DP Review comparison of K5, D7000 & 60D shots

FullertonImages · 11-12-2010, 11:01 AM

I swear DPR is getting kickbacks from the big 2 to make Pentax and other brands look bad...

aleonx3 · 11-12-2010, 11:06 AM

For most clueless Canikon beginners (even some self-claimed advance users), they consider DPR as gospel... that is why Pentax is smart not to educate those who are clueless.... let them have their inferior equipment.

macTak · 11-12-2010, 11:55 AM

Some time ago (I cannot remember if it was after the K20 or the K7 DPR review), people on that site also complained about the FA50 usage. One of the editors did respond that they had also tested the D-FA50 macro and its results were not any better, hence they used the FA50. Not that I am vouching for that claim though....

Also, with these higher-megapixel sensors, f9 is already encroaching on the diffraction limits. I think the reason they use that aperture generally (although IIRC they used f8 for the 60D) is that, as you can see, they are not very good about getting the exact right focus, and this gives them more margin for error.

Gimbal · 11-12-2010, 02:01 PM

On the other hand it seems to me as if they are feeding Pentax twice the amount of light that they are giving to Nikon. f9, iso3200 and 1/400 seconds of light to Pentax but only 1/800 seconds of light to Nikon. Effectively Nikon could be shooting at iso 1600 and get the same shutter speed as we have at iso3200, and then clearly winning the game.

Whats up with that?

Will we (Pentax users) always have to shoot at a higher iso then Nikon to get comparable shutter speeds?

**Rondec** · 11-12-2010, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Gimbal

On the other hand it seems to me as if they are feeding Pentax twice the amount of light that they are giving to Nikon. f9, iso3200 and 1/400 seconds of light to Pentax but only 1/800 seconds of light to Nikon. Effectively Nikon could be shooting at iso 1600 and get the same shutter speed as we have at iso3200, and then clearly winning the game.

Whats up with that?

Will we (Pentax users) always have to shoot at a higher iso then Nikon to get comparable shutter speeds?

No, Pentax's photos here are over exposed and brought back. No reason to do that. Dxo has tested Pentax's iso and found that it is more accurate than the D7000's. If you shoot manually with the same settings, between the D7000 and K5, I bet you can't tell the difference with regard to the exposure. In fact, you will be more likely to blow highlights and make the photo look worse if you do what DPR did here to the K5.

Gimbal · 11-13-2010, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

No, Pentax's photos here are over exposed and brought back. No reason to do that.

In that case we should have a clear noise advantage, but we don't. Not in my opinion.

**Rondec** · 11-13-2010, 05:39 AM

I think the K5 does have less noise than the D7000 when you look at the RAW files. However, I am not clear how much is due to noise reduction in the camera and how much is due to over exposing and pulling back. Particularly on the red bottle cap and the queen of hearts I think the K5 has a lot less noise.

hut234 · 11-13-2010, 11:47 AM

I have no valid idea about the DPR's bias in testing or what goes on behind the scenes there. All I know is that I've seen my share of posts from K5 owners who say it is everything they hoped for, and that the output is excellent. But if I were judging from these samples I'd never choose it. It looks like a $500 kit compared to $2,000 kits. Some of the test pictures make it look like it's not even in the same league as the D7000 or 60D, which is simply not what the owners are telling me.

Uluru · 11-14-2010, 03:48 AM

During the Photokina DPR has changed its dark grey background to sport red Canon's 60D advertisement. I can't recall they have ever done such thing before for some other camera brand.

Now they're comparing that camera openly (on the home page) with other cameras (say K-5) that frankly, are not in the same level of the "mid-level" league. They're either pushing 60D's value up, or lowering K-5's value a bit down. A more relevant comparison would be, perhaps, K-r and 60D, and then 7D and K-5.

Today's "mid-level" league is totally open to interpretation and is becoming increasingly difficult to discern what's what there. Canon and Nikon play that game well, Nikon with D7000 and Canon with 60D. But plastic mid-range K-r wasn't mentioned on the home page to be compared with the plastic "mid-range" and "below 7D machine" — 60D.

At least it would good if DPR was thinking about this and tried to further stratify the range. But, of course, certain perceptions are easier to impose when everything is blurred. In fact what they're comparing are sensors, and the rest of the equation is tailored to further dodge the real value of the package compared. Canon did install their 7D sensor into the 60D and scaled down everything. Nikon did install a brand new sensor into D7000 and made it out of scaled down D300s.

