[Merv-O]

For Judas Sake, DP is crap site of dubious value by anyone who understands that the internet is full of fake news. DP has been owned by Amazon since 2007--their extensive "reviews" are biased towards selling products---period. Quality is not a virtue at DP. Pentax does not have the retail marketing arm that Amazon needs to fill their Photography links with vendors to sell their wares....Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al have dozens of vendors willing to list and pay to sell their cameras. Pentax is sold by select specialty companies and Photo retailers.

Simply: Pentax quality, accepted and applauded by virtually every objective review and comparison routinely gets panned by the BS reviewers at DP. F-- DP and Amazon for bastardizing fair and honest reviews.

Just saying.....

[Kunzite]

Let's not go that far!
TCSTV indeed cared what they were selling (and not!), being a camera store's YouTube channel. They gave the K-S1's "the worst camera" award because they couldn't sell it... but with an attitude like that, no wonder!
DPR, IMO they simply don't care about Pentax - and Pentax don't try to make them care.

[biz-engineer]

DP has been owned by Amazon since 2007--their extensive "reviews" are biased towards selling products---period.

And promoting mirror-less is a big deal, because it also means selling sets of new lenses along with the new cameras... there's a lot more money involved than just selling a new DSLR model that works with lenses already owned. Pentax is the bad guy coz they did not create a new lens mount. When customers buy one more lens to complete their Pentax kit, it's a lot less money then getting hooked into a new mount.

[Rondec]

I think the whole point is that it is easy to choose one feature of a camera and totally slam a camera over it. Take the Nikon Z7. You could argue that it is crazy not to include two card slots in a camera priced over 3000 dollars, that the native lens selection is dismal, that as biz-engineer pointed out early that auto focus is spotty, and that the sensor is under performing compared to other cameras on the market. Taken as a whole, it doesn't sound too great, but if you are desperate for a shorter registration distance, want an EVF and love to shoot video, it may be the perfect camera for you.

Lately, DP Review is all about video specs and those seem to drive top end reviews. Unfortunately, I do think that often when video gets a lot better, still image quality may suffer -- particularly in situations where there are lots of PD AF points on the sensor.

I don't know all of the motivations of lists like this (my guess is to sell cameras), but I can say for sure that DP Review is never going to slam a big money maker like the Z series cameras from Nikon. At worst, they would simply choose not to mention them in their list at all. Pentax is an easy mark -- not a big seller to non-Pentax users and will sell regardless to Pentaxians.

---------- Post added 12-26-18 at 06:59 AM ----------

And promoting mirror-less is a big deal, because it also means selling sets of new lenses along with the new cameras... there's a lot more money involved than just selling a new DSLR model that works with lenses already owned. Pentax is the bad guy coz they did not create a new lens mount. When customers buy one more lens to complete their Pentax kit, it's a lot less money then getting hooked into a new mount.

I agree. Not that there are very many Nikon Z lenses out there right now, but over time, I imagine their line up will get filled out pretty well. For now, I suppose people will just use F mount lenses with adapters.

[Class A]

Personally, I used to have HP RPN calculators like the 11C...

I've been using a HP-28S since starting university and still use it. RPN and this calculator are great and I do think your hypothesis regarding Pentaxians being over represented in STEM areas has merit. Pentaxians certainly seem to be able to think for themselves. This is not to say that all Canikony shooter are sheep, I think it is just pretty likely when you are a Pentaxian that you didn't arrive there because you uncritically copied someone.

[Class A]

Personally, I used to have HP RPN calculators like the 11C...

I've been using a HP-28S for ages and still use it. RPN and this calculator are great and I do think your hypothesis regarding Pentaxians being over represented in STEM areas has merit. Pentaxians certainly seem to be able to think for themselves. This is not to say that all Canikony shooter are sheep, I think it is just pretty likely that when you are a Pentaxian that you didn't arrive there because you uncritically copied someone.

[Class A]

And promoting mirror-less is a big deal, because it also means selling sets of new lenses along with the new cameras.

Exactly right.

I believe this is the main drive behind turning a blind eye to all the mirrorless deficiencies and the continuous trashing of DSLR technology.
I'd have to collect the data to prove it, but my impression is that when it comes to mirrorless technology, DPReview mentions downsides (like low battery life, inadequate viewfinders, etc.) only after at least one big player offers a product that addresses the issue. I cannot recall DPReview ever complaining about an EVF losing resolution or stuttering during AF, but now that some products do better in these aspects, suddenly these downsides are OK to mention.

DPReview staff often profess that they don't care which gear is sold through Amazon, that it wouldn't make a difference to them. Of course, the reality is that it is in the best interest of Amazon to push more expensive products and to make people switch whole systems. I really don't know if the statements by DPReview staff are plain lies or whether Hanlon's razor applies: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Same goes for the unbelievable bias against Pentax which they state is just an unfounded perception on behalf of Pentaxians. Rishi Sanyal once stated in a comment that they are essentially holding back, that they really had to be much harsher against Pentax, if they told the whole truth. Makes one question a lot of things...

