject and focus, it does very well indeed, rendering our bike test irrelevant." and "In this instance, the rider started off too far back for us to be able to specify that the camera should focus on his face, so instead it's focused on his shirt, but the consistency between shots is excellent." I don't quite know what to make of this - it almost sounds like the camera focuses on the wrong thing, but we make an excuse for it and declare the test a success because it is "irrelevant". It is often the case that if you believe that a certain outcome is the "correct" outcome, you can generate a test case that bears this out,

No, DPR screwed up nothing. THey tested the cameras many times (and previous ones like K3 and K3 II) and results are consistently bad.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 03:58 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Leandros S: The reason I asked about the bicycle test being done equally on other cameras is because it seems to be absent from the D5 review and the D500 review makes a strange excuse for not doing it properly, if I understand correctly, stating: "Even in circumstances where it only has a fraction of a second to acquire both the subject and focus, it does very well indeed, rendering our bike test irrelevant." and "In this instance, the rider started off too far back for us to be able to specify that the camera should focus on his face, so instead it's focused on his shirt, but the consistency between shots is excellent." I don't quite know what to make of this - it almost sounds like the camera focuses on the wrong thing, but we make an excuse for it and declare the test a success because it is "irrelevant". It is often the case that if you believe that a certain outcome is the "correct" outcome, you can generate a test case that bears this out,

You are posting nonense. Had you read any of the review, you would have known this is standard DPR test for past 2 years. You wouldn't be asking something silly. Also, these tests are done dozens of times, sometimes with different lenses, and what's mention in the review is summary. That's how K1 AF performs compared to it's peers.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 02:06 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

George Zip: Holy Moly. Over 1000 comments in 6 hours.

These comments go back to 5 months, not six hours. Look at the dates

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2016 at 23:38 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2595 comments in total)
In reply to:

Leandros S: Which other camera system have you ever performed the bicycle test with?

Huh? What kind of question is that, Leandros? Have you even read any of the reviews in past 2 years?

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2016 at 22:22 UTC
On article The price is right: Canon EOS Rebel T6 / 1300D Review (412 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: I learned more from the comments than I did in the article. The T6 is just a T5 with wifi, digic 4+ (which brings ISO expanded 12,800 with it) and a less archaic rear screen. Am I missing anything? Even a small anything?

The Pentax S2 is a remarkable little beast though. It really seems to dominate this segment.

FZ1000 and RX100 RX100 are not ILC. They are fixed lens cameras. There are many ILC's at this price range and even cheaper. A3000 street prices are usually under $300 ($299)

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 18:28 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Semi-Pro Interchangeable Lens Cameras (261 comments in total)
In reply to:

George1958: Like the low price FF review, predictably the answer to what is best = a Sony. While I respect this opinion, having tried an A7, I find the canon 5D and the Nikon 810 are nicer handling cameras and without getting too hung up on Sony sensor performance the IQ is great in any of these cameras.

Max ISO, you point doesn't stand. Both cameras are highly rated by most reviewers and deserve top spot. Your biased anti-Sony fanboy opinion doesn't change that fact. You have no point. You are just a jealous troll.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 22:42 UTC
Total: 1100, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »