[Class A]

After I pointed out that the Panasonic S1R review conclusions did not mention the fact that the Panasonic S1R performs noise reduction at base ISO up to ISO 200, DPReview amended the "What we don't [like]" column with a respective bullet point and added a short remark ("we're not pleased about the noise reduction in Raws from base ISO to ISO 200") to the conclusion.

As you can see there is considerable loss of detail at ISO 100 compared to the ISO 200 shot.

I find it remarkable that DPReview

1. has not been mentioning this in the conclusion since 31 July, and
2. they they brush it off with "not pleased" while making a big fuzz about the noise reduction of the K-1 II, inadequately warning people that the noise reduction "may affect the rendition of starry skies at higher ISOs."

Arguably, manipulating RAW data at base ISO is much worse than at higher ISO levels (the K-1 II starts at ISO 640) because the lowest ISO settings yield the best image quality. Higher ISO settings imply more noise anyhow, so in my view some image manipulation is more excusable in this range compared to messing with a range in which the camera should shine.

Apparently Panasonic's sensor choice didn't quite deliver the dynamic range at base ISO Panasonic wished to advertise with (noting the performance of competing cameras) so Panasonic saw it fit to help with RAW processing. That this went unhighlighted in the conclusion of the review and now is only implied in passing is pretty unbelievable to me, given what they did to the K-1 II.

---

Last edited by Class A; 04-30-2020 at 02:43 AM.

[MikeyBugs95]

It's DPR. It's getting to the point where not mentioning or outright dismissing ISO noise reduction in every camera that's not a Pentax is SOP for them. I expect nothing more from their reviews but I presume they will continuously sink even lower. When they are able to review the DFA*85, I fully expect them to pan the lens for perceived purple fringing, and "strong" chromatic aberattion while complaining strongly about the lens' size and weight while making no mention about the, probably, equally as large and heavy as the competing Sigma Art.

[biz-engineer]

Comparing real images from imaging-resources site comparometer, the S1R resolves at least as well as other ~45Mp cameras. S1R is the best, especially at low ISO.

[Class A]

Comparing real images from imaging-resources site comparometer, the S1R resolves at least as well as other ~45Mp cameras. S1R is the best, especially at low ISO.

Have you looked at how bad the ISO 100 image looks like?

Perhaps DPReview messed up, but if they didn't the quality of the ISO 100 image is nowhere near it should be.

[beholder3]

That this went unhighlighted in the conclusion of the review and now is only implied in passing is pretty unbelievable to me, given what they did to the K-1 II.

Thanks for doing this, but I bet you were not surprised that dptabloid did this. Its a incompetent, biased fanboy blog.

When their hate-targets gain some ground they spray their hate all over them.

Why do you think did they publish an extra dedicated hate blog post against Fuji's middle format cameras and image quality, when this bettered resolution and image quality of their beloved Nikons and Sonys?

Why do you think did they publish an extra dedicated hate blog post against Canons R5 8k video capabilities, when this bettered video capabilities of their beloved Sonys?

Why do you think did they quickly rush to include a meh firmware update's effects on autofocus in a Nikon and immediately raise the overall score while they ignore the same for Canon for 8 months and then just adjust some text bits but not the scoring?

And all that is just extra beyond their hate on Pentax.

Manipulation, propaganda type communications is what they do.

[biz-engineer]

It appears (source: DXO, photon2photo), that Pana smoothed the lower ISO to break beyond the 12ev of DR and 21 bits color depth. You'll get softness of detail when pulling shadows.

Anyway, I'm not convinced you can do miracles with all those digital cameras that are nowhere near medium format and large format cameras. Take any of these $2500 <> $3500 cameras, at best can make fine detailed prints at 20 x 30, up to 24 x 36 in perfect shooting conditions. The making of 300Mpixels focus stack & stitched image composite (~ for free) just crushes anything tested by any camera review site.

[Class A]

You'll get softness of detail when pulling shadows.