[Larrymc]

I'm not kooks, but I'd like to point out that the difference between the K-5 and the K-5 II was significant.

The K-5 II introduced a completely new AF system that, at last, was immune to the colour temperature of the subject. The K-5 (and other Pentax DSLRs before it) would systemically produce out of focus images under certain conditions (low light, warm colour temperature). I'd therefore say that the K-5 II was all but an insignificant incremental update.

The K-3 II added GPS which is quite important for some. IIRC, it also offered improved image stabilisation.
It lost the on-board pop-up flash which was a good decision in my view because such a poor flash (that cannot even control other flashes in HSS mode) has no business on a camera in this class (a decision that has been taken by many other manufacturers on their high-end models as well).

While I also found the improvements made to the K-1 II underwhelming, the K-1 II as such is a great camera. In principle I prefer keeping a well-designed body and other aspects instead of changing things around for change's sake. I feel there is nothing wrong with a "tick-tock" model where the "tock" release is just a minor modification to the "tick" release. Of course some review sites feel that they are making a contribution by pointing out the lack of innovation, but that need not concern anyone.

The major issue with the K-1 II was just that it forced mandatory RAW noise reduction on everyone.
Had they just applied the processing to the JPGs, that would have been fine.
Had they given users the option to opt out of the RAW denoising, that would have been fine.
Unfortunately, however, the mandatory processing meant that they gave DPReview a pistol and said "shoot me".
We can be pretty certain that DPReview would have found other ways to talk down the K-1 II and talk up their beloved EVF darlings, but it is better if they have to go through more contortions to do it. Handing them the ammunition on a silver plate is not a good idea.

P.S.: On the subject of ignoring DPReview, I wish it were that easy. If we were talking about a private blogger with a hundred followers, we could safely ignore them.
DPReview on the other hand, has ~20,000,000 views per month.
What they write matters regarding camera and lens sales.
With their reviews and buying guides, they influence a considerable number of buyers.

I truly wish I could just ignore DPReview but I feel that we should keep revealing the flaws in their reviews and alert others to the sometimes subtle and sometimes not so subtle bias against Pentax.

Thanks for your reply but that was actually a rhetorical question.

[EssJayEff]

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

Regarding my not upgrading my K-1 (which I love) to a Mark II, I based my decision on this PentaxForum article AND the RAW Capture paragraph of the "Overall Image Quality" chapter of the DPReview article, because both illustrate the differences. To borrow the PentaxForum staff's phrase I put myself in the "purist" camp. ("Purists might not appreciate the fact that with noise reduction comes some loss in detail,. . .") I also know that I'm constantly learning and that I can be factually wrong or misunderstand a concept. Also, as in anything I read I take stock of what was said and who said it, so I take DPR for what it is. I don't believe in living in a cordoned-off echo chamber.

My perspective on this issue is formed by being a photographic archivist, which I have been for more than thirty years. I think about the future, not just the present. In theory I want the "pure" RAW file of the data a camera produces. Why? Because post processing technology is steadily improving. If the camera is making unalterable changes using in-camera preprocessing, then it negates the ability for post-processing improvements to make an even better image in the future. If a camera is trading internally less detail for less noise, I don't have the opportunity for some current or future software solution to provide even better image quality because the detail has already been sacrificed. I have no issue with this happening to JPEGs: each camera is already "baking" its files to create JPEGs with that brand's "look and feel." As for RAW files, however, I believe "theoretically" that they shouldn't be processed in-camera.

If in-camera RAW file pre-processing truly isn't an issue, then why are there so many RAW converters for post-processing? They must be producing different results from the same image file, otherwise why bother with more than one? Perhaps some handle the detail/noise continuum better than others? If so, having the files altered in-camera eliminates the possibility of taking advantage of even better noise reduction "out-camera."

Just my "two cents," with which I am totally open to learning how I am misguided in spending those pennies and willing to invest them into making those two coins worth more.

[normhead]

If in-camera RAW file pre-processing truly isn't an issue, then why are there so many RAW converters for post-processing? They must be producing different results from the same image file, otherwise why bother with more than one? Perhaps some handle the detail/noise continuum better than others? If so, having the files altered in-camera eliminates the possibility of taking advantage of even better noise reduction "out-camera."

As I learned in a recent poll, you use raw so you can produce images that 90% of the forum doesn't like.

I showed what you can do with raw file that you can't do with jpeg, and the majority of responders said "we don't like that."

So in answer to why are there so many raw converters out there, it's possible quite a lot haven't kept up with how good jpegs are these days.
Even for me, it take quite bit of work to match my raw+ jpegs. But then I shoot from a different perspective.

[Rondec]

Regarding my not upgrading my K-1 (which I love) to a Mark II, I based my decision on this PentaxForum article AND the RAW Capture paragraph of the "Overall Image Quality" chapter of the DPReview article, because both illustrate the differences. To borrow the PentaxForum staff's phrase I put myself in the "purist" camp. ("Purists might not appreciate the fact that with noise reduction comes some loss in detail,. . .") I also know that I'm constantly learning and that I can be factually wrong or misunderstand a concept. Also, as in anything I read I take stock of what was said and who said it, so I take DPR for what it is. I don't believe in living in a cordoned-off echo chamber.

