[ccd333]

Pentax K-r Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

I posted my comments in this thread (same user name) if anyone is interested:

K-r full review up...: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

[Adam]

Cool, share them here as well, if possible! We don't like bare links

[aleonx3]

Pentax K-r Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

I posted my comments in this thread (same user name) if anyone is interested:

K-r full review up...: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

ccd, nice comments and certainly the reviewers are not so enthusiastic about the camera. I don't read DP... it is a place for Canikon folks to worship their equipment; don't have time for that.

[bwDraco]

ccd, nice comments and certainly the reviewers are not so enthusiastic about the camera. I don't read DP... it is a place for Canikon folks to worship their equipment; don't have time for that.

I disagree with the Canikon statement. The slightly lower score (73% vs 71%) is the result of the fact that there were not substantial improvements other than the superimposed AF points in the viewfinder.

--DragonLord

[mp29k]

I disagree with the Canikon statement. The slightly lower score (73% vs 71%) is the result of the fact that there were not substantial improvements other than the superimposed AF points in the viewfinder.

--DragonLord

The fact that the camera scored lower than the D3100 is an effing travesty...

DPR should be called DVR, Digital Video Reivew.

[ursamajor]

Very disappointing and short review.
Anyway, the ff issue (at 18-55, f/5,6) is present even here at samples. (It's about the penultimate photo from samples. See the correct focus on the top of the nose, although was made/intended on the right eye from the picture - check with PhotoME)

[bwDraco]

The fact that the camera scored lower than the D3100 is an effing travesty...

DPR should be called DVR, Digital Video Reivew.

I understand that there may have been too much weight on the video score. I personally feel that DPReview is honest; though I find its link blocking to be anti-competitive, their reviews do make sense and are accurate reflections of a camera's performance.

--DragonLord

[GrinMode]

Didn't blow their socks of. I guess Video is the trend in DSLRS now, as Live View was a couple of years back.

As fair as the review is IMHO, I just felt they were downplaying the strengths of the K-r. The reviewer couldn't state enough how the image is the same on the K-x, but the K-r has lower RAW and jpeg quality scores.

Again no mention of the Tungsten FF issue. This has made so much noise now I don't think the reviewer is ignorant about it. It's worth mentioning though he could have made a lot of fuss about it if he was really intent of glorifying other brands.

Or maybe his FF problem was within his acceptable limits?

[mp29k]

I understand that there may have been too much weight on the video score. I personally feel that DPReview is honest; though I find its link blocking to be anti-competitive, their reviews do make sense and are accurate reflections of a camera's performance.

--DragonLord

Look at the samples... at ISO 800 and up, the K-r blows the socks off D3100 in both JPG and RAW. At base ISO, I can't see a difference. Look at all the smearing D3100 does at ISO 1600 JPG!!

k-R Strengths over D3100:

faster FPS
bracketing
in body stabilization
in body screw drive
higher resolution LCD
more AF points
better high ISO jpg output
in camera handheld HDR
k-mount for lenses back to the 60s


D3100 advantages:
video continuous AF
1080p
dedicated video button

It simply doesn't make sense that these cameras are even on the same plane! K-r deserved a rating of at least 75%

[ccd333]

Cool, share them here as well, if possible! We don't like bare links :tongue:

To overreact to this review would be counter-productive.....it's a generally favorable review in spite of the lackluster terminology used. However, it's worth pointing out a few things in the K-r's defense where I felt it was unfairly characterized:

In the final conclusion it states as one of the cons that the shake reduction is not too efficient compared to others. But in the actual shake reduction section it clearly concedes how well the "the system appears to be slightly more efficient at very slow shutter speeds, where it significantly increases your chances of getting a usable shot". So how can that be a con? Isn't that the ultimate goal? Does shake reduction on the "other" systems work better than significantly increasing your chance of getting a usable shot? And it really wasn't pointed out how MUCH more effective it is in reality since if you don't have a LENS that has shake reduction in most of the other systems then it ISN'T EFFECTIVE AT ALL (even if it was implied by referring to it as in camera shake reduction).

In the video section, it states "You should be aware that the K-r, like the K-x, appears not to be using its full sensitivity range of up to ISO 25600 when recording video. This can result in underexposed video output in very low light." No kidding. No, they couldn't be.....unless they are suggesting you would need to use an ISO that high for video.

No direct movie button. Is this that important? Is moving the dial to movie and then clicking the shutter a real time consuming action? And wouldn't that be an advantage in the sense that you wouldn't want to accidentally bump the button if it's one touch on the other systems? To post that as a con is questionable in that sense....and I'm guessing that is why they also used the thumbs down on the 71% overall rating section where it states it's not good for "auto mode shooting". Really?

I don't know.....I'd say it is favorable, but it's also prone to the fairly subdued personality of this particular reviewer and his relative degree of a lack of enthusiasm in the descriptions. Words like decent and good were pervasive for anything positive. This would lend itself to only having one reviewer on this site in order to keep the terminology more consistent. If you actually read the entire review, even if you assessed the final % as fair, you wouldn't necessarily come away with the idea that the K-r is an EXCELLENT camera (in fact I don't think I saw that word once). It's too bad. I suppose the K-r will also always be in the shadow of the K-x. I think there are plenty of distinctions that warrant the price difference, but I would confess that is a subjective viewpoint overall....in spite of the objective actual additions.

