[wizofoz]

I have had a vigorous exchange with Dear Rishi as well, it seems that if I make an allusion to their 'apparent' lack of logic I am called a liar by said Mr Sanyal. I believe he may be under a lot of duress and is not coping well. The exchange is currently at the top of the review comments page for those who need a grin

---------- Post added 8th Jul 2016 at 19:47 ----------

I've been thinking about this review, and our reactions to it. As has been pointed out, the general conclusion here seems to be that most of the review was fair, but that their comments about the K-1's AF were unfair, or at least not wholly consistent with our own experience. Certainly, as I posted earlier, my experience of tracking AF (which was at night in a longish room fitted with banks of fluorescent lights, thus requiring a high ISO setting to get the shutter speed and aperture required) was much more favourable, though I wasn't using their method of single-point AF.

I replied to a post that suggested the DPR test results were dishonest, saying I thought they may have been described as intellectually dishonest. I should add that I meant by that remark, that the test was incomplete in that it used a single AF mode, was subject to variables like lighting intensity and direction, the bicycle rider's behaviour and the was influenced by the selection of an odd focus area on the subject. Drawing a conclusion about the overall performance of the camera's AF system was therefore tenuous, to say the least, and even intellectually dishonest. As with Tony Northrup's review, what I think may be happening here has an element of reviewers having got used to the behaviour of other systems, and finding that the resultant effect on their ways of working with those systems haven't translated well into working with Pentax products. Unlike some other PF members, I don't believe it's as simple as their main sponsors influencing their judgment. Many of their contributors write or wrote for Amateur Photographer, which is a publication I've enjoyed for many years, so I'd hope that their work for another employer wouldn't adversely alter their ethical standards.

However, aside from that, I thought the review's conclusions about the K-1 were mostly fair. We need to stay with them, and use logic to challenge things we genuinely disagree with. Constructive discourse is far preferable to shouting matches, let alone media warfare.

DPReview is read by a lot of people, so I don't think a boycott of the site is wise or, indeed, helpful.

I agree Rob, I really think it is lack of familiarity at the core of these quirky review finding, and suggested so to Mr Northrup. - strangely, he has yet to reply to me,

I also agree that the DPR review is by and large accurate and informative to those who don't know the marque. I'm gladdened that sanity has prevailed and the 'poor af' comment has been retracted and replaced with more considered wording. I disagree about their logic in downplaying the value of PS while overstating the value of ISO64 on a D810 (which I note, they compare the K-1 to in terms of IQ, but not in terms of speed, price or category....hmmmmm.)

[zeljko_pentax]

In my opinion DP have been biast. There are a lot of excellent points that should be mentioned and explain in detail. Green button, LCD quick menu customasation, tracking focus preference settings, pixel shift benefits, WB possible customasation , AF fine adjustment and on and on.
I agree that AF could be improved, consecutive shooting is not a speed demon (Nikon D810 is only 0.5 FPS faster, though) but on my opinion they didn't (probably deliberately) go into all good points of the camera so they can rate it a bit lower then their favourites.
If K1 doesn't deserve GOLD, no camera does.

[Rondec]

I've been thinking about this review, and our reactions to it. As has been pointed out, the general conclusion here seems to be that most of the review was fair, but that their comments about the K-1's AF were unfair, or at least not wholly consistent with our own experience. Certainly, as I posted earlier, my experience of tracking AF (which was at night in a longish room fitted with banks of fluorescent lights, thus requiring a high ISO setting to get the shutter speed and aperture required) was much more favourable, though I wasn't using their method of single-point AF.

I replied to a post that suggested the DPR test results were dishonest, saying I thought they may have been described as intellectually dishonest. I should add that I meant by that remark, that the test was incomplete in that it used a single AF mode, was subject to variables like lighting intensity and direction, the bicycle rider's behaviour and the was influenced by the selection of an odd focus area on the subject. Drawing a conclusion about the overall performance of the camera's AF system was therefore tenuous, to say the least, and even intellectually dishonest. As with Tony Northrup's review, what I think may be happening here has an element of reviewers having got used to the behaviour of other systems, and finding that the resultant effect on their ways of working with those systems haven't translated well into working with Pentax products. Unlike some other PF members, I don't believe it's as simple as their main sponsors influencing their judgment. Many of their contributors write or wrote for Amateur Photographer, which is a publication I've enjoyed for many years, so I'd hope that their work for another employer wouldn't adversely alter their ethical standards.

