Originally posted by pete-tarmigan I'd say we've seen a lot sharper from reviewers that are more informed than John Aldred.
Where did Aldred go wrong? He didn't offer a "review" of the camera, he just evaluated image samples which came straight from Ricoh. Toward that end, what should he have used to inform himself?
---------- Post added 03-21-16 at 07:11 PM ----------
Originally posted by monochrome As I have written on numerous threads, Pentax releases finished sample images when the finished camera and finished Firmware are released. Recent cases in point are the studio shots released with the 645z and the finished studio samples released to demonstrate PixelShift with the K-3II. The floral arrangement posted to the K-1 Special Site is authorized by and posted by Ricoh - and it is a setellar demonstration of PS on the FF. Use that as your reference sample.
Uh, for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume that you're absolutely right: I'm going to accept that Ricoh doesn't have a camera body with final firmware available for their own use before the camera is released for sale to the public. Mind you, that seems strange to me, but I'm going to accept it.
The weaknesses of the sample photos aren't attributable to anything that can be effected by firmware. And, as shocking as it might be to some, "Pixel Shift" technology means next-to-nothing for me. If I decide to buy a K-1, that feature will be used rarely, if ever. I'm not going to evaluate a camera's image quality based on performance in a special operational mode.
Originally posted by monochrome Those who continue to criticize Ricoh regarding sample images know the camera and firmware weren't finalized when these shots were taken - and they know finalized cameras are only just now in production. They have read my replies and those of many others regarding this issue, yet they persist in this line of criticism. That they continue this shameful line of posting, under the guise of suggesting what Ricoh should do better, demonstrates nothing more than ill will toward Pentax. It can be nothing else.
I'll leave these accusations unaddressed as they don't apply to me. But those individuals who insists on bringing great shame upon themselves, their families, and their respective nations would seem to have a point: if you are right, and I will accept that you are, and Ricoh's sample images aren't representative of the K1's full capabilities
then what purpose do the sample images serve?! Why post them at all?! Why not wait until the camera's firmware is finalized and provide samples which are representative of actual product performance? Exactly what is gained by posting samples that can only be appreciated by people who have to have all of this background knowledge about Pentax's historically poor marketing, about Ricoh's tendencies regarding final firmware, about the existence of this website, about your personal admonitions to critics on this site, all by way of understanding that the samples shouldn't be used as one would normally, logically use samples. A person can be forgiven for thinking that one is entitled to look at image samples from a camera, notice that they suck, and make a statement to that effect in a public forum without bringing shame to one's ancestors.
Originally posted by monochrome None of the 'samples' posted on these websites is from Ricoh. None purports to be from Ricoh. None was authorized by Ricoh. Those images authorized by Ricoh are limited resolution jpeg's (2000px) and must be stated as such. An authorized example set from the USA is contained in the DPReview article written during CP+ - 2000px limited resolution samples.
Again, this is obviously something addressed to people other than me, but this thread is about a blog posting which references official Ricoh K-1 samples. So I don't know what are "these websites" to which you refer.