One other thing.....I found a couple of relatively innocuous but unequivocal errors in the review. They might be worth mentioning for those who pay attention to detail (a trait you would like a reviewer of a camera to possess). At one point in a comparison description, the reviewer mistakenly refers to the 600D as the 550D.....and in the movie mode section it was stated "Shooting a video on the K-r works exactly the same way as on the K-r"....obviously a mistake in not referring to the K-x for the latter. Maybe just a typo.....maybe not even their fault.


In fairness, there were several things that were pointed out that I really liked:

In fact, after reading the review again....I noticed a couple of "excellents". Fair enough.

The distinction of the contrast detect auto focus as being one of the better ones out there.

The distinction of the resolution differences of the 4 cameras in the comparison. The Canon Forum doesn't seem to think that is very relevant.

The auto focus points in the viewfinder rectification from the K-x was clearly stated as something to separate the two in a very significant way for many users.

[bwDraco]

Look at the samples... at ISO 800 and up, the K-r blows the socks off D3100 in both JPG and RAW. At base ISO, I can't see a difference. Look at all the smearing D3100 does at ISO 1600 JPG!!

k-R Strengths over D3100:

faster FPS
bracketing
in body stabilization
in body screw drive
higher resolution LCD
more AF points
better high ISO jpg output
in camera handheld HDR
k-mount for lenses back to the 60s


D3100 advantages:
video continuous AF
1080p
dedicated video button

It simply doesn't make sense that these cameras are even on the same plane! K-r deserved a rating of at least 75%

It seems DPReview doesn't check the subscores against other cameras for accuracy. The slightly lower build quality subscore for the K-5 compared to the K-7 shows this problem. DPReview needs to make their scoring more accurate.

--DragonLord

[bwDraco]

DPReview is not a bad reviewer. Their extensive testing shows that they want to make their reviews as complete as possible. While it is clear that they need to refine the scoring process for greater accuracy and consistency, I have yet to find any site that performs reviews with the same depth as DPReview.

--DragonLord

[ccd333]

I understand that there may have been too much weight on the video score. I personally feel that DPReview is honest; though I find its link blocking to be anti-competitive, their reviews do make sense and are accurate reflections of a camera's performance.

--DragonLord

Just the fact that I posted the review link from DPReview here is an indication of their credibility as far as being a viable and detailed source for camera reviews/info. But it's still fair game to be critical of their findings.

Photographers who use Pentax on a routine basis would be at least subjectively qualified to weigh in when it's apparent to them that something doesn't jive with their own findings. At the same time, that does not preclude them from being classified as Pentax "homers". That's to be expected on some level and it is certainly not exclusive to any particular brand. I think Pentax users are familiar with the relative degree of David and Goliath scenarios when it comes to accurate portrayal and credibility amongst the other big companies. Some are more defensive about it to be sure, but the passion that comes through says something about user loyalty on some level.

The whole dynamic of posturing to equate oneself with a "winning" form of just about anything tangible is fascinating. I'm not a psychologist, but it's easy to recognize the self esteem related associations.....whether they are other people related (like sports teams, spouses, jobs) or simply material possessions like cameras.

When I critique something (even if it's someone else who critiques), I try to maintain some semblance of fairness and objectivity. But I confess to succumbing to similar pitfalls of partiality.....esp. if there seems to be an egregious amount of snobbery when it comes to other things that you know darn well are not any better, but have the reputation that sticks in their favor. No, I shouldn't care that much and should just let others perpetuate their own folly, but I find it quite refreshing to take on something of that nature. And, I admit.....it is nice to be corroborated on a particular view.

[bwDraco]

Just the fact that I posted the review link from DPReview here is an indication of their credibility as far as being a viable and detailed source for camera reviews/info. But it's still fair game to be critical of their findings.

Photographers who use Pentax on a routine basis would be at least subjectively qualified to weigh in when it's apparent to them that something doesn't jive with their own findings. At the same time, that does not preclude them from being classified as Pentax "homers". That's to be expected on some level and it is certainly not exclusive to any particular brand. I think Pentax users are familiar with the relative degree of David and Goliath scenarios when it comes to accurate portrayal and credibility amongst the other big companies. Some are more defensive about it to be sure, but the passion that comes through says something about user loyalty on some level.

The whole dynamic of posturing to equate oneself with a "winning" form of just about anything tangible is fascinating. I'm not a psychologist, but it's easy to recognize the self esteem related associations.....whether they are other people related (like sports teams, spouses, jobs) or simply material possessions like cameras.

When I critique something (even if it's someone else who critiques), I try to maintain some semblance of fairness and objectivity. But I confess to succumbing to similar pitfalls of partiality.....esp. if there seems to be an egregious amount of snobbery when it comes to other things that you know darn well are not any better, but have the reputation that sticks in their favor. No, I shouldn't care that much and should just let others perpetuate their own folly, but I find it quite refreshing to take on something of that nature. And, I admit.....it is nice to be corroborated on a particular view.

Agreed. As the owner of a PENTAX K-r myself, I understand what it's like to be a fanboy. At the same time, DPReview had certainly tried to produce a fair review. When things don't go the way we want, we need to accept it, unless there is something grossly incorrect - and this is not the case.

--DragonLord

[hawk1500]

yeah the "score" at the end is pretty much meaningless. Kind of like car magazines comparing BMWs to other cars or something. I do like how they kept referring to the image quality as decent, which to me has a negatiev connotation to it.