Pentax did the opposite with K-5: every single aspect of that camera has been improved from its predecessor. Yet "people want" to compare them because the true perspective is already been lost — little freaks believe Canon's worst must be better than Pentax's best because of the high megapixel sensor and big brass band approach. When the D400 or 8D come out, a K-5 from Pentax has already been declassed or "evened-out" in comparison with their inferiors. One competitor less for the two big guns. And then they can hike the price for those two as they please!

However ,thank God for the DXO numbers. I never thought I'm gonna say that, but at least we have another website that says the story from a different angle and says some perceptions we're fed with on DPR and by some manufacturers are not what they really are.

This is the manufacture of certain perception in one brand's favour for the sake of "democratic science" of pixel-peeping and our "right to know the truth" where there's very little of it. That review has already started with the red 60D Photokina ad and they are not doing the right thing with it.

I'm, quite frankly, enough of DPRs "reviews". They're just plain, boring garbage. The whole of the test of some camera revolves around one 'measured' test image and DPR's ability to hit the focus or choose the right aperture. And people stare at it like hypnotised pigeons and trying to figure out something and understand why other websites rave about certain cameras, or why thousands of real-life photographs tell the story they don't want to hear. They all believe that single image will tell them "the truth".

Kissing your big sponsors in their big bum using word play I find disgraceful, and it ultimately hurts the thing you apparently stand for: photography. But we all know it's not photography anymore. It is art of colourful and focused on bum kissing and saying yes to whatever money says. Such an upsetting attitude drives this whole world down the tube because we give credit to where it's not earned, and miss out amazing things that aren't endorsed.

geauxpez · 11-14-2010, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by Uluru

...people stare at it like hypnotised pigeons and trying to figure out something and understand why other websites rave about certain cameras, or why thousands of real-life photographs tell the story they don't want to hear. They all believe that single image will tell them "the truth".

You said a mouthful.

Even before the "reviews" come out, there has been enough pixel-peeping, stat-checking and raw-photo manipulating for most people to be able to make a decision.

I would be shocked if any of the "official camera reviews" from various respected sources have anything new to say compared to what Falk and the others have researched and published already. Anything else is hierarchical conjecture. Kind of funny that the reviews almost seem to be over before they begin. It's like getting war news directly from the front lines while the newspapers are still editing and lubing the presses.

Not that I am speaking from on high.

I am still flip-flopping between two models. Point is, I probably know all that I need to know stats-wise, so it comes down to actually handling the hardware.

Torphoto · 11-14-2010, 05:51 AM

Forget dpr, wait for imaging resource's test, they are far more objective and do a print quality comparison which is the real deal vs pixel peeping!

gazonk · 11-15-2010, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Torphoto

Forget dpr, wait for imaging resource's test, they are far more objective and do a print quality comparison which is the real deal vs pixel peeping!

Btw imaging-resource has a sample page up for the K-5 now, but so far only with "real photos", not the standard test shots:
Pentax K-5 Digital Camera Thumbnails - Preview - The Imaging Resource!

Raylon · 11-15-2010, 07:26 AM

I may agree with DPR making CaNikon looking slightly better than other brands, but we have to think who owns DPR. Amazon is the owner of DPR, and for all they care, any camera that reviews well is going to sell better. So from that standpoint, wouldn't it be even better to promote the K-5 instead of bash it? Certainly amazon gets a certain %, and the K-5 is the most expensive, so you think they would get more money out of it.

Or CaNikon is giving them a kickback or the reviewers are biased, other very possible answers.

**ManuH** · 11-15-2010, 11:51 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Raylon

Or CaNikon is giving them a kickback or the reviewers are biased, other very possible answers.

I have a simpler answer that does not involve conspiracy theories: incompetence. TBH it's very difficult to make objective measurements but DPR are centering their reviews mostly on IQ and unfortunately they are not that good at that. DXO certainly gained more credibility, at least to my eyes.

Raylon · 11-15-2010, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by ManuH

DXO certainly gained more credibility, at least to my eyes.

Why did they never have credibility? All they've ever done is take raw sensor performance and post it on some charts, there is nothing to skew. How a person reads those results is totally what makes the data somewhat worthless. Their scores make camera A seem better than camera B in some category, when in real life we know for a fact that that camera B way outperforms camera A in that category.

