Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-09-2012, 09:33 AM   #16
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
Right, the K-30 is a mid-level camera, yet for some reason I've seen numerous people refer to it as "entry-level".
Pentax doesn't have an entry level dSLR in current production and this may be why they are saying it's "entry-level".

Comparing even a mid-level dSLR to a Hassy in terms of anything is either incredibly stupid or a real back-handed compliment

07-09-2012, 09:33 AM   #17
Veteran Member
Ryan Trevisol's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 308
QuoteOriginally posted by loco Quote
Well, honestly, for me personally all that matters is if the center point is accurate. I NEVER use the other points. So, that's what I'm interested in and what I hope to read about from users here. Otherwise, it was a very nice review!
Agreed. And I hope PF's review tackles the Low-Tungsten-Light issue, with a comparison to the K-5 for the sake of everyone on here who's hinging their purchase decision on that factor.
07-09-2012, 09:35 AM   #18
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Ryan Trevisol Quote
Agreed. And I hope PF's review tackles the Low-Tungsten-Light issue.
How could it not? Seriously, I'm waiting for the PF review and am glad to see Adam acknowledging that one is in the works.
07-09-2012, 09:49 AM   #19
Veteran Member
Ryan Trevisol's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 308
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
How could it not? Seriously, I'm waiting for the PF review and am glad to see Adam acknowledging that one is in the works.
Well the Phoblographer's review didn't.

Then again, he didn't seem to be aware of any other Pentax cameras other than the K-30. Not exactly well researched. His discussion of shake reduction is two sentences long. Also he doesn't spell check when talking about "facits" of the camera.

07-09-2012, 09:57 AM   #20
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Ryan Trevisol Quote
Well the Phoblographer's review didn't.

Then again, he didn't seem to be aware of any other Pentax cameras other than the K-30. Not exactly well researched. His discussion of shake reduction is two sentences long. Also he doesn't spell check when talking about "facits" of the camera.
Yes, I meant that those of us intimately familiar with Pentax products could not possibly do a detailed review without looking at AF in low light and tungsten. The Pentax approach to getting the K-30 out there in the US has, again, been amateurish and defensive. How on Earth could you NOT give one to PF to review? Because you only want Fanboy reviews and we know too much is the only possible answer. They've given test units to bloggers who are only tangentially connected to photography for Gosh sake.

I love my K-x and K-5 but wish that I could deal with Pentax UK or Pentax Canada instead of Pentax USA.
07-09-2012, 09:59 AM - 1 Like   #21
mee
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,258
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
Pentax doesn't have an entry level dSLR in current production and this may be why they are saying it's "entry-level".

Comparing even a mid-level dSLR to a Hassy in terms of anything is either incredibly stupid or a real back-handed compliment
QuoteQuote:
My only problem was the autofocus system, which I truthfully consider to be a tad bit worse than the Canon 5D Mk IIís. I know that Pentax fans will try to rip us apart for that, but our tests showed otherwise.
Well if it is just a TAD bit worse than an $1800 body, I don't see why they would have one issue with the AF.

It is similar to saying the acceleration in a Ford Mustang GT is just a tad bit worse than a Ferrari 458 thus the Mustang GT's acceleration is inadequate.

Well it is a fraction of the price of the Ferrari.. come on!

Apples.. Oranges..
07-09-2012, 10:02 AM   #22
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,624
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
Well if it is just a TAD bit worse than an $1800 body, I don't see why they would have one issue with the AF.

It is similar to saying the acceleration in a Ford Mustang GT is just a tad bit worse than a Ferrari 458 thus the Mustang GT's acceleration is inadequate.

Well it is a fraction of the price of the Ferrari.. come on!

Apples.. Oranges..
He does qualify that by saying that the 5D Mk2 is an old camera, and new cameras should do better than it.

However, he doesn't qualify that afterwards by naming any "new" cameras in that price range with "better" AF.
07-09-2012, 10:05 AM   #23
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by mee Quote
Well if it is just a TAD bit worse than an $1800 body, I don't see why they would have one issue with the AF.

It is similar to saying the acceleration in a Ford Mustang GT is just a tad bit worse than a Ferrari 458 thus the Mustang GT's acceleration is inadequate.

Well it is a fraction of the price of the Ferrari.. come on!

