[Larrymc]

They mainly disliked the baked-in noise reduction for RAW files, which is the exact reason I didn't pay for the upgrade.

How about telling folks how you can tell "baked-in" noise reduction for RAW files when you see it. I'm very curious????????

[pschlute]

How about telling folks how you can tell "baked-in" noise reduction for RAW files when you see it. I'm very curious????????

Exactly. 99% of users will never see one jot of a difference.

[mee]

They mainly disliked the baked-in noise reduction for RAW files, which is the exact reason I didn't pay for the upgrade.

Understandable. If anyone is going to make the details of my high ISO images mushy it will be me with a 3rd party software and not the camera baking it itself.

[monochrome]

Hellooohhhhh. Is anybody here?


<.....................................>


Good. We’re finally learning the correct response.

[Fenwoodian]

.
I happen to agree with their opinion of the K1 II - but for different reasons.

I choose not to upgrade because the new camera is crippled by no software support for the K-1 Mark II's "dynamic pixel shift resolution" RAW files. That was the deal breaker for me.

Still love my K-1s though.

[biz-engineer]

Unprofessional. Was the best/worse camera absolute or relative to what? How can k1 be good and k1 ii be bad if the k1 ii is insignificant change over k1. To me those reviews with sick jokes looks like from a bunch of immature teenagers.. Seriously, just watch the vid again, it's unprofessional.

If I was going to select a camera I would have to do the review myself because dpr are way too subjective.

[Fenwoodian]

Unprofessional. To me those reviews with sick jokes looks like from a bunch of immature teenagers.. Seriously, just watch the vid again, it's unprofessional.

I agree.


I'm also seeing I'm seeing other photography channels with much older hosts doing YouTube videos when drunk too.

Luminous Landscape has their "

You Tube

You Tube

" series.

The C47 has their "

You Tube

You Tube

" series.

I guess these YouTubers must think it's cool to be drunk when making videos. Maybe they think the younger viewers will enjoy it?

---

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 12-22-2018 at 10:38 PM.

[Class A]

They like the Pentax brand,

Why then are they doing everything to kill it?

I saw their show of hands but either that's insincerity or they somehow think that punishing Pentax with unfair reviews is the best approach to force Pentax to produce the cameras they'd prefer.

they liked the K-1 a lot,

Not enough to award it its deserved distinction.

Yes, the K-1 is not the perfect camera but for the price it offers so much and is just fantastic for a lot of photographic genres. No need at all to trash it for its lacking AF-C performance. Remember how they grossly overstated their case by calling AF in general to be inadequate? Only after protests, they changed their message to a more precise one, pointing out that it really is just the AF-C performance that let's the K-1 down somewhat.

Funnily enough, the protests (whether they are responding to not acknowledging the in-body stabilisation (which they recently professed to starting to love), initially making a mess of evaluating PixelShift, screwing up the K-1 II noise reduction evaluation, the list goes on and on) are interpreted to show how zealous and overly fervent Pentaxians are.

just not the K-1 mark II since it was not differentiated enough from the former model

It is one thing to be disappointed about the lack of added value but a completely different affair to award a "worst camera" distinction.

I don't like the K-1 II mandatory noise reduction either, but given that the K-1 II's sensor is essentially ISO-invariant, there is a way to work around that issue and the K-1 II did bring some improvements (e.g. regarding AF-C, something that DPReview are of course unable to test reliably with their inadequate methodology) over the already excellent K-1. So in no universe does the K-1 II deserve a "worst camera" award.

Ridiculous. Simply ridiculous. And all that under the guise of liking the Pentax brand. Yeah, right.

[biz-engineer]

For me the fact that Pentax have had IBIS for decades ignored by reviewers, even stated as inferior to optical stabilization; and now the praise of IBIS presented as game changer or dealbreaker for the new mirror less models ; tells a lot about the intellectual level of those reviewers. It's not serious. Reviewers often copy each other so that to surf on the latest fad and get attention, and then eventually contradict themselves a few years later.

---------- Post added 23-12-18 at 07:03 ----------

Around when 7d, d500, a9 were released, all reviewers sounded as if the single and only most important feature of a camera is to be able to af track rapidly moving subjects. This year, all reviews sound the same, as if having mirror less and 4k are mandatory for a still camera.

Over the years, the quantity and commercial priorities have taken precedence over the quality of media content.

[brightseal]

Well at least they didn't rank it the worst.....

[Class A]

For me the fact that Pentax have had IBIS for decades ignored by reviewers, even stated as inferior to optical stabilization; and now the praise of IBIS presented as game changer or dealbreaker for the new mirror less models ;

Yes, and quite a sad attempt at rationalising the change of heart with the main argument being based on video. About time they call themselves DVReview.

Around when 7d, d500, a9 were released, all reviewers sounded as if the single and only most important feature of a camera is to be able to af track rapidly moving subjects. This year, all reviews sound the same, as if having mirror less and 4k are mandatory for a still camera.

So true.

The fact that many of the mirrorless cameras aren't that hot with rapidly moving subjects in particular in less than bright light levels isn't a hindrance to praising them as the best cameras ever; claiming that "every entry-level DSLR" belongs in the worst camera category because mirrorless cameras are so much better. What nonsense.

The fact that many mirroless cameras with PDAF system exhibit banding and/or striping isn't a problem either. In the past, dynamic range was one of the important aspects of a camera. Now it is relegated to something that if it isn't up to snuff "most users won't encounter".

Just to put the cherry on the cake, their choice for best camera of 2018 is a Fuji without in-body image stabilisation even thought they just proclaimed that the latter will be counted as a "Cons" from now on. Must be a hell of a camera to compensate for that and its peculiar ergonomics. I'm happy for anyone who appreciates the retro-styling and retrograde ergonomics, but to crown such a concept as the best of the best, oh well, it fits in with the other nonsense.

[Kunzite]

Well at least they didn't rank it the worst.....

Right; it's still somewhat better than the "Yashica"

[totsmuyco]

I haven't seen the video and I don't intend to. These guys rated the D850 as the best camera during its time. Yet, Cameraville did a side by side comparison and proved them wrong when it came to image quality. Try comparing the build of both cameras and the D850 is no match at all. Choosing gears is a personal choice. As far as I can say, there are no bad cameras these days. Each system has an advantage over the other. None is perfect. It's just choosing what fits you.

[BarneyL]

I liked those cozy and goofy 'best & worst of the year' videos they made during TCSTV times. Their latest take on it with DPR team feels rushed and lacks a lot of its former charm.

As for the K-1 II. This is more or less the same camera as K-1, with some welcome (AF) and debatable (NR, hand held PS) improvements that doesn't really impress people familiar with what all the other manufacturers are doing. So while I don't particularly like a Pentax camera on the 'worst of the year' list, I have the feeling that if Pentaxians could choose between this camera or one more FF lens released this year, most would choose the latter.

[robgski]

The only thing left to say is "Pentax is doomed!"