11-14-2010, 03:48 AM	#39
Uluru Banned Join Date: May 2010 Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,535	During the Photokina DPR has changed its dark grey background to sport red Canon's 60D advertisement. I can't recall they have ever done such thing before for some other camera brand. Now they're comparing that camera openly (on the home page) with other cameras (say K-5) that frankly, are not in the same level of the "mid-level" league. They're either pushing 60D's value up, or lowering K-5's value a bit down. A more relevant comparison would be, perhaps, K-r and 60D, and then 7D and K-5. Today's "mid-level" league is totally open to interpretation and is becoming increasingly difficult to discern what's what there. Canon and Nikon play that game well, Nikon with D7000 and Canon with 60D. But plastic mid-range K-r wasn't mentioned on the home page to be compared with the plastic "mid-range" and "below 7D machine" — 60D. At least it would good if DPR was thinking about this and tried to further stratify the range. But, of course, certain perceptions are easier to impose when everything is blurred. In fact what they're comparing are sensors, and the rest of the equation is tailored to further dodge the real value of the package compared. Canon did install their 7D sensor into the 60D and scaled down everything. Nikon did install a brand new sensor into D7000 and made it out of scaled down D300s. Pentax did the opposite with K-5: every single aspect of that camera has been improved from its predecessor. Yet "people want" to compare them because the true perspective is already been lost — little freaks believe Canon's worst must be better than Pentax's best because of the high megapixel sensor and big brass band approach. When the D400 or 8D come out, a K-5 from Pentax has already been declassed or "evened-out" in comparison with their inferiors. One competitor less for the two big guns. And then they can hike the price for those two as they please! However ,thank God for the DXO numbers. I never thought I'm gonna say that, but at least we have another website that says the story from a different angle and says some perceptions we're fed with on DPR and by some manufacturers are not what they really are. This is the manufacture of certain perception in one brand's favour for the sake of "democratic science" of pixel-peeping and our "right to know the truth" where there's very little of it. That review has already started with the red 60D Photokina ad and they are not doing the right thing with it. I'm, quite frankly, enough of DPRs "reviews". They're just plain, boring garbage. The whole of the test of some camera revolves around one 'measured' test image and DPR's ability to hit the focus or choose the right aperture. And people stare at it like hypnotised pigeons and trying to figure out something and understand why other websites rave about certain cameras, or why thousands of real-life photographs tell the story they don't want to hear. They all believe that single image will tell them "the truth". Kissing your big sponsors in their big bum using word play I find disgraceful, and it ultimately hurts the thing you apparently stand for: photography. But we all know it's not photography anymore. It is art of colourful and focused on bum kissing and saying yes to whatever money says. Such an upsetting attitude drives this whole world down the tube because we give credit to where it's not earned, and miss out amazing things that aren't endorsed. Last edited by Uluru; 11-14-2010 at 04:18 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
60d vs d7000 vs k5 3rd party poll results	opiedog	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	10	09-29-2010 10:00 PM
K5 in d300s & 7D class not d7000	tigerzen	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	09-22-2010 07:01 PM
Is there anything to these K-X comparison shots?	frascati	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	02-20-2010 04:30 PM
K-7 Review on spanish Pentax forum and brands comparison	cooldude14es	Pentax DSLR Discussion	47	08-02-2009 05:52 AM
Comparison Macro/close-up shots	valleylad	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	04-29-2008 10:34 AM

11-12-2010, 11:01 AM	#31
FullertonImages Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 883	I swear DPR is getting kickbacks from the big 2 to make Pentax and other brands look bad...

11-12-2010, 11:06 AM	#32
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	For most clueless Canikon beginners (even some self-claimed advance users), they consider DPR as gospel... that is why Pentax is smart not to educate those who are clueless.... let them have their inferior equipment.

11-12-2010, 11:55 AM	#33
macTak Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 759	Some time ago (I cannot remember if it was after the K20 or the K7 DPR review), people on that site also complained about the FA50 usage. One of the editors did respond that they had also tested the D-FA50 macro and its results were not any better, hence they used the FA50. Not that I am vouching for that claim though.... Also, with these higher-megapixel sensors, f9 is already encroaching on the diffraction limits. I think the reason they use that aperture generally (although IIRC they used f8 for the 60D) is that, as you can see, they are not very good about getting the exact right focus, and this gives them more margin for error.

11-12-2010, 02:01 PM	#34
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	On the other hand it seems to me as if they are feeding Pentax twice the amount of light that they are giving to Nikon. f9, iso3200 and 1/400 seconds of light to Pentax but only 1/800 seconds of light to Nikon. Effectively Nikon could be shooting at iso 1600 and get the same shutter speed as we have at iso3200, and then clearly winning the game. Whats up with that? Will we (Pentax users) always have to shoot at a higher iso then Nikon to get comparable shutter speeds?