My perspective on this issue is formed by being a photographic archivist, which I have been for more than thirty years. I think about the future, not just the present. In theory I want the "pure" RAW file of the data a camera produces. Why? Because post processing technology is steadily improving. If the camera is making unalterable changes using in-camera preprocessing, then it negates the ability for post-processing improvements to make an even better image in the future. If a camera is trading internally less detail for less noise, I don't have the opportunity for some current or future software solution to provide even better image quality because the detail has already been sacrificed. I have no issue with this happening to JPEGs: each camera is already "baking" its files to create JPEGs with that brand's "look and feel." As for RAW files, however, I believe "theoretically" that they shouldn't be processed in-camera.

If in-camera RAW file pre-processing truly isn't an issue, then why are there so many RAW converters for post-processing? They must be producing different results from the same image file, otherwise why bother with more than one? Perhaps some handle the detail/noise continuum better than others? If so, having the files altered in-camera eliminates the possibility of taking advantage of even better noise reduction "out-camera."

Just my "two cents," with which I am totally open to learning how I am misguided in spending those pennies and willing to invest them into making those two coins worth more.

I do wonder what percentage of cameras on the market have truly "pure" raw, with nothing happening under the surface to adjust noise levels or anything else. It seems as though it is less than maybe a lot of folks are willing to admit. The difference here, I suppose, is that Pentax has admitted to putting a specific accelerator on the camera.

We know that Sony has done things that have ended up with more significant issues producing things like the "star eater" issue and probably most of the other brands out there do things to their RAWs as well -- probably most of them pretty minor.

Perhaps a final point is that whatever RAW processor you use, unless you are very careful, there are adjustments being done on import for some sort of standard look.

I said before and I will say again, but I own a K-1 and a K-1 II. The K-1 II auto focuses a little better and has a little less noise at high iso, otherwise I wouldn't say there is a significant difference between the two. Having the accelerator does save some time with noise reduction on higher iso images.

[normhead]

I said before and I will say again, but I own a K-1 and a K-1 II. The K-1 II auto focuses a little better and has a little less noise at high iso, otherwise I wouldn't say there is a significant difference between the two. Having the accelerator does save some time with noise reduction on higher iso images.

And for some, that is worth paying for, and hopefully those will be the people who buy it.
For those who bought and didn't get what they wanted.... what were you thinking?
Do your research before you buy, for Judas sake, don't buy on spec and then complain about what you got.

The spec mentioned the Accelerator chip, the chip was released in the K-70 and K-P before the K-1ii. The only complaints with the K-1ii I've seen have been the result of sloppy research leading to an un-informed purchase.

Without laying blame,(but just to exonerate a few who have been blamed in the past) that's not the forum's fault, nor is it Pentax's fault.
And I would make the same comment to anyone complaining about any camera, from any brand. The complainers want to discuss everything, but their own poor purchasing decisions.

Personally, I was going to pass on FF, some unexpected money came my way, I bought a K-1 on a whim, it's now my IQ camera, and my K-3 is my convenience/action camera. I didn't need a K-1, but it sure is nice having it. Most people say the same about the K-1ii.

Lets just keep that in mind when going on these rants about how bad the K-1ii is. You are repeating a minority opinion, the majority of owners are quite happy with it, and the mistake in buying it (if you think it was a mistake) is yours and yours alone.

Personally if someone takes a great image with a cell. phone or a D *ist, a Nikon or Canon or whatever that's fine with me. Insulting other people's camera choice is the height of rudeness and shouldn't be allowed. Some guy who just payed out a lot of money for a K-1ii or KP (or even a second hand K100D) and a few lenses, who paid what he could afford and made the compromises that made sense to him/her given their budget, shouldn't have to put up with people saying they don't have good stuff. What a bunch of mean spirited joy killers.

[mauri]

The problem with DPR naming the KII as one of the worst cameras of the year is of course that the UPDATE, not the camera itself, is one of the worst of the year. To extrapolate that into 2nd worst camera was malicious, and confirms that they don't really care about the brand. Of course there's quite a few other examples also.

[beholder3]

I do wonder what percentage of cameras on the market have truly "pure" raw

0% of mirrorless cameras with pdaf have non-pre-cooked-raws. They have to fake (in Nikon Z case: very poorly) image parts where the pdaf pixels are. Their raw contains data which the image sensor did not capture, but is manipulated into the pre-cooked file. Basically they photoshop the clone brush in camera.

In Nikon Z we are talking about every 12th pixel row which is 100% fake data baked into the Nikon-Z-pre-cooked files. That is 8.3% of the total image data for that color channel. In all ISOs. In all images.

[Rondec]

I think the whole point is that K-1 II give clean output. If it wasn't emphasized by every web site that something nefarious was going on under the hood people would just be happy with it.

iso 12K



iso 6400