Apples.. Oranges..
Funny you should say that - a comment was posted that was nearly identical to your first sentence above. The author replied with a scathing response to the effect of 'newer should blow older away'! Dolt. So, a camera HE terms "entry-level" that costs $850 should 'blow away' a camera that is a year or so old but cost $2200 when it was released? Wow, talk about unrealistic expectations.

07-09-2012, 10:09 AM   #24
Veteran Member
Ryan Trevisol's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 308
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
The Pentax approach to getting the K-30 out there in the US has, again, been amateurish and defensive.:
It does seem like they're more interested in a larger number of short "reviews" that generate more buzz. However, it would seem that Imaging-Resource and DPReview have review units. From reading the K-5 review, though, it doesn't seem like PF was provided an advance review unit 2 years ago, so I'm not sure Pentax is intentionally slighting PF. Besides, I don't believe any reviews were allowed to be published before the firmware was finalized, which would be anywhere in the last couple of weeks. So the biggest jump PF could have been given was 2 weeks at most.

Adorama or B&H could have given PF a leg up by sending Adam & co one of their demo units for the review, and maybe that is what they're doing.

QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
He does qualify that by saying that the 5D Mk2 is an old camera, and new cameras should do better than it.

However, he doesn't qualify that afterwards by naming any "new" cameras in that price range with "better" AF.
Not to mention his big suggestion for Pentax is to implement Hasselblad's proprietary focus system (he can't even spell Hasselblad right either). Oh really genius? Should Pentax also rip off Zeiss's proprietary lens designs? To continue the car analogy, it'd be like that same Mustang reviewer suggesting that Ford use Mercedes Benz' proprietary engine port-and-polish process.

Last edited by Ryan Trevisol; 07-09-2012 at 10:15 AM.
07-09-2012, 10:16 AM - 3 Likes   #25
Pentaxian
Heie's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 954
In case he deletes my comment, this is what I had to say about the review:

Good review for the most part, and as you guessed it, Pentaxians are criticizing you for your AF section. I appreciate the attention to the ergonomics, which I insist are one of Pentax's strongsuit, and in my experience, by far.

Regarding the AF, I can't help but feel there has to be an issue some where. I have read numerous accounts of new owners heralding the AF performance of the K-30, to including watching one guy have it track flying magpies (crow-like birds out West). Without trying to come off as insulting, perhaps it is be user error. Even with just my K-5, I have absolutely no problem getting focus on an eye when doing a static portrait shoot. In fact, I'm shocked you had trouble with a single point of a completely mobile subject - something my Pentax K-7 can still do without issue. Like I said, this is the only negative review I have found regarding the K-30's AF, and something is not congruent, and without being biased towards any sources, I am purely using sample size (and my own experiences with inferior AF systems that are years old) to see there isn't a correlation with your review and the general consensus (thus far).


One issue I also have is your lack of ANY mentioning of focus peaking. In fact, I find this completely derelict of your duty as a reviewer and thus negligent. FP is an extremely useful tool, especially with the thousands of otherwise obsolete manual lenses available to the Pentax system by virtue of the system's legacy compatibility. No other camera of this class offers it (either the FP or the compatibility of all those lenses), and for you to completely neglect even mentioning such a thing (like a resurrected 50mm f/1.7 manual lens that is stabilized and has an accurate "auto focus" for under $50) demonstrates the lack of comprehensiveness of your efforts. And then to claim that because it isn't something you use thus doesn't deserve to be added to your review further chips away at your credibility and the ultimate usefulness of this "review."


Another issue I have is the lack of mentioning of the in-camera HDR processing. While a gimmick to some, it's especially useful for those of us who use HDR blending because of the expanded dynamic range it provides you. No other camera at this price point offers this (Nikon entry level cameras don't even offer *bracketing*), and for the traveler on the go and/or the RAW-averse, this is an extremely useful and unique capability that only Pentax offers. Even the most casual mentioning of this option (which many don't even know exist, especially new and uneducated consumers looking for their first camera - something you influence directly) would have sufficed.


Additionally, I have to admit that the photos included are extremely subpar, and in my opinion do nothing to demonstrate the purported capabilities of the K-30's image quality, which, since it uses the same exact senor and PRIME M as the K-01, should be nothing short of *outstanding*. In my personal opinion, they look very altered, and not in a "here's-a-4-stop-underexposed-RAW-image-to-see-what-could-be-recovered-through-its-dynamic-range" kind of way, but rather an either high contrast or flat look that is very unappealing. I personally would be embarrassed to exhibit these photos, even on Facebook, much less on a professional camera review.