However, aside from that, I thought the review's conclusions about the K-1 were mostly fair. We need to stay with them, and use logic to challenge things we genuinely disagree with. Constructive discourse is far preferable to shouting matches, let alone media warfare.

DPReview is read by a lot of people, so I don't think a boycott of the site is wise or, indeed, helpful.

I guess the thing to me is that I am not convinced that the D610 (which got a gold on its review) is really significantly better at any of the things that they docked the K-1 for (except for lens availability), while I know that the K-1 has significantly better still photo capability. At the same time, it is just a review and it is their right to give the camera whatever score they want based on their weighting of the various factors involved. It has always seemed as though they value video a lot. To me, it would be more useful to give two separate scores one for still camera performance (where the K-1 would crush it) and another for video camera performance (where none of these SLRs would do great).

That said, I don't know that a boycott is in order. I still don't go to the site -- I find it annoying to use and has had a tendency towards trolls popping up here and there.

[biz-engineer]

I've been banned from DPReview for providing evidence of the Pentax K1 AF performance and questioning the honesty of their AF evaluation! A strong sign of totally biased evaluation.

[Schraubstock]

in one DPR reply in their comment section I seem to recall they said they did not rush the review and were working on this review for some four weeks. This then would indicate to me they were possibly using a pre production body in which case they should have been a bit more circumspect. Returning such poor AF performance should have been ringing alarm bells enough to consider the possibility of testing a faulty or not optimised body. (Or lens)

I don't think any camera maker in 2016 would put out for sale a camera with such dismal AF performance.

By the way my K-1 tracks beautifully !!
Now somebody tells me it does not. Better dispose of the K-1 quickly before too many people find out.

Cheers

[redpit]

I read the review and all our comments in here. It's a pitty that such a wonderful camera is presented as almost defective (the AF scoring and commenting indicates that almost any other mirrorless or entry level DSLR is better than the K-1) in order to succed what? What common sense indicates is to finally rate it as inferior to the Casonikon alternatives (though that if we consider all the features that K-1 provides you should either admit that is a unique market offering or add to the competition alternatives the price to obtain the extra features astrotracker, GPS, Wifi connectivity etc).

It's not a pitty for us the Pentaxians that have or eventually will get to try the K-1 and find out what a camera it is, but to those who are considering their options and based on such reviews they will pass by the Pentax camera.

I really believe that anyone who would have the opportunity to shoot with the K-1 for a weekend would end up liking it... They are really trying to keep Pentax "a different path" and an underdog but isn't this one of the reasons that we are loyal to Pentax? hahahaha

Seriously such reviews are not fair for the Pentax personnel that developed this camera not for us in here or out there that tend to have personal experience and not be based on others' quite subjective opinions.

And a final comment on K-1 AF performance, I'm very satisfied by it and I'm using mostly teles for sports, airshows and nature photography. I'm seeing great samples in the K-1 thread and I will upload some more examples when I have some time. I wonder if someone says to Pentax R&D you have the freedom to develop what AF module you like and this can cost up to $4.000 per body ($1800 minus the current AF module and up to the $6000 price of the D5 and 5DX plus some profit per camera) what they would come up with! They have done wonders in IQ and features aspects offering them in so competitive prices that I wonder what they could achieve if pricing (and the fact that Pentax is a small player) was not a hurdle...

[Class A]

Class A, do you mind if I post a link to this on DPR? I think your wit and wisdom should be shared with a wider audience

Thanks a lot for your appreciation of my post. Thanks a lot to everyone else who liked it.

I'm glad you saw the humour I tried to inject but am afraid people at DPReview (in particular some of the staff) may not find my attempt at satire funny.

I don't want to unnecessarily cause bad blood -- some of the DPReview staff are very reasonable and amenable to discussions -- and hence just posted here instead of at DPReview. I'm frustrated by their inconsistent methods and hesitation to correct mistakes, but at least they do correct some (not all) mistakes. I don't want them to think that I'm ridiculing them because that was not my intention. I just used "mirroring" and "exaggeration" as a means to highlight the flaws in their ways/criticism.

When I post at DPReview, I try to be polite and open for discussion. I fear that my little exercise in satire may offend and I wouldn't want that.

