[normhead]

I think some people are being a little harsh on this guy.

Testing a dud Pentax lens and posting it on you tube is "was trying to add some badly needed pentax content to youtube." That is not what Pentax needed. Hopefully no one considering Pentax gear saw it and went to the dark side.

But ya, let's all send him an award for participating.

[Gyroscope]

Testing a dud Pentax lens and posting it on you tube is "was trying to add some badly needed Pentax content to youtube." That is not what Pentax needed. Hopefully no one considering Pentax gear saw it and went to the dark side.

But ya, let's all send him an award for participating.

I actually think intentions count for something. He had good intentions and he is has admitted to a rookie mistake and is trying to correct it with more videos. It is unfortunate that there are not a whole bunch of pro photographers or skilled reviewers who are posting Pentax content to you-tube, it is left to amateurs to try and do it. If there are very few really professionally made videos available on you tube then it is either the fault of Pentax for not fostering the right ambassadors (such as other manufacturers do like Panasonic) OR a reflection on Pentax's user base being mostly hobbyists and amateurs. I hope the second option is not the case. Why is that us amateur reviewers are forced to do Pentax's marketing for them? Even good written reviews are thin on the ground. I have done two written reviews of the K1 and 645Z which have been very well received and extensively shared (and one of which was published on Luminous Landscape) because there is so little content out there for people to refer to.

It's really easy to knock someone else's work it is much harder to actually go out and do it yourself.

[ffking]

It's really easy to knock someone else's work it is much harder to actually go out and do it yourself.

True that - I think one should always assume sincerity until there is evidence to the contrary and be polite in pointing out mistakes or disagreeing - actually even if you've done it yourself, but especially if you haven't

[normhead]

No one suspected insincerity. We suspected incompetence.

But that's the game with social media. It's good to be social, knowing what you are talking about is optional.

The above conversation being a case in point.

[cyberjunkie]

I din't check the video, cause i'm not very interested, but i've read all previous posts.
I agree that you should be suspicious if the lens you're testing shows sub-par performance, but let's be fair. The only tests done on multiple samples are LensRental's.
Most respected testing sites don't warn about sample variation, nor re-test optics that should deserve a second chance.
Very likely we also never see negative tests of brands that actually finance the site.
I think that some comments are a bit harsh. Some people seem to take it personally
IF (i repeat, if) the issue has nothing to do with lens calibration, and the lens showed no visible damage, i'd say that it's just a bona fide mistake. It happens.

If you want to get an idea of what sample variation means, you don't need to read the very informative articles on lensrental.com, just a quick peek at:
Measured Resolution Numbers
Film era tests done with resolution targets, with "user lenses", some purchased new and other acquired second-hand years before.
The numbers are impressive. The much praised 77mm Limited is not a proper lemon, but is actually outperformed by humbler lenses.
I remember reading the methodology, long time ago. The tests were well made, and the testers quite trustworthy.
The context s different, but it's still a good example that shows how sample variation can affect tests in a major way.
Telling the difference between "damaged sample" and "bottom of the range" isn't as easy as it might seem...
I guess everything should be taken with a grain of salt. There is plain incompetence, there are biased reviews, and there is sample variation... most of the times we can't tell. Using common sense always helps, though

cheers

P

[ffking]

I din't check the video, cause i'm not very interested, but i've read all previous posts.
I agree that you should be suspicious if the lens you're testing shows sub-par performance, but let's be fair. The only tests done on multiple samples are LensRental's.
Most respected testing sites don't warn about sample variation, nor re-test optics that should deserve a second chance.
Very likely we also never see negative tests of brands that actually finance the site.
I think that some comments are a bit harsh. Some people seem to take it personally
IF (i repeat, if) the issue has nothing to do with lens calibration, and the lens showed no visible damage, i'd say that it's just a bona fide mistake. It happens.

If you want to get an idea of what sample variation means, you don't need to read the very informative articles on lensrental.com, just a quick peek at:
Measured Resolution Numbers
Film era tests done with resolution targets, with "user lenses", some purchased new and other acquired second-hand years before.
The numbers are impressive. The much praised 77mm Limited is not a proper lemon, but is actually outperformed by humbler lenses.
I remember reading the methodology, long time ago. The tests were well made, and the testers quite trustworthy.
The context s different, but it's still a good example that shows how sample variation can affect tests in a major way.
Telling the difference between "damaged sample" and "bottom of the range" isn't as easy as it might seem...
I guess everything should be taken with a grain of salt. There is plain incompetence, there are biased reviews, and there is sample variation... most of the times we can't tell. Using common sense always helps, though

Agreed - and there are other variables - in this video, he made the right choice of using the Tamron on a D810 with essentially the same sensor as the K-1, but I've seen others where the lines the lens can resolve magically goes up with the lines the sensor can resolve. One interesting result is how different the Tamron 15-30 is from the Pentax 15-30 in the ephotozine review charts - is it more different than we think, or is it just sample variation? In the end we just have to be sure we.re happy with the lens we have, but it's only human to wonder if you've made the right choice, and reviews sometimes make it harder, not easier.

[zapp]

I actually think intentions count for something. He had good intentions and he is has admitted to a rookie mistake and is trying to correct it with more videos. It is unfortunate that there are not a whole bunch of pro photographers or skilled reviewers who are posting Pentax content to you-tube, it is left to amateurs to try and do it. If there are very few really professionally made videos available on you tube then it is either the fault of Pentax for not fostering the right ambassadors (such as other manufacturers do like Panasonic) OR a reflection on Pentax's user base being mostly hobbyists and amateurs. I hope the second option is not the case. Why is that us amateur reviewers are forced to do Pentax's marketing for them? Even good written reviews are thin on the ground. I have done two written reviews of the K1 and 645Z which have been very well received and extensively shared (and one of which was published on Luminous Landscape) because there is so little content out there for people to refer to.

It's really easy to knock someone else's work it is much harder to actually go out and do it yourself.

And here we have a 3 page discussion on a pointss review... how pointless is that?

I find his videos to be honest. He says what he finds. I have seens all his videos and I do not agree on everything he says but it shows how a non Pentaxian finds Pentax to be. A goldmine for Ricoh if you ask me. And if he got the result for the 70-200 that he got it is not on him, it is on the lens. My DFA*70-200 is on it's way to Japan as we speak and a new one on it's way to me thank's to this video. In the center mine is superb but after the video I started to do some more scientific tests to understand how could have gotten the results he got and found that the left side was way blurrier than the right. Mine was decentered... I had found on some images that focus was not as expected but put that on the photographer error side of the problem.

[normhead]

More internet material for the store clerks talking people out of Pentax. I'm sure they have it bookmarked.

[thesia26]

You Tube

You Tube

He contacted the rental company about the lens and he also posted the email he got from them. He just got a bad lens. He also added that he hopes that other people start doing more Pentax review if you have the lens. He seemed very sincere, unfortunately he may have to re-rent some gear to redo it.

Just got to wait and see what happens.

[D1N0]

Pentax K-1 + Pentax * 70-200 vs Nikon D810 + Tamron G2 70-200 Response/Update - YouTube

He contacted the rental company about the lens and he also posted the email he got from them. He just got a bad lens. He also added that he hopes that other people start doing more Pentax review if you have the lens. He seemed very sincere, unfortunately he may have to re-rent some gear to redo it.

Just got to wait and see what happens.

DFA 70-200 on K1 with 70-200 g2 on d810 - PentaxForums.com