Also, where are the incremental ISO shots of the same scene that demonstrate the noise control in JPG versus RAW from the ISO floor to ceiling, and the comparison of those shots from competitors' images?


Lastly, it unfortunately seems the reviewer is not the proper person to conduct a review of an entry-mid level camera because of his continued false correlations and comparisons that lead to underwhelming expectations when viewed in regard to cameras that are not only out of the league of the K-30, but entirely different formats. Mentioning it would be nice to incorporate a feature unique to $40,000+ Medium Format Hasselblads and AF systems of Full Frame cameras--yes outdated, but Full Frame nonetheless--is nothing short of immature and just plain wrong.


I have much respect for the Phoblographer, and like I said above, I think some great things were said, especially with attention to the ergonomics and the second control wheel that are hard to objectively qualify and quantify. However, I am very disappointed by the lack of comprehensiveness and quality control of this review when you consider the complete personal and purposeful neglect of some serious innovations for this price. For having the camera for an entire month as you claim, this comes off as very lazily completed. Furthermore, the complete defensiveness of the reviewer when professionally and legitimately criticized in the comments section demonstrates a lack of professionalism unbecoming of such a revered organization.


Very Respectfully,

Heie

-Heie
07-09-2012, 10:19 AM   #26
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2011
Photos: Albums
Posts: 340
QuoteOriginally posted by Ryan Trevisol Quote
Agreed. And I hope PF's review tackles the Low-Tungsten-Light issue, with a comparison to the K-5 for the sake of everyone on here who's hinging their purchase decision on that factor.
+2

If there's problem with center-point focus, I want to hear about it. I don't spend a lot of time shooting birds or sports, so all the other focus point stuff isn't a draw (or downside) for me.

On the other hand, shooting a still portrait under those conditions shouldn't be tricky using AF points - so I thought it was more than fair comment by the reviewer.
07-09-2012, 10:33 AM   #27
Pentaxian
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,023
I think he's touching on 2 aspects of Pentax's AF. First he criticizes the accuracy of the outer 2 points. But knowing that these points are not cross-type and thus only sensitive in one direction may explain the inaccuracy somewhat. I always select one of the inner 9 focusing points myself. So sometimes I have to do a little recomposing, but most of the time it's not too bad. The other thing is the size of the Pentax AF points. I could easily imagine the AF selecting the background in the photo where he says he was aiming for the eye, considering the size of the AF areas.

Still, especially the second aspect is something I don't quite understand myself. Why do the focusing areas have to be so large, when other manufacturers brought out cameras almost two years ago with AF areas so small they could fit 39 of them in a similar area? I mean, they have to be smaller then, right? And the K-30 is a new design, not almost 2 years old, so isn't it fair to expect at least a similar performance? Now the D7000 was more expensive when it was released, but the current prices are more or less equal. So still, at the end of the day, the same amount of money buys you a more precise AF system in an older body than you get with the Pentax K-30.
07-09-2012, 10:43 AM   #28
Pentaxian
JinDesu's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New York City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,624
One thing he brings up in the comments is that it is difficult to switch points on the fly, and it "disables flash, and other functions".

I don't know how accurate this is, or if he just doesn't know how to use Pentax's menu system. On my k-x, it's basically center button, select AF point, and that's it. No issues with any functions disabled.....
07-09-2012, 10:56 AM   #29
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Heie Quote
In case he deletes my comment, this is what I had to say about the review:

Good review for the most part, and as you guessed it, Pentaxians are criticizing you for your AF section. I appreciate the attention to the ergonomics, which I insist are one of Pentax's strongsuit, and in my experience, by far.

Regarding the AF, I can't help but feel there has to be an issue some where. I have read numerous accounts of new owners heralding the AF performance of the K-30, to including watching one guy have it track flying magpies (crow-like birds out West). Without trying to come off as insulting, perhaps it is be user error. Even with just my K-5, I have absolutely no problem getting focus on an eye when doing a static portrait shoot. In fact, I'm shocked you had trouble with a single point of a completely mobile subject - something my Pentax K-7 can still do without issue. Like I said, this is the only negative review I have found regarding the K-30's AF, and something is not congruent, and without being biased towards any sources, I am purely using sample size (and my own experiences with inferior AF systems that are years old) to see there isn't a correlation with your review and the general consensus (thus far).


