marike6

Joined on Jul 29, 2011

Comments

Total: 2711, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

eazizisaid: I honestly don't know why people are still starving for wide aperture lenses especially in longer focal lenght just because "bokeh" ! This is the route Sony is following ! I wish they offered a 2.8 lens lineup from 18mm to 135mm, it will be cheap and light !

@eazizisaid I'm guessing you don't shoot weddings or events. Fast glass is essential, shallow DOF is only part of the equation.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 12:20 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 comments in total)
In reply to:

GoremanX: I alluded to this in a previous comment, but I'll state it more plainly. The reviewer's assessment of the AF capabilities is downright wrong. I'm not arguing with the final score or anything, but the entire AF section of the review reeks of bad reviewing.

Claiming the AF is unimproved over previous Pentax models is ludicrous. Even the basic AF interface has been overhauled. And AF accuracy isn't just improved, it's fantastic. Implying that anyone picking up the camera would be lucky to get an in-focus shot is disingenuous and ridiculous. 50% keeper rate? Really?!?

Having said that, I'm the first to admit that AF-C tracking of subjects with Pentax cameras is still far behind what's being offered by Nikon and Canon. A fast action camera, this is not. I've been able to get good results at sports photos with the K-1, but only with very careful management of the AF. A sports photographer would be very frustrated by these limitations.

@Simon Johnson Because there is a huge difference between concluding that "AF tracking not up to level of peers" and the first bullet point in the Cons like be "Poor AF". The statement "poor AF" suggests that the overall AF performance is poor, when it was only a very specific predictive AF test in AF-C mode that didn't perform well. And to write in the conclusion that the "K-1 AF is an improvement over all previous Pentax DSLRs" while writing "Poor AF" as a Con, doesn't make sense, and is not consistent with the fact that neither the K5, K5 II or K-3 had any negative cons whatsoever regarding AF. It is also true that no other entry level FF DSLR (600D, 6D) or high megapixel DSLRs like the Nikon D800 or D810 had any similar predictive AF tracking tests done at all. And shooting an AF tracking test with an object coming at the camera on a 36 mp DSLR at the shallow DOF that max aperture provides and summarizing with "Poor AF" in the general sense is not accurate or fair.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 17:21 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 comments in total)
In reply to:

rrccad: nice camera, good on pentax for FINALLY coming out with it.

a little redundant on the market, but i'm sure it's a boon for pentaxians or those interested in a limited kit (yet bulky) AF kit.

Personally I could never see the need (or desire) or even wish to get behind a non stabilized viewfinder and AF / AE system but the sensor itself is stabilized.

I'm sure it's possible .. don't get me wrong - before the dozen remaining pentaxians jump all over me. it's simply not optimal and just about every camera manufacturer offers a better solution and photographer experience (EVF with sensor stabilization, IS in lens for optical, hybrid such as sony's newer systems,etc). It's half baked - especially with longer telephotos where framing can be drastically different then what the sensor sees, not to mention part of the advantage of IS is stabilizing the view and also the AF system.

I'm actually surprised it's not on the con's list actually.

@rrccad
The Cons bullet list already has a few totally unnecessary, borderline passive aggressive Cons like "Poor AF" and "Limited selection of modern AF lenses". A reviewer cannot make the case that the K-1 has the best AF system of any Pentax ever made and then list "Poor AF" as the very first bullet point. No way. Just as lens selection absolutely does not belong in a review of a camera body. What next speedlight selection? The fact that you want to add "5 Axis IBIS" to the list of Cons makes me think maybe you have a future as a camera reviewer.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 17:48 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: Oh look...another camera that needs Sillypix to get the most out of the files. Seriously, Sillypix is the worst UI EVER. Come on Adobe get it together.

The K1 doesn't need Silkypix, it shoots DNG which Adobe (and most others) process out of the box. No waiting necessary.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 17:38 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 comments in total)

So DPR did a predictive AF test of a 36 mp DSLR with the lens at max aperture and concluded that the K-1 has "poor AF"? That's odd, the D800, D600 and Canon 6D didn't get any such "AF test". Oh brother. No wonder people are angry about this review.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 17:34 UTC as 213th comment | 2 replies
On article Elevating X-Trans? Fujifilm X-T2 First Impressions Review (1230 comments in total)
In reply to:

caravan: The a6300 is much,much better and less expensive,nice try though.

