[oklahomakid93]

Some of the numbers they give Pentax lenses are a joke. I've seriously considered writing my own software to analyze lenses, it's not that hard. Sharpness and CA are rather easy to quantify, and no one seems to test for 'contrast' although tests for this would be straightforward as well. No one does a standard autofocus speed test. These are all straightforward.

At the end of the day the human is much more discerning on things that really seem to separate lenses - bokeh, ease of use, etc.

I agree. I do enjoy professional reviews, as it gives me an idea of what I'm looking at. (pun intended). However, I have to take many of them with a grain of salt, considering many of the camera models used in their lens testing are far beyond outdated, and don't do good glass any justice when a more modern sensor, capable of maximizing the lens' actual potential is being used. Same goes for using a cheap lens with a new camera. Even beyond sites like DXO, you have the fat woman at CNet that gave a brief synopsis of the K-5 in a less than glowing light simply by going over the preview and not having actually used the camera, while she then gives a new Nikon a long, wet kiss, with lots of tongue. That brings me to a whole new level of pissed off.

I'd like to start a review page as well. But I won't need any analyzing software. I simply will provide a link to the K-01 pictures forum. That should pretty much do it....I got on there and was blown away at the awesome images. Also, the handling and useability of the camera is an important factor, too. (at least for me it is).

Beyond that, if someone has to be anal enough to need more, then no proof of excellence in the world will convince them. But that's okay. I haven't seen anybody sticking a microscope or shooting a laser at my prints to see how technically accurate the images in my photographs are. If they do, then they're stupid.

---

Last edited by oklahomakid93; 04-10-2012 at 09:49 AM.

[Smeggypants]

But therein lies the issue - nowadays, everyone will start off by looking at numbers first. They look at online reviews. They rarely come on forums and have a full discussion. A lot of these people do not get anywhere special, but quite a few learn quickly and become great photographers. However, since they started by looking at these skewed numbers first, our brand was not given the fair playing ground to be put in the hands of these good photographers. These photographers go out with their Nikons, their Canons, gain fame and work - but what about new Pentax users?

I don't imagine the older days were that different - but information was much harder to come by. So people would go to photography class that would say "Canon only" or "Nikon only" and so come out with a skewed mind as well. They are not in the wrong - but the providers of information are in the wrong.

I think I should care that DXOmarks is skewing the Pentax results. I would write a complaint - "Why do your measurements not seem correct with Pentax lenses". Maybe I may make a difference, maybe I won't. But it wouldn't be so detrimental to think: Hey, what if Pentax had a fair playing field on DXOmarks when people look at the review pages?

Actually "everyone" doesn't - I certainly don't. You obviously don't and many other people don't.

but I agree that too may people place importance on numbers, which for a creative subjective art like phiotography actually mean nothing

It's easy to sit back and say "the great photographers do not measurebate" - but one doesn't become a great photographer without going through trials and errors of learning. And if the new generation grow up on Nikon and Canon based on pure review numbers - Pentax will not survive.

In terms of preserving Pentax as a brand then yes you make a pertinent point there. However not every new photographer goes into the game worrying about numbers. any people just want to take pictures and couldn't care less about numbers. If they are more drawn to Canon and Nikon it's because Canon and Nikon have a bigger presence, not becuase they've seen better numbers.

I know this is generalising, but Iv'e seen this in other 'arts' .... The people who spend more time on numbers usually are not so good at the art itself. not becuase they perhaps can't be, But becuase of their priorities and how obsessing about numbers can divert their attention from what matters.... the content of the image. A great image is still a great image even if it's not as sharp or it's dynamic range is 10bits instead of 14bits, etc

I used to own a K10D and K20D. last year I sold them and bought two K-5s. Now the numbers for the K-5 are much better than the numbers for the K10/K20. But have he K-5s made me take better pictures? Not a chance. What the K-5s have done is allow me to take pictures in situations where the K10/K20 couldn't handle it. i.e better high ISO performance.

You get my point?

[Medium FormatPro]

They also tested pancakes and they aren't happy at all with'em

The only single item I'd change about my Pancake 40mm f2.8 that came with the Pentax K-01 in the outfit; is the filter size. But to have changed the filter size would have also changed the size of the lens.

This is also one of the very few items that I have yet to check on my camera just yet. Using this version of the 40; one is quite limited into the availability of the 27mm front end filters that are available. If one would want to use close up filters one woud have two options; use square filters or use a 27mm to whatever upper end size they wanted to - in my case I purahsed to filter step-up rings - one being a 27mm-37mm. So now I'll have to see how all the close up filters may work (or not) on this variation of lens. Yes I'm aware that this 40mm isn't exactly a close focus or even a rare (true) marco; I just wanted to know if it might work

[eurostar]

It's easy to sit back and say "the great photographers do not measurebate" - but one doesn't become a great photographer without going through trials and errors of learning. And if the new generation grow up on Nikon and Canon based on pure review numbers - Pentax will not survive.

Looking back at when I started photography (1981) there were literally dozens of reflex makers. Nikon Canon Pentax Olympus Konika Minolta Yashica Contax Leica Hasselblad Zenza-Bronica Mamiya Rollei Alpa Petri Cosina Chinon Ricoh Miranda and I am sure I am forgetting many.

Today, it's just Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Mamiya, Leica and Hasselblad to make reflex cameras (actually Olympus still makes one or two, but they are going to drop them...). Maybe a Pentax fan would like to see his brand of choice more known and appreciated at large, but I am sure they know how to survive. Especially NOT giving attention to fora claims...

[ElJamoquio]

Leica makes a reflex camera? I guess you could call that a reflex but that's not the general use of the term.

[Medium FormatPro]

Today, it's just Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Mamiya, Leica and Hasselblad to make reflex cameras (actually Olympus still makes one or two

And Sigma (which of all listed is actually the rarest of them all in this class), also Sony (still in a battle with Pentax for that number three spot)

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Today, it's just Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Mamiya, Leica and Hasselblad to make reflex cameras (actually Olympus still makes one or two, but they are going to drop them...).

You mean DSLR? Leica R has been discontinued, so you can scratch Leica. You can add Sigma instead

[mattdm]

Leica makes a reflex camera? I guess you could call that a reflex but that's not the general use of the term.

You mean DSLR? Leica R has been discontinued, so you can scratch Leica. You can add Sigma instead

This: LEICA S System

[ElJamoquio]

Thanks, I had forgotten about that.

[eurostar]

Yes, for Leica I considered the MF system, and didn't talked about Phase One, Sony and Sigma because they weren't around as producers of reflex cameras in the eighties. To be fair, I should have put Pentax among the dead and Ricoh among the surviving, but, well, we know the story pretty well...