In other words, the IQ isn't were it should be.

Panasonic really pulled a fast one because not only are they messing with RAW data, they plainly perform false advertising. Their maximum DR score is just a lie. And DPReview let's it slide...

Anyway, I'm not convinced you can do miracles with all those digital cameras that are nowhere near medium format and large format cameras.

No need to "do miracles". Just deliver the unadulterated data.
The K-1 (II) files look absolutely fine at ISO 100. I don't care if the performance doesn't match MF.

[Rondec]

It appears (source: DXO, photon2photo), that Pana smoothed the lower ISO to break beyond the 12ev of DR and 21 bits color depth. You'll get softness of detail when pulling shadows.

Anyway, I'm not convinced you can do miracles with all those digital cameras that are nowhere near medium format and large format cameras. Take any of these $2500 <> $3500 cameras, at best can make fine detailed prints at 20 x 30, up to 24 x 36 in perfect shooting conditions. The making of 300Mpixels focus stack & stitched image composite (~ for free) just crushes anything tested by any camera review site.

The whole point of base iso is to get max dynamic range and details. Smoothing at that iso is not great.

On a K-1 or K-1 II when I want to maximize things, for landscapes and so on, I use pixel shift. While it requires a tripod and has some other limitations, I do think it is getting close to medium format levels. And yes, I do pull up my shadows a lot in post and would be bothered by this smoothing. The K-1 II's processing bothers me less because I don't typically shoot landscapes at iso 800.

[ThorSanchez]

So two takeaways:

- DPR hates Pentax. Deeply.

- The most common mode of enjoying photography (viewing exceptionally finely detailed 60" x 40" prints at a distance of 6") is unachievable by the S1R or really any current FF camera.

That's disappointing. I may be mildly depressed for the next 3-4 minutes.

[biz-engineer]

The whole point of base iso is to get max dynamic range and details. Smoothing at that iso is not great.

Of course.

There is a certain disconnect between camera marketing and real world usage. When the use the camera in the field, is when some of the claimed feature start to itch a little bit. And the very first thing that itch is the ergonomics, but usabilty is the very least thing considered in most camera reviews. Honestly, the more time goes the more I think pixels shift is a gimmick , or at least the benefits are small and in rare conditions. Yet, pixels shift is sold as a differentiating feature. Camera tech is too complex for most customers to exactly understand it, so most customers take the short cut of reviews. Even reviewers don't understand all of what they are talking about anyway, some reviews show that the guy doing the review doesn't know what he is talking about.

---------- Post added 30-04-20 at 14:35 ----------

- The most common mode of enjoying photography (viewing exceptionally finely detailed 60" x 40" prints at a distance of 6") is unachievable by the S1R or really any current FF camera.

It's not the problem of the 40x60", it's the problem that it's more like 5x the cost of camera system leads to 15% better image quality only, e.g print at 20"x30" from a $1500 apsc kit to 24x36" (same quality per square inch) from a $5000 full frame mirrorless kit. The difference between apsc kits (even some kit cost about $500) and $5000 is very small. Full frame is sold like it is the top , but it's not at all.

---------- Post added 30-04-20 at 14:57 ----------

Most importantly, if you don't print , all you need is 4K and in that case all internet discussions are for exercising the brain. Internet reviews of cameras nicely avoid to evaluate the capability of a camera systems with regards to printing photographs, so what they are talking about is total vaporware.

[texandrews]

The most objectionable things about the DPR reviews to me are: 1. Pretend objectivity---interjection of subjective/snarky comments, inability to do apples-apples pro/con lists and comparisons, shifting goalposts, imprecise results assessments. 2. Inability to admit mistakes in a timely fashion honestly. 3. Unwillingness to do anything about these things, including having a neutral peer review editorial panel to look for these problems and correct them.