Sony E-mount lenses are either wildly over-priced mediocre or expensive garbage, their bodies are horrendous to shoot with. Fujifilm lenses are in another category, their bodies are a joy to shoot with. Next.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 14:22 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 comments in total)
In reply to:

pentaust: More argumentation isn't necessary. I encourage everyone having access to a Pentax K1 to do the test himself and publish the results online. And there are already plenty of examples online showing Pentax K1 tracking capability, but, one review ignore them all. Interesting.

@Barney Britton But you didn't have any predictive AF tracking test in your Canon 6D or Nikon D600. And the K-1 review clearly states in the conclusion that the K-1 AF system "is an improvement over previous Pentax DSLRs". If that is true, then why is the very first bullet point in the Cons section of the Conclusion "Poor AF"??? Neither the K5, K5II or K3 have a single negative AF bullet point in the Cons section of their respective reviews and according to your reviewer the K-1 is an improvement on the K5, K5II and K3??? Where is the consistency across Pentax reviews and reviews in general? And why should an entry level FF DSLR at the ground breaking price of $1800 be judged so harshly, and tested more rigorously than other similar cameras (6D, D600)?

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 13:59 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 comments in total)
In reply to:

Craig from Nevada: It appears that many the negative comments directed to the reviewers are from individuals seeking validation instead of information regarding purchasing options. It is the latter that my comment addresses.

My problem stems from how the reviewers hand out Silver and Gold Awards. Consider the statement made in the review that "even in the most basic, single point AF shooting modes, the results are far from what we would expect from a modern DSLR focusing system." This is a very strong statement regarding something that is a core attribute of the camera and not a cool feature. If anything the reviewers should be admonished for slapping a Silver Award on a $1,800 camera built in 2016 that lacks "a proficient AF system". It is tough to reconcile these. Perhaps it is time to toss the Gold and Silver awards and rely on the scores and written reviews. The consumer might benefit. You guys are too nice about it.

Readers have every right to make negative comments if they feel there is a lack of consistency across reviews. Asking questions or raising concerns doesn't automatically mean fanboys have their pitchforks out. If the K-3 wins a Gold Award, and doesn't have a single Con listed regarding AF, and the K-1 review makes the case that the K-1 AF is an improvement upon ALL previous Pentax DLSRs, then one would not expect to see the very first Con in the K-1 review be "Poor AF". That makes zero sense.

As far as the awards, I hate the almost totally subjective DPR awards. The fact that Amazon is now listing "DPR Gold Award", "DPR Silver Award" in their camera listings is a turn off, the practice seems at the very least suspect, even dishonest. It's one reason I never buy cameras from Amazon.

I don't shoot Pentax, I have no horse in this race, but I understand Pentax shooter's frustrations with the politics of the camera industry. The good news is this K-1 review seems to be an outlier.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 13:44 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 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.

You say the K1 results are in line with previous Pentax models, DPR says the K1 AF is an improvement on previous Pentax models, yet it's only the K1 whose review summary Con said "Poor AF", neither the K5, K5II or K3 had any Cons related to AF. It's not a complicated point that I'm making.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 00:31 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 comments in total)

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.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 14:45 UTC as 270th comment | 3 replies
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 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.

@ET2 A7RII and D810 are more expensive camera, the lenses for the A7RII use sophisticated stepping motors, Nikon's predictive AF technology is class leading. But he makes a valid point about the demands of a 36 mp sensor. And DPR claims the K-1 AF is an improvement over all previous Pentax camera, yet the K-3 doesn't have a single Con that say "Poor AF". It's poor review consistency at best and "woke up on the wrong side of the bed" reviewing at worst.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 14:27 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Are peers judged by the price, or by the specs, and which? Or you want both? That is the case here — nobody can make logically consistent review of Pentax cameras.
Because Pentax designs cameras in an unorthodox, quirky way, to avoid direct comparisons with presumed peers. People would love to have dynamic range and detail of D810, speed and AF of D5, price of D610, at least a screen of D750, and presence on the shelves of 5D3. When you want *all that*, realistically you can get only some of it — and a very skewed review in the tow.
What sane person can expect a D610-priced camera to be a primary moving subject beast which delivers impeccable gargantuan 36 MP images? Ask Nikon for that, and they give you D5 and 20 MP, not even the D610. Neither D810 fits the bill.
That is why all Pentax reviews based on scoring points are futile. Like Leica, Pentax designs cameras that defy direct comparisons.