One issue I also have is your lack of ANY mentioning of focus peaking. In fact, I find this completely derelict of your duty as a reviewer and thus negligent. FP is an extremely useful tool, especially with the thousands of otherwise obsolete manual lenses available to the Pentax system by virtue of the system's legacy compatibility. No other camera of this class offers it (either the FP or the compatibility of all those lenses), and for you to completely neglect even mentioning such a thing (like a resurrected 50mm f/1.7 manual lens that is stabilized and has an accurate "auto focus" for under $50) demonstrates the lack of comprehensiveness of your efforts. And then to claim that because it isn't something you use thus doesn't deserve to be added to your review further chips away at your credibility and the ultimate usefulness of this "review."


Another issue I have is the lack of mentioning of the in-camera HDR processing. While a gimmick to some, it's especially useful for those of us who use HDR blending because of the expanded dynamic range it provides you. No other camera at this price point offers this (Nikon entry level cameras don't even offer *bracketing*), and for the traveler on the go and/or the RAW-averse, this is an extremely useful and unique capability that only Pentax offers. Even the most casual mentioning of this option (which many don't even know exist, especially new and uneducated consumers looking for their first camera - something you influence directly) would have sufficed.


Additionally, I have to admit that the photos included are extremely subpar, and in my opinion do nothing to demonstrate the purported capabilities of the K-30's image quality, which, since it uses the same exact senor and PRIME M as the K-01, should be nothing short of *outstanding*. In my personal opinion, they look very altered, and not in a "here's-a-4-stop-underexposed-RAW-image-to-see-what-could-be-recovered-through-its-dynamic-range" kind of way, but rather an either high contrast or flat look that is very unappealing. I personally would be embarrassed to exhibit these photos, even on Facebook, much less on a professional camera review.


Also, where are the incremental ISO shots of the same scene that demonstrate the noise control in JPG versus RAW from the ISO floor to ceiling, and the comparison of those shots from competitors' images?


Lastly, it unfortunately seems the reviewer is not the proper person to conduct a review of an entry-mid level camera because of his continued false correlations and comparisons that lead to underwhelming expectations when viewed in regard to cameras that are not only out of the league of the K-30, but entirely different formats. Mentioning it would be nice to incorporate a feature unique to $40,000+ Medium Format Hasselblads and AF systems of Full Frame cameras--yes outdated, but Full Frame nonetheless--is nothing short of immature and just plain wrong.


I have much respect for the Phoblographer, and like I said above, I think some great things were said, especially with attention to the ergonomics and the second control wheel that are hard to objectively qualify and quantify. However, I am very disappointed by the lack of comprehensiveness and quality control of this review when you consider the complete personal and purposeful neglect of some serious innovations for this price. For having the camera for an entire month as you claim, this comes off as very lazily completed. Furthermore, the complete defensiveness of the reviewer when professionally and legitimately criticized in the comments section demonstrates a lack of professionalism unbecoming of such a revered organization.


Very Respectfully,

Heie

-Heie
Heie,

Just Dayum! Somebody ate their Wheaties this morning!

-Robert
07-09-2012, 10:59 AM   #30
Pentaxian
starbase218's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Planet Earth, Sol system, Milky Way galaxy, Universe
Posts: 1,023
QuoteOriginally posted by JinDesu Quote
One thing he brings up in the comments is that it is difficult to switch points on the fly, and it "disables flash, and other functions".

I don't know how accurate this is, or if he just doesn't know how to use Pentax's menu system. On my k-x, it's basically center button, select AF point, and that's it. No issues with any functions disabled.....
On the K-5 you can switch between focus-select mode and function mode by holding the center button for about a second. I think it's probably his inexperience.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-30, k-50, pentax k30, pentax k50, review
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New 645D review with samples from pro-photographer ogl Pentax Medium Format 25 12-16-2010 04:40 AM
K-7 review, Part 1, up at The Online Photographer Samsungian Pentax News and Rumors 9 09-27-2009 09:51 AM
Amateur Photographer delays Pentax K7 review Adrian Owerko Pentax News and Rumors 41 06-24-2009 02:32 AM
K20D review in Amatuer Photographer NicholasN Pentax News and Rumors 34 08-13-2008 06:37 AM
The Online Photographer: SMC Pentax DA* 200mm f/2.8 ED[IF] SDM Review k100d Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 07-08-2008 07:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:02 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top