[clackers]

I ventured over for the first time in three+ years to see the KP review and started on the comments first. I left after ten or twelve comments. It’s like social media projectile vomiting. I never read the review.

Honestly, after spending time over there, I want to be sprayed down afterwards, like de-lousing.

[Larrymc]

Honestly, after spending time over there, I want to be sprayed down afterwards, like de-lousing.

Ian, that is hilarious!!!

[robbiec]

It's an interesting view into the mind set of the DPR "Editors", I'm still on the wall as if it is a standard ruse to wind up Pentaxian's and get an extra 1000 or so hits or if they just generally don't understand the Pentax way of doing things, ie the opposite of all cameras must now be mirrorless, all lens focusing fly by wire, video is as important as stills, optical deficiencies fixed on camera by extra processing, that the camera can make all the choices for you instead of having the capabilities in the background to be called upon when needed.
**** it, I have a K-1 and a FA*50, a 2Kg image making monster combo, seemingly it's the sharpest 50 of them all and they didn't try it with PixelShift, I know it has the nicest Bokeh of any 50 I've tried and I like the way they snuggle up to my right hip when we're out and about walking. It's not a Silver, it probably a Platinum.

[swanlefitte]

Well I just spent time comparing the nikon z to the pentax LOCA they talk about. Nikon doesn't have it on fleece and pentax has it on metal. The statue of hendrix is shined with a purple light so how coud I see it anyway on the other Nikon pic? Then the sigma fringing looks way worse the way they present it and they say this, " The image reveals some colour fringing around high-contrast out-of-focus elements - predominantly magenta in front of the plane of focus, and green behind - but for such a fast lens it's actually relatively low." where as for the pentax "there's the pesky issue of longitudinal chromatic aberration, which - where you see it - is pretty hard to ignore"
Go through the Pentax gallery and about half are extreme contrast backlight photos. The Sigma about 15-20% and the Nikon Z about 10%. I don't think it was intentional. I think that they internalize bias and go these will be good lenses and don't work at it and with Pentax they go this can't be good so lets see where it can fail. That does mean that Pentax users get to see just what the lens can handle and the other users don't truly get to see what the lens can handle. Its a pointless comparison of course, which is what that site is supposedly on about with their constant rankings.

[c.a.m]

While sipping my evening tea, I scoured the DPReview site trying to discover a description of the criteria and weighting they use for reviewing and 'scoring' lenses. I'd like to better understand how the D FA* 50/1.4 review concluded with a 'score' of 89%. No luck.

Their lens review scoring summary cites several categories: Optical Quality, Build Quality, Autofocus, Ergonomics, Handling, and Value. These make sense to me, but it's not obvious how these factors are assessed and weighted.

So, a challenge: Could anyone provide a link to the explanation of DPReview's Lens Scoring?

Thanks.

- Craig

PS. The tea helped soothe nerves as I clicked around in the expansive DPR site.

[Wheatfield]

While sipping my evening tea, I scoured the DPReview site trying to discover a description of the criteria and weighting they use for reviewing and 'scoring' lenses. I'd like to better understand how the D FA* 50/1.4 review concluded with a 'score' of 89%. No luck.

Their lens review scoring summary cites several categories: Optical Quality, Build Quality, Autofocus, Ergonomics, Handling, and Value. These make sense to me, but it's not obvious how these factors are assessed and weighted.

So, a challenge: Could anyone provide a link to the explanation of DPReview's Lens Scoring?

Don’t hold your breath. One of their testers, when challenged on the moving target test (the bicycle test) with the K1 admitted that they don’t even try for consistency because “the real world isn’t consistent”. I don’t like the term gobsmacked, but that is what I was.
They fall back on the “we are a review site, not a test site” lame excuse when their methodology is challenged, yet they put pseudo tests out there.
The entire review portion of their website is a confidence game.

[Rondec]

Well I just spent time comparing the nikon z to the pentax LOCA they talk about. Nikon doesn't have it on fleece and pentax has it on metal. The statue of hendrix is shined with a purple light so how coud I see it anyway on the other Nikon pic? Then the sigma fringing looks way worse the way they present it and they say this, " The image reveals some colour fringing around high-contrast out-of-focus elements - predominantly magenta in front of the plane of focus, and green behind - but for such a fast lens it's actually relatively low." where as for the pentax "there's the pesky issue of longitudinal chromatic aberration, which - where you see it - is pretty hard to ignore"
Go through the Pentax gallery and about half are extreme contrast backlight photos. The Sigma about 15-20% and the Nikon Z about 10%. I don't think it was intentional. I think that they internalize bias and go these will be good lenses and don't work at it and with Pentax they go this can't be good so lets see where it can fail. That does mean that Pentax users get to see just what the lens can handle and the other users don't truly get to see what the lens can handle. Its a pointless comparison of course, which is what that site is supposedly on about with their constant rankings.

I hadn't looked at the Nikon gallery but when you mentioned it, I did go and look at it. I think you are overstating it to say that 10 percent of the Nikon photos are strongly backlit. I saw none of them that emulated images like the cat shot that they used as their poster child for Pentax's loca issues, nor chain link fences or anything of the sort. In addition, there is absolutely no flare testing for either the Nikon or the Sigma -- an area which the Pentax seems to shine.