[wizofoz]

Thanks a lot for your appreciation of my post. Thanks a lot to everyone else who liked it.

I'm glad you saw the humour I tried to inject but am afraid people at DPReview (in particular some of the staff) may not find my attempt at satire funny.

I don't want to unnecessarily cause bad blood -- some of the DPReview staff are very reasonable and amenable to discussions -- and hence just posted here instead of at DPReview. I'm frustrated by their inconsistent methods and hesitation to correct mistakes, but at least they do correct some (not all) mistakes. I don't want them to think that I'm ridiculing them because that was not my intention. I just used "mirroring" and "exaggeration" as a means to highlight the flaws in their ways/criticism.

When I post at DPReview, I try to be polite and open for discussion. I fear that my little exercise in satire may offend and I wouldn't want that.

Fair enough mate. I have just had the experience of being called a liar by DPR staff because I dared to question their reasoning. I'm beginning to see evidence that they may be correct, and if so I will apologise wholeheartedly, but I have yet to be apologised to for being called a lair, despite ample opportunity, when all I was doing was offering an observation.

[monochrome]

I've been banned from DPReview for providing evidence of the Pentax K1 AF performance and questioning the honesty of their AF evaluation! A strong sign of totally biased evaluation.

Pentax Forums came to being because DPR banned so many Pentax users. You've earned a badge of honor.

[totsmuyco]

Thanks a lot for your appreciation of my post. Thanks a lot to everyone else who liked it.

I'm glad you saw the humour I tried to inject but am afraid people at DPReview (in particular some of the staff) may not find my attempt at satire funny.

I don't want to unnecessarily cause bad blood -- some of the DPReview staff are very reasonable and amenable to discussions -- and hence just posted here instead of at DPReview. I'm frustrated by their inconsistent methods and hesitation to correct mistakes, but at least they do correct some (not all) mistakes. I don't want them to think that I'm ridiculing them because that was not my intention. I just used "mirroring" and "exaggeration" as a means to highlight the flaws in their ways/criticism.

When I post at DPReview, I try to be polite and open for discussion. I fear that my little exercise in satire may offend and I wouldn't want that.

From what I've read in their forums, first somebody starts a thread. Then some members make nice comments. Then someone starts a nasty comment and there goes the thread and ends up to be impolite. That's why I never joined there. When I was an Olympus user, I joined the fourthirds-user forum.

[monochrome]

From what I've read in their forums, first somebody starts a thread. Then some members make nice comments. Then someone starts a nasty comment and there goes the thread and ends up to be impolite. That's why I never joined there. When I was an Olympus user, I joined the fourthirds-user forum.

In my posts in exchanges with Chris Williams and Rishi, I tried complimenting the work in the overall review and politely questioning the test parameters, wording and incorrect use of Pentax tracking AF settings. I agreed tracking AF is a comparative weakness and documentation is too sparse. I said there are many level-headed Pentax users Who would help with AF settings if asked. I cited examples of wording issues. Wording was almost immediately changed, the test was re-run, but Rishi has dug in. No one reached out for help.

I suspect the review was done in sections by three editors, two of whom quietly responded to a reasonable approach. I suspect the technical work was done by Rishi, who is now boxed. Either he responds to the cranky posts and admits his test was poorly designed and he doesn't know how the camera works or he protects his independent position, andcontinues to defend the results, becoming increasingly defensive and granular. Not a good choice set.

We should just let it go at this point. The unsupportable stuff has been removed for the most part.

[pinholecam]

Don't let up the pressure.

Keep up the good work!

[starbase218]

I don't know if the topic starter wanted to open this thread as either a positive or negative statement of DPReview, but it may be insightful to check the "camera reviews" overview on DPR to see which other cameras also got silver awards and/or similar percentage ratings.

[D1N0]

I don't know if the topic starter wanted to open this thread as either a positive or negative statement of DPReview, but it may be insightful to check the "camera reviews" overview on DPR to see which other cameras also got silver awards and/or similar percentage ratings.

Neither. it's just a statement of fact, but I think you know my opinion.

If you only look at half the evidence you can make any point. Look at which camera's did get gold too.

[starbase218]

Neither. it's just a statement of fact, but I think you know my opinion.

If you only look at half the evidence you can make any point. Look at which camera's did get gold too.

I have looked at it and I don't feel I can make a point.