[elho_cid]

I'm sure they are only looking at JPEGs. The Pentax JPEG engine is not as good as Nikon or Canon.

I don't think so. That used to be in K10D times, but K-5 has amazing Jpeg, easily outperforming the D7000. Not sure about Canon, as Canon uses different sensors... But still Pentax hi-iso jpg looks better to me.

[luftfluss]

PC Magazine doesn't even do good PC-related evaluations, let alone cameras.

[jpzk]

Can someone try and help to find an email address for PC Mag so I can provide them with a piece of my mind?

JP

[Smeggypants]

Reviews are a waste of time IMO. We all know it's a logical fallacy that getting something in print is any measure of quality or accuracy. And that's even disregarding the commerical bias magazines are routinely guilty of.

[luftfluss]

Can someone try and help to find an email address for PC Mag so I can provide them with a piece of my mind?

JP

The author is Jim_Fisher@pcmag.com

Here's the DxOMark page comparing the K-5 and D300s sensors: DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

[luftfluss]

]Reviews are a waste of time IMO[/B]. We all know it's a logical fallacy that getting something in print is any measure of quality or accuracy. And that's even disregarding the commerical bias magazines are routinely guilty of.

I disagree. A well thought out review from a proven source is extremely useful.

[Docrwm]

I disagree. A well thought out review from a proven source is extremely useful.

I agree. The question, in my opinion, is always the source and their expertise and bias. In this case we have limited expertise and some have impugned bias due to advertiser status for the outlet.

[jpzk]

The author is Jim_Fisher@pcmag.com

Here's the DxOMark page comparing the K-5 and D300s sensors: DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

Thanks Luftfluss !

I'll email my thoughts to PC Mag's Fisher ... for what it's worth but at least it will satisfy my being very annoyed.
I'm not expecting a response of course, I'll just feel better.

JP

Edit: email sent two minutes ago !

[Spodeworld]

Assuming it is well thought out. Just because something is in print should not in and of itself confer legitimacy. And, therefore Smeggypant's comment about the logical fallacy of assuming just because something is in print it speaks with authority.

I disagree. A well thought out review from a proven source is extremely useful.

[Docrwm]

Assuming it is well thought out. Just because something is in print should not in and of itself confer legitimacy. And, therefore Smeggypant's comment about the logical fallacy of assuming just because something is in print it speaks with authority.

No, print does not in and of itself confer legitimacy. However, the prestige and relevance of the outlet does lend some level of authority to specific voices in that outlet. For example, if I read an article in Nature on dSLRs I'd just laugh because it’s not their area but if I read an article on Co-enzyme A I'd take it as more authoritative due to Nature's status within that specific area. So, PCMagazine - not an authoritative source on cameras and hence no borrowed status for the writer. Nor, in my opinion has PCMagazine enhanced its authority in the camera arena with its choice of camera reviewer.

[imtheguy]

The first thing you have to ask when considering a magazine review is "Who are their advertisers?" I bet Canon and Nikon spend more with PCMagazine than Pentax or Olympus.

PCMagazine is a dinosaur that routinely tells people that the next iteration of Microsoft whatever will be absolutely astounding and with no bugs!

If you believe them about MS products, well then their review of an item outside their scope of skills and ability should also be easy enough to swallow.

It's that kind of muddy, bubble-headed thinking that drove me away from Cnet, PCMag, and Ziff Davis publications in general back in the late 90's.

Agree, agree and agree. I canceled my PC mag subscription years ago when they lost tech credability and tried to become a newbie consumer's magazine instead of a technologists reference (like Maximum PC or better yet..PentaxForums.com !!).

[fs999]

I never beleaved PCMag for software or hardware (computers, printers, etc) tests...

[Class A]

Unbelievable. Everyone should send him an email (I did).

[cali92rs]

Thanks goodness for that review...I thought I loved my K-5, but he set me straight and now I want to toss it in the trash for the older, worse performing D300s.

[jpzk]

LATEST NEWS:

Here is the response from Jim after I had sent an email tonight:

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Fisher
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 5:37 PM
To: Jacques Pelletier
Subject: Re: Your Pentax K5 "review"

Jacques,

Thanks for taking the time to read the review. I'm a long-time Pentax
shooter. My first film body was a KX, and have owned a *ist DL and
K10D in the past.

Our tests are done using Imatest on out of camera JPGs--although I
recognize that most enthusiasts and pros who use a K-5 will shoot Raw,
but our reviews are done using out-of-camera JPGs across the board. I
take multiple shots at each ISO under studio lighting of a color
chart, run each file through the Colorcheck module to gauge noise,
averaging the results.

For what it's worth, I did run a couple of Lightroom-converted Raw
files at ISO 1600 through Imatest. The noise numbers were much higher
than the JPGs--but I don't have a bank of comparison data to put
against them as I do with out-of-camera JPGs. I also had a mention of
the K-5's ability to let the user fine-tune noise reduction, but that
was cut as the word count on the review was running long. I've been
trying to keep the camera at 1600 or lower, although I don't mind it
at 3200--others might. I also shoot with a NEX-5N and Pentax glass
(via adapter)--Raw files from that camera at 3200/6400 are cleaner to
my eye than those from the K-5 at those ISOs.

As for the issue with the way we list price in the reviews, we go by
the current MSRP for comparisons--and yes, price is a factor in
determining the star rating. I recognize the K-5 has been out for
quite some time and is available at retail for much less money on the
street. But also remember that, after the Hoya acquisition, Pentax
became much less of a value. I think I paid in the neighborhood of
$750 for a K10D in 2007--the body-only K-5 is double that in terms of
MSRP, and 50% more in terms of the current sale price. I hope that the
Ricoh acquisition pushes prices down to a more reasonable level. The
fact that the K-01 is being introduced at $900 with the 40mm is very
reassuring in that regard.

I do understand that we are quite late to the party on both the K-r
and K-5 reviews. My predecessor neglected to get them in for review--I
thought that they were cameras worth covering, as I didn't want the
current generation of Pentax D-SLRs ignored.

I also urge everyone to actually read the review in its entirety and
not concentrate simply on the star rating. As I wrote in the
conclusion: "Despite some its drawbacks, I really enjoyed shooting
with the K-5—it felt very natural in my hands, and the control layout
is excellent. If you're a Pentax shooter and feel the need to upgrade
to a nicer camera, the K-5 is the best one you can get—especially if
you're a fan of Pentax's compact prime lens lineup. But if you've
already invested in another lens system, the camera doesn't offer
enough compelling reasons to switch." I stand by that.

Please feel free to share this message with the forum members--and
anyone who takes further issue with the review is free to contact me
via email. I post the Pentax forums on occasion (jpfisher), but it's
not really appropriate for me to jump into a thread like that from a
professional point of view.

Thanks,

Jim

He was nice enough to reply, something we seldom get from large publications.

Have a nice read.

JP