11-12-2010, 06:55 PM	#35
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by Gimbal On the other hand it seems to me as if they are feeding Pentax twice the amount of light that they are giving to Nikon. f9, iso3200 and 1/400 seconds of light to Pentax but only 1/800 seconds of light to Nikon. Effectively Nikon could be shooting at iso 1600 and get the same shutter speed as we have at iso3200, and then clearly winning the game. Whats up with that? Will we (Pentax users) always have to shoot at a higher iso then Nikon to get comparable shutter speeds? No, Pentax's photos here are over exposed and brought back. No reason to do that. Dxo has tested Pentax's iso and found that it is more accurate than the D7000's. If you shoot manually with the same settings, between the D7000 and K5, I bet you can't tell the difference with regard to the exposure. In fact, you will be more likely to blow highlights and make the photo look worse if you do what DPR did here to the K5.

11-13-2010, 01:47 AM	#36
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	Originally posted by Rondec No, Pentax's photos here are over exposed and brought back. No reason to do that. In that case we should have a clear noise advantage, but we don't. Not in my opinion.

11-13-2010, 05:39 AM	#37
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I think the K5 does have less noise than the D7000 when you look at the RAW files. However, I am not clear how much is due to noise reduction in the camera and how much is due to over exposing and pulling back. Particularly on the red bottle cap and the queen of hearts I think the K5 has a lot less noise.

11-13-2010, 11:47 AM	#38
hut234 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 116	I have no valid idea about the DPR's bias in testing or what goes on behind the scenes there. All I know is that I've seen my share of posts from K5 owners who say it is everything they hoped for, and that the output is excellent. But if I were judging from these samples I'd never choose it. It looks like a $500 kit compared to $2,000 kits. Some of the test pictures make it look like it's not even in the same league as the D7000 or 60D, which is simply not what the owners are telling me.

11-14-2010, 05:23 AM	#40
geauxpez Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Atlanta Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,196 Original Poster	Originally posted by Uluru ...people stare at it like hypnotised pigeons and trying to figure out something and understand why other websites rave about certain cameras, or why thousands of real-life photographs tell the story they don't want to hear. They all believe that single image will tell them "the truth". You said a mouthful. Even before the "reviews" come out, there has been enough pixel-peeping, stat-checking and raw-photo manipulating for most people to be able to make a decision. I would be shocked if any of the "official camera reviews" from various respected sources have anything new to say compared to what Falk and the others have researched and published already. Anything else is hierarchical conjecture. Kind of funny that the reviews almost seem to be over before they begin. It's like getting war news directly from the front lines while the newspapers are still editing and lubing the presses. Not that I am speaking from on high. I am still flip-flopping between two models. Point is, I probably know all that I need to know stats-wise, so it comes down to actually handling the hardware.

11-14-2010, 05:51 AM	#41
Torphoto Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Trinidad W.I. Photos: Gallery Posts: 612	Forget dpr, wait for imaging resource's test, they are far more objective and do a print quality comparison which is the real deal vs pixel peeping!

11-15-2010, 05:29 AM	#42
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Torphoto Forget dpr, wait for imaging resource's test, they are far more objective and do a print quality comparison which is the real deal vs pixel peeping! Btw imaging-resource has a sample page up for the K-5 now, but so far only with "real photos", not the standard test shots: Pentax K-5 Digital Camera Thumbnails - Preview - The Imaging Resource!

11-15-2010, 07:26 AM	#43
Raylon Guest	I may agree with DPR making CaNikon looking slightly better than other brands, but we have to think who owns DPR. Amazon is the owner of DPR, and for all they care, any camera that reviews well is going to sell better. So from that standpoint, wouldn't it be even better to promote the K-5 instead of bash it? Certainly amazon gets a certain %, and the K-5 is the most expensive, so you think they would get more money out of it. Or CaNikon is giving them a kickback or the reviewers are biased, other very possible answers.

11-15-2010, 11:51 AM - 1 Like	#44
ManuH Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Montreal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,249	Originally posted by Raylon Or CaNikon is giving them a kickback or the reviewers are biased, other very possible answers. I have a simpler answer that does not involve conspiracy theories: incompetence. TBH it's very difficult to make objective measurements but DPR are centering their reviews mostly on IQ and unfortunately they are not that good at that. DXO certainly gained more credibility, at least to my eyes.

11-15-2010, 10:52 PM	#45
Raylon Guest	Originally posted by ManuH DXO certainly gained more credibility, at least to my eyes. Why did they never have credibility? All they've ever done is take raw sensor performance and post it on some charts, there is nothing to skew. How a person reads those results is totally what makes the data somewhat worthless. Their scores make camera A seem better than camera B in some category, when in real life we know for a fact that that camera B way outperforms camera A in that category.