[Rondec]

The most objectionable things about the DPR reviews to me are: 1. Pretend objectivity---interjection of subjective/snarky comments, inability to do apples-apples pro/con lists and comparisons, shifting goalposts, imprecise results assessments. 2. Inability to admit mistakes in a timely fashion honestly. 3. Unwillingness to do anything about these things, including having a neutral peer review editorial panel to look for these problems and correct them.

Definitely.

Pentax cameras aren't perfect nor are those of any other maker out there. Every one of them is a set of compromises. The point of a reviewer is (with fairly neutral language) to identify the strengths and weaknesses of gear and then to come to a conclusion about the gear. DP Review feels like a review site that picks what gear they like before they test it and then look for ways to praise it during the testing and vice versa, when they don't like things they find ways to include little digs at the brand all through their reviews.

I still remember when they reviewed the DFA *50 lens them starting off their review with verbiage (since changed) to the effect that they felt like they had to review this lens as it might be the last new Pentax lens that was released. And the whole review had little snide comments about slow auto focus and chromatic aberration and "huge, huge, huge" size of the lens.

Oh well, I don't go there any more except when someone mentions a review here and then I am pretty disappointed. Class A is to be commended for trying to keep them honest, but I think I would have given up awhile ago.

[ThorSanchez]

It's not the problem of the 40x60", it's the problem that it's more like 5x the cost of camera system leads to 15% better image quality only, e.g print at 20"x30" from a $1500 apsc kit to 24x36" (same quality per square inch) from a $5000 full frame mirrorless kit. The difference between apsc kits (even some kit cost about $500) and $5000 is very small. Full frame is sold like it is the top , but it's not at all.

---------- Post added 30-04-20 at 14:57 ----------

Most importantly, if you don't print , all you need is 4K and in that case all internet discussions are for exercising the brain. Internet reviews of cameras nicely avoid to evaluate the capability of a camera systems with regards to printing photographs, so what they are talking about is total vaporware.

Even if you print, most people don't print 24"x36" on a regular basis. But resolution isn't the be all, end all of cameras. Most people are not buying 25, 30, 50 Mp cameras so they can extract every pixel out of it. They want to be able to crop. And they want and use some subset of the other features of the camera, like speed and dynamic range and connectivity and pixel shift and everything else.

But it is true that for the significant majority of use cases a KP or a K-3/ii will produce images indistinguishable from a $5000 FF model. For me, the K-3ii is great for the largest prints and displays I've ever made, or probably will ever make. Every bit as sharp and detailed as I need. And it has many advantages like frame rate and size over the more expensive, larger format cameras.

The most objectionable things about the DPR reviews to me are: 1. Pretend objectivity---interjection of subjective/snarky comments, inability to do apples-apples pro/con lists and comparisons, shifting goalposts, imprecise results assessments. 2. Inability to admit mistakes in a timely fashion honestly. 3. Unwillingness to do anything about these things, including having a neutral peer review editorial panel to look for these problems and correct them.

I think most of that can be solved by treating DPR and related sites as merely places that have information about cameras, instead of academic research institutes. If you're looking for double-blind, scientifically rigorous studies of the autofocus capabilities and dynamic range of every available camera you're going to be disappointed a lot. If you just go there looking for one source among many of some reasonably good information about cameras you might be less disappointed.

[Jonathan Mac]

DPR do not like admitting their mistakes (who does?) and are prone to amending them in a way that as few people as possible notice. In this comparison between that example and their anti-Pentax bias, you see the full breadth of the mistakes made over there.

Don't get me wrong, on the whole I like DPR, but anything Pentax has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Likewise, they tend to gloss over the (far worse) failings from other brands such as plasticky build quality, poor ergonomics andcomplete lack of IBIS... it's funny how that last one became really important only when CaNikOny started incorporating it into their cameras...

[Class A]

it's funny how that last one became really important only when CaNikOny started incorporating it into their cameras...

So true.

They didn't see the point of PixelShift either, referred to it as having "limited uses" when reviewing the K-1, until Sony adopted it as well (with an inferior implementation but somehow it was able to open their eyes about the virtues of this feature).