But since DP Review doesn't have any "standard" testing protocol and don't shoot any test charts, we end up with an assortment of random photos and their "gut feeling" about how the lens performs versus other lenses. I do think they have some intrinsic biases towards MILCs , but I think most of this has to do with a lack of standardized testing and a feeling that they make stuff up as they go along. To me, reputable review sites put numbers on things -- amount of vignetting, resolution in center and borders, level of CA, and so on. DP Review does none of this and so at best, they are doing a long form hands on summary of the lens masquerading as a review.

[D1N0]

They have now silently corrected the aperture value under the cat image from 3.2 to 1.4.

[monochrome]

It's an interesting view into the mind set of the DPR "Editors", I'm still on the wall as if it is a standard ruse to wind up Pentaxian's and get an extra 1000 or so hits or if they just generally don't understand the Pentax way of doing things, ie the opposite of all cameras must now be mirrorless, all lens focusing fly by wire, video is as important as stills, optical deficiencies fixed on camera by extra processing, that the camera can make all the choices for you instead of having the capabilities in the background to be called upon when needed.
**** it, I have a K-1 and a FA*50, a 2Kg image making monster combo, seemingly it's the sharpest 50 of them all and they didn't try it with PixelShift, I know it has the nicest Bokeh of any 50 I've tried and I like the way they snuggle up to my right hip when we're out and about walking. It's not a Silver, it probably a Platinum.

That’s how I feel - I have them, and I know something you don’t (or willfully won’t). The cool, cool kitties, credentialed and everything, are not so smart after all.

[monochrome]

They have now silently corrected the aperture value under the cat image from 3.2 to 1.4.

I read the comment that called out the incorrect aperture. They haven’t edited the text below the image that claims LoCA up to f/4. They’re either willfully sloppy or outright antagonists. There’s no forgiving that sort of error.

Back in the day it was considered a point of honor to annotate edits. Just another example of their integrity.

[house]

I wanted to compare with other lenses so I went looking for dpreview photos taken under similar circumstances with other lenses. Pentax has been shot under *way* more demanding circumstances than any other lens I could find. Most of the images are stress tests. This is also the case for the yet to be reviewed da* 11-18.

The Pentax images look very good however partly because the bright high contrast against the light photos. So at least the galleries look better than the competition.

[Kunzite]

They have this habit, of pushing Pentax equipment - at times beyond what's reasonable. An innovative technology of composing 4 images in camera, tested with moving water (and incorrect software). The famous bicycle test. What is likely the best Pentax lens ever made, wide open with high contrast, blown out areas.
Maybe they just like Pentax a lot and want to prove any weakness was fixed to the point of bettering anything else on the market

[Rondec]

I wanted to compare with other lenses so I went looking for dpreview photos taken under similar circumstances with other lenses. Pentax has been shot under *way* more demanding circumstances than any other lens I could find. Most of the images are stress tests. This is also the case for the yet to be reviewed da* 11-18.

The Pentax images look very good however partly because the bright high contrast against the light photos. So at least the galleries look better than the competition.

Very much so. It seemed as though a good chunk of the Pentax shots were at f1.4 to f2.8, many with challenging back lit situations. In contrast the Z50 and Sigma 50mm Art seem to have gotten the "general snapshot" treatment with most stopped down a bit and few back lit situations.

Tough comparison to make since the scenes are so different from each other. But didn't stop DP Review from trying to do so.

[reh321]

Tough comparison to make since the scenes are so different from each other. But didn't stop DP Review from trying to do so.

As is the case with Consumer Reports - whose priorities often differ from mine - a person of any brains will skip their summary and look at what underlies it, namely the photos.

[TwoUptons]

As is the case with Consumer Reports - whose priorities often differ from mine - a person of any brains will skip their summary and look at what underlies it, namely the photos.

The rigor Consumer Reports has used historically completely the obliterates the apparent test processes at DPR. Can you imagine them testing autofocus with a bicycle? Only if it was on a motorized platform with precise control...
Though I do tend to ignore them for anything I'm really into... because, like you, my priorities are different from theirs generally...

But if I were to want to buy something I was not an enthusiast about, I could at least trust Consumer Reports wasn't terribly biased...
If they reviewed the K1 with the new 50mm, I would still have issues with their review (priorities, again), but it would likely not be about their bias.

Something I've noticed about enthusiasts in general is they (and no blame placed here) don't tend to care about bias when it's their stuff being discussed among themselves...
Doesn't matter if it's BMW motorcycles, Honda cars, or anything else (though are there forums of enthusiasts of dishwashers?)
I mean, I don't come to this forum for unbiased talk about the relevant merits of a random bunch of cameras...
But that means that for a bunch of enthusiasts at DPR, getting around that is hard... especially for enthusiasts of different brands...

So I guess I just placed myself in the 'DPR is sloppy' camp over the 'DPR are a bunch of malicious liars'...

-Eric