[seventysixersfan]

So many errors in this review, it's not even funny. The biggest error may be using several pictures of the K-30 when they are reviewing the K-50. Just published today too, so this review is a year late:

It just goes to show you that computer tech websites aren't the most accurate for DSLR reviews:

Pentax K-50 review: A decent entry-level DSLR that braves the elements | Macworld

[boriscleto]

Macworld ceased being relevant years ago. About the time Apple told IDG to take a hike over moving the East Cost Macworld Expo back to Boston. They don't even have a print edition anymore. They even canceled the 2015 West Coast expo.

[luftfluss]

For K-50 review, they sure do show a lot of K-30 pictures.

[seventysixersfan]

For K-50 review, they sure do show a lot of K-30 pictures.

Yup. Other errors I spotted:

"The K-500 lacks weather sealing and only uses AA batteries." (correct on first part, wrong on second)

"the five-frames-per-second capture speed" (it's 6 fps)

"Images are very noisy after ISO 800" (what?! My K-50 produces great images up to ISO 1600 and very usable ones up to 3200)

"Inside the camera sits a vibration reduction system that counters camera shake and helps to reduce dust on the camera’s sensor. The system works with most Pentax lenses," (I thought in-body SR worked with ALL k-mount lenses, not just "most.")

Oh well, I guess I should just be happy that the Pentax was included in this roundup at all ("5 entry-level DSLRs under $900"-- included Canon T5, T5i, Nikon D3300, and Sony Alpha a58))

[luftfluss]

Yup. Other errors I spotted:

"The K-500 lacks weather sealing and only uses AA batteries." (correct on first part, wrong on second)

"the five-frames-per-second capture speed" (it's 6 fps)

"Images are very noisy after ISO 800" (what?! My K-50 produces great images up to ISO 1600 and very usable ones up to 3200)

"Inside the camera sits a vibration reduction system that counters camera shake and helps to reduce dust on the camera’s sensor. The system works with most Pentax lenses," (I thought in-body SR worked with ALL k-mount lenses, not just "most.")

Oh well, I guess I should just be happy that the Pentax was included in this roundup at all ("5 entry-level DSLRs under $900"-- included Canon T5, T5i, Nikon D3300, and Sony Alpha a58))

I didn't even read thru the article, I saw the K-30 photos and bailed.

And anyway, IBIS works with all lenses, even the non-K-mount ones attached via adapter.

As for being happy that Pentax was included at all... meh. Its like baking your own bread and having it used in a comparison of who makes the best sh!t sandwich. I'd rather not be included.

---------- Post added 10-14-14 at 02:31 PM ----------

ISO 4800, cloudy day and a shady spot:

[Undot]

Pfffft, that's some truly horrid grain you got there in the blue bits of the butterfly wing! And you dare post that?

I wonder why anyone would read camera reviews from a computer magazine. Or why they write such at all. Except both of these products being digital there's nothing in common. Way out of their expertise, no? There's other, more generic technology sites that try to cover all, of course, but I try to research at places that specialize in the topic in question.

Haven't read Macworld in ages, though.

[VisualDarkness]

So much wrong, so much fail.

[boriscleto]

"Inside the camera sits a vibration reduction system that counters camera shake and helps to reduce dust on the camera’s sensor. The system works with most Pentax lenses," (I thought in-body SR worked with ALL k-mount lenses, not just "most.")

It's "most" if you use the OS in Sigma lenses...

[Steve.Ledger]

It's "most" if you use the OS in Sigma lenses...

Which I do since acquiring one last week for use with my K-50 to get around the truly horrid Movie SR

[luftfluss]

It's "most" if you use the OS in Sigma lenses...

IBIS would still work with the Sigma, just the results might not be so good.

---------- Post added 10-14-14 at 04:13 PM ----------

Pfffft, that's some truly horrid grain you got there in the blue bits of the butterfly wing! And you dare post that?

I wonder why anyone would read camera reviews from a computer magazine. Or why they write such at all. Except both of these products being digital there's nothing in common. Way out of their expertise, no? There's other, more generic technology sites that try to cover all, of course, but I try to research at places that specialize in the topic in question.

Haven't read Macworld in ages, though.

Yeah, most computer sites stink at camera reviews. Mac-centric sites generally stink at reviewing anything other than Apple products... sites dedicated to a specific brand generally do not do well reviewing other brands, because to them different = worse.

[Steve.Ledger]

IBIS would still work with the Sigma, just the results might not be so good.

That makes no sense to me.. Sorry.
Results would be exactly the same as using any non OS lens.
If you want to use IBIS with a lens that has OS, then you must disable the OS on the lens.

[luftfluss]

That makes no sense to me.. Sorry.
Results would be exactly the same as using any non OS lens.
If you want to use IBIS with a lens that has OS, then you must disable the OS on the lens.

boriscleto said, "It's 'most' if you use the OS in Sigma lenses...". That's what I was responding to.

Of course you have to disable the in-lens OS for things to work out well.

[Steve.Ledger]

Yeah, most computer sites stink at camera reviews...........Sites dedicated to a specific brand generally do not do well reviewing other brands, because to them different = worse.

I guess computer 'experts' can't be camera enthusiasts/photographers as well - I mean, a person can only have one interest in life, right?
Personally I don't think OB reviewers are quite as biased as you infer..

[luftfluss]

I guess computer 'experts' can't be camera enthusiasts/photographers as well - I mean, a person can only have one interest in life, right?
Personally I don't think OB reviewers are quite as biased as you infer..

You're quoting me, but you don't seem to be responding to anything I stated. I said absolutely nothing about "computer 'experts' can't be camera enthusiasts/photographers", nor did I say "a person can only have one interest in life". What I did say is that computer publications generally do a poor job reviewing photo equipment.

[Steve.Ledger]

My comments implied that your comments inferred