[gazonk]

Well, it just got interesting again. He made a new blog entry claming he is right. Every move he makes will make it even more embarrasing when he gets it.

If I were about to make a review and the response from everyone was "you are wrong, hear this.." I would listen.

I didn't look at this "review" until today. Ouch. This guy is going to be so embarrassed if he one day understands crop factors.

[Peter Zack]

I agree with Matt. Stay on point. DON'T make this personal. It just looks too much like fanboys protecting turf.

I have a little something in store to post there that will refute these claims I think. Just give me a few days....

[GeneV]

I don't see the point in getting into it with him picking at his understanding of crop factors, because it really isn't at the heart of the problem.

Here are the problems I see with the sharpness tests:

1. ISO 800. Who tests sharpness at ISO 800?

2. Other than the columns and rails, just about everything in his sharpness example is moving.

3. The second example of the gazebo (or whatever) looks like it had serious NR applied. There is no EXIF data, but the columns and bags have a waxy look.

4. The first shot of the runners on the gazebo has noise in it (low for ISO 800, buth there). It was also handheld. It is probably just my lack of talent, but I find that my handheld shots are hit or miss at around that FL and 100% cropping unless my shutter speed is at least twice the one he used. Even so, applying a little sharpening snaps that shot up nicely. I suspect this shot actually looked pretty sharp before the crop.

5. If the shoe is a 100% crop of the original and not a reduction, it is amazing.

[jct us101]

I think he just wanted to test the camera in ways that he thought it would be useful to people, but I think it's the way that he went about it that really is what caused the problems here.

[Peter Zack]

Cody, I honestly don't agree. He shot "test" images that would look bad on purpose and tried to post misinformation that the responders have clearly debunked. The D40 is a decent camera but no way can it match this camera or others from today. I'll be doing a head to head test between the 2 bodies on the weekend as part of my review. We'll see what a 2009 camera can do against a 2006 camera.

[Eruditass]

Won't someone just nicely tell him to set the kit lens to ~43mm and compare it with the 43mm prime?

Ok, that was already done, but really that's all that was needed, without tons of words heckling him into defense mode.

also:

I had the same issues with this camera, with metering unreliable and inconsistent and often on the dark side. Dialling in 2 -3 notches of expo compensation worked sometimes but not others. Even with this classy lens, I found high contrast situations blowing out the highlights easily as in the example below

I don't understand how he was able to write a review on DPS without knowledge of how exposure works.

[jct us101]

Cody, I honestly don't agree. He shot "test" images that would look bad on purpose and tried to post misinformation that the responders have clearly debunked. The D40 is a decent camera but no way can it match this camera or others from today. I'll be doing a head to head test between the 2 bodies on the weekend as part of my review. We'll see what a 2009 camera can do against a 2006 camera.

Yes, I meant what you just said here essentially, sorry I have a lack of sleep.

I meant that he wanted to show off some test images from the camera that he thought would be useful in ways to show that the camera really isn't that great, because of his already biased opinion. I guess I should have finished the original thought, eh?

[GeneV]

Mr. Brebach has posted a comment saying that he's going to submit an update to the review soon. That update is on his own blog.

He does admit to making mistakes the first time around, which is hard to do (rather than digging in), especially when people are so upset. So that should get some credit.

Unnnfortunately, it looks like there's still some errors in thinking.

Be nice, everyone! That will, ultimately, be more productive.

You were nice, but the issue you caught is pretty significant. It did not gel with me that when he said he set the lens tp infinity, he meant that he had cranked the lens all the way to the stop. Even before autofocus lenses, I was pretty careful about visually setting the lens at infinity.

[guillermovilas]

Je dois dire que j'hesite encore entre un k-x ou un Nikon d5000 , le pentax me semble cool mais je trouve pas beaucoup d'articles a son sujet , surtout pas l'excitation que le K10 avait causer a sa sortie.
Serait-il donc si peut convainquant

Je dois avouer ne pas voir beaucoup de photos prises avec ce boitier , auriez-vous connaissance de sites ou je pourrais en voir ?

[thibs]

Je dirais plutôt l'inverse, le K-x est une bombe. Excellent doublé d'un prix idiot.
Bon, je préfère mon K-7 mais bon

Le Nikon, beurk: tu oublies déjà toutes les optiques non AF-S parce que le boitier n'est pas compatible.

[Graham V]

Getting a 404 error on the original dps review....has it been taken off?

[Peter Zack]

It has I bet he got a flood of private mail. I wrote Darren yesterday to suggest he read the follow up blog posts and all the additional mistakes there. Darren wrote me back that they have decided to pull the review.

Glad that crap is off the internet. I also notice Kim didn't respond to the bog comments clearly showing his technical knowledge was seriously flawed. I'd guess he'll let this die off and quitely pull the blog posts at some point as well.

The Email I sent:

We've pulled this review today until Kim is able to take a look at the replacement camera and lens.

thanks for the feedback.

Darren

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Peter Zack <xxxxxxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

Guys, I expect you are getting a ton of mail on this. I just have to add my voice. The Pentax K-x review is so badly flawed that it should be removed. It reflects poorly on your site to have something this flawed, posted on an otherwise excellent site.

I was quiet on this until now and only spoke up with this recent defense on the blog.

http://briard.typepad.com/get_the_picture/2010/04/pentax-k-x-testing-round-2...forums-ha.html

Kim doesn't have a good basic technical understanding to be doing even a "user" review. If you look at his defense of lens focal length and crop factors, that's just bad. It undermines the entire review and assertions there in.

Please consider taking the review down. I have absolutely no problem with a knowledgeable and fair critical reiew. This isn't it.

Regards, Peter Zack

[séamuis]

I said what I had to say in the beginning. it comes as no surprise that he couldnt grasp the 'crop factor', as noted by his personal blog. his opinion of the K-x is his, and I could care less, but 'reviews' like his are just foolish and have no place and no right to be viewed by the public. everyone makes mistakes, but its clear that he knows very little about the basics of photography, but thought he knew more than he did, or enough that he was capable. the internet can be cruel, but usually much more honest and open that real life. hopefully he will look back on this and learn a few things.

[audiobomber]

We've pulled this review today until Kim is able to take a look at the replacement camera and lens.

thanks for the feedback.

Darren

This implies that they will post Kim's review of the replacement camera. That would be a shame. He's shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is not capable of doing a competent review. He won't use Green mode because he thinks he knows better. The problem is, he doesn't know better, so when he changes settings he completely screws up the image quality. Then, because of his ego, he blames the gear. He needs to go back to reviewing something other than cameras.

[tokyoso]

Ok, so he can start crying about sample variation.