I agree completely with Zvonimir. When I had my K-30, I had no major problems tracking birds in flight or my daughter running around. And with motor-less DA primes in AF Single Shot, focussing is quick and dead on accurate (albeit with more noise than motorized Canikon lenses). If as DPR says, the K-1's AF is an improvement over previous models then to arrive at "Poor AF performance" as number one "Con" is to judge the K-1 too harshly. It is an entry level FF DSLR, why is DPR even talking about the D750 and such. So it would seem that DPR arrived at their "poor AF" assessment is through comparisons of much more expensive Canikon cameras. The fact that another "Con" is limited FF lens selection is just absurd this is a review of the K-1 camera, not the Pentax system. ePhotozine gave the K-1 Five Stars and Editor's Choice. Imaging Resource praised the AF system. TheCameraStoreTV said AF was "highly accurate". IMO, DPR did Pentax and its loyal readers wrong in this review.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 13:49 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 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).

@SungiBr
For the bike test yes. For other images on the AF page, discuss the Sigma 35 1.4 and the Pentax FA 77 1.8, a motor-less "screw driver" lens.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 13:28 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 comments in total)
In reply to:

Xentinus: With single point AF,they DO NOT mean AF-S...They mean AF-C with single point (which is in the centre).

Yes I read the review, DPR said they used a single center AF point in AF Continuous because they couldn't get good results with it in Array mode (i.e. all AF points active). A camera with 25 cross type AF sensors not being able to track accurately with all the AF points selected sounds like user error, a defective camera, or some other issue. The confusion comes with their inconsistent terminology, little mention of lenses use, and the fact that virtually none of the other reviews on line mentioned the AF in such negative terms. But whatever, I don't shoot Pentax and I don't put all of my faith in DPR reviews. I live close enough to B&H where I can test cameras myself. Cheers.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 12:11 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 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?

What "overly praised"? Imaging Resource has exact measurements for AF speed and the times are in line with the rest of the market. Everyone knows that Nikon's predictive AF is the best on the market. That doesn't mean that all other brands that don't match Nikon's AF performance as "broken". I've never read DPR draw the conclusion that Fuji, Olympus, Sony AF tracking was subpar or even broken because it didn't match the performance of the class leader Nikon. Why judge Pentax so harshly? None of the other review sites are doing so. CameraStoreTV said the K-1 AF was "extremely accurate". Tony Northup view that while the entry level K-1 is clearly not a sports camera, his only criticism of the K-1's actual AF performance was related to focus breathing.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 12:06 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 comments in total)
In reply to:

Xentinus: With single point AF,they DO NOT mean AF-S...They mean AF-C with single point (which is in the centre).

Testing AF-C with only the center AF point selected is poor testing methodology. The K-1 has 25 cross type AF points, there is no reason why it shouldn't do accurate AF tracking with the full array of AF points selected. If DPR didn't test more than one body for this review to account for the possibility of a defective test body, IMHO, they've done a disservice to their readers and to Pentax.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 11:30 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 comments in total)

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?

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 11:21 UTC as 284th comment | 10 replies
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 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).

That paragraph sounds like they were using one of the FA screw driver lenses which don't have AF motors. Let's hope DPR tested more than one body because publishing this review because all of the other reviews (Imaging Resource, The CameraStore TV, et al) praised the K-1's AF performance.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 11:16 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2613 comments in total)
In reply to:

jacek2008: "Single point AF, which we expect DSLRs to excel at, proved to be highly inconsistent and failed about half of the time".

Clearly this camera just can't focus and has very serious AF issues. Is it possible to release such a camera to the market? Which manufacturer would be that mad?

A fully weather sealed FF camera with 5-axis In-Body Image Stabilization with class leading DR and overall IQ for an unheard of $1800? Any award other than Silver or Gold would have been an absolute joke!!

Re: AF, none of the other reviewers (The Camera Store TV, Tony Northrup, DigitalRev, et al) had any major AF issues. Camera Store TV said the AF was "highly accurate". Is the K-1 a sports camera? No. But neither is the D810 and A7. Because Pentax still uses screw driver lenses, AF speed is often lens dependent. In the AF test, other than the 70-200 f2.8, little mention was made of which lenses they used. The reviewer shouldn't have expected the 77 f/1.8 lens (a screw driver lens without an AF motor) to be able to compete with modern Nikkors or L lenses and to make cheeky comments about bringing a Kindle along to read while the K-1 acquires focus was just obnoxious. Since none of the other reviewers mentioned any K-1 accuracy issues, I hope DPR tested more than one body.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 10:41 UTC
On article All about that lens: Sony Cyber-shot RX10 III review (427 comments in total)
In reply to:

TyphoonTW: It clearly DESTROYS all the bridge cameras in the 600/700$ price range.

The Panasonic FZ1000 is $600 and DPR gave it a Gold Award so clearly there is no destroying in this case.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 11:25 UTC
Total: 2711, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »