[monochrome]

Oh come on now. Isn't this the same test they run for all cameras? I don't follow their reviews closely, but I was reading that other cameras did not do well with this test too.

They themselves said the test has 'evolved' over time and comparative cameras such as the D800 were not so tested.

I'm not arguing so much with the actual test or the results - though I think the execution was sloppy. I think use of the test as a hurdle for a field camera and comparison to a D750 is unfair. My argument is with the choice to use charged words and draw unsupportable conclusions.

This test does not support the conclusion that the camera is unsuitable for shooting small children, for instance. Who burst-photographs small active children from a tripod?

But we're done, really. They've edited most of the text (without attribution, so old complaint posts look whiney) and the camera failed the bicycle test because the subject rode outside of then back in to the area of the focus points. Can't argue with that, but they should have explained why the camera kept losing and reacquiring focus (the focus points are grouped inside the crop frame).

---

Last edited by monochrome; 07-09-2016 at 07:53 AM.

[Rondec]

Oh come on now. Isn't this the same test they run for all cameras? I don't follow their reviews closely, but I was reading that other cameras did not do well with this test too.

I mentioned it in my comment, but I don't find any documentation of such a test at all on the 6D. On the D610 review, there are two bursts of six shots, one just using the center 9 cross type sensors and one using all the auto focus sensors and in both cases 2 of the six shots were blurry. In addition it was a test done using a 70-200 f4 lens not a 70-200 f2.8 lens and so shot at a more narrow depth of field.

As Monochrome says, it is done. I wouldn't argue that this is a sports camera, by any means, I just think that for their own reasons they tried to wrangle deficiencies out of the K-1 harder than they did with the 6D and D610 where they were mostly content to say "These cameras aren't perfect, but they sure offer a lot for the money."

[HopelessTogger]

I mentioned it in my comment, but I don't find any documentation of such a test at all on the 6D. On the D610 review, there are two bursts of six shots, one just using the center 9 cross type sensors and one using all the auto focus sensors and in both cases 2 of the six shots were blurry. In addition it was a test done using a 70-200 f4 lens not a 70-200 f2.8 lens and so shot at a more narrow depth of field.

As Monochrome says, it is done. I wouldn't argue that this is a sports camera, by any means, I just think that for their own reasons they tried to wrangle deficiencies out of the K-1 harder than they did with the 6D and D610 where they were mostly content to say "These cameras aren't perfect, but they sure offer a lot for the money."

Real sports cameras are £5000 and the glass even more, a lot more.

That said, hopefully a. Ricoh issues a firmware update that improves AF tracking for the existing K-1 and b. the next generations' competitive with the other two DSLR brands within their respective market segment.

If Ricoh intends to stay in the ILC business I reckon AF and video will be their next great leap. Got to have a reason to upgrade in the future and these are the only two reasons left.

[reh321]

Real sports cameras are £5000 and the glass even more, a lot more.

That said, hopefully a. Ricoh issues a firmware update that improves AF tracking for the existing K-1 and b. the next generations' competitive with the other two DSLR brands within their respective market segment.

If Ricoh intends to stay in the ILC business I reckon AF and video will be their next great leap. Got to have a reason to upgrade in the future and these are the only two reasons left.

As several have commented already, 36MP FF makes sense as a "field" camera.
Fast accurate AF is important for an "events" camera, so I expect Pentax to push that on the K-3ii replacement.
We really do need to get past the "camera for every task" mentality {a camera needs to be really good in its intended environment, and as good as it can be elsewhere}

[HopelessTogger]

As several have commented already, 36MP FF makes sense as a "field" camera.
Fast accurate AF is important for an "events" camera, so I expect Pentax to push that on the K-3ii replacement.
We really do need to get past the "camera for every task" mentality {a camera needs to be really good in its intended environment, and as good as it can be elsewhere}

I agree. No such beast exists, or may ever exist. That said there's no harm in pushing Ricoh to invest in new AF and video.

[Kunzite]

Yes, but how does it go, that pushing? By scaring people away with exaggerated tests?
Nope, Ricoh Imaging needs R&D funds to develop better AF and integrate better video (and everything else); and they need a market to sell their products at high enough volumes to make it feasible. And all they can do, it can be done gradually - it's not like they would develop the perfect camera for 5 years then sell it and gain instant recognition and tons of money.
Because Pentax is nowhere near a market leading position, having their products succeed on the market will not make them complacent - but rather, encourage them to push more. IMO.

So as a Pentaxian desiring for "my" brand to make further progress, I'd rather wish the potential customers - precisely those who would be happy with existing Pentax equipment - to buy, instead of being convinced that Pentax is useless.

As for the K-3's replacement, I would expect a variant of the K-1's AF system. But, who knows...

[monochrome]

^^ Well there's the rub. Ricoh seems to be reinvesting cash flow, but they're always behind. To make a quantum leap Ricoh will need to add corporate capital and dramatically increase product volume to earn it back. One can only assume they're making intelligent business decisions and what they're doing is the logical product development path.

[niceshot]

Interestingly, I've provided evidence about the K1 AF performance with a number of actual AFC, bike tracking photos from the Pentax K1.
I've questionned the honesty of DPReview AF evaluation and contacted Ricoh marcom.
The reaction of DPReview was that I've been banned completely from DPReview.
If they are so sure about their Pentax K1 AF evaluation, why do they need to ban someone from posting annoying results?

Guess they are PARANOID

[mee]

I'd say it doesn't really matter what DPR thinks. However, with the number of non-Pentaxian questions of basic auto focus ability (As in 'Can if focus quickly on objects like a Rebel XT can') that have resulted from the DPR review really tell me (a) There are many people who don't do their own research and rely on commercial review sites and (b) even out of the moderate to long term DSLR userbase, there are many people who don't have any clue whatsoever about Pentax cameras.

It might as well be an 80 year old Soviet film body.. they know just as much.. to the point asking if the basic AF is as capable as an older Canon or Nikon body.

Which actually leads me to a (c) point -- This shows me that due to (a) and (b) that people are lazy and if people are lazy so are camera makers once they have marketshare. That somewhat explains why Canon can release the same crop body over and over with varied feature sets at near retail price and do this for year after year.

Once in a groove, they are staying in that groove until something knocks them out of that groove at which point they are in alien territory.. wondering if the air is breathable (or if the camera has basic AF capability haha).

Hmm.. I wonder if there is something to be said about the people psychologically that end up with Pentax in the digital age? I mean Canon and Nikon (now Sony) have established channels in the photog world. Who buys a Pentax? Who even goes out of the established grooves/channels to see what else there is? And then, of those, who are bold enough to try the path less traveled? There is probably a research paper in there somewhere.. haha.

[AYD]

Because you are a Pentax Loyalist contradicting the established and confirmed facts which were revealed by their rigorous, scientific testing?
(just stating what they might be thinking...)

Unfortunately, things degenerated into a war between Pentaxians and a certain Rishi (who is aggressively defending his tests).

Rishi is a died in the wool Nikonian and can't stand any other makers cameras. He has to, I mean has to lose his objectivity when it comes to Nikon, its only human nature. Things get out of hand when it comes to things that are subjective, i.e. something that can be influenced by the tester. Unless it is out and out better, he's always going to defend Nikon. He claims to shoot 80,000 pictures a year and that qualifies him to know "all other" systems? Probably 95% shot with Nikon D750 and D810, his favorites.

Imagine a Pentaxian being on their testing crew, now that would be a revelation. The least they can do is have 1 expert in each system do a review and give equal weight to all subjective responses.

If I were to shoot or test a system/manufacturer I'm not in love with or I don't use it, or more so, haven't bought their equipment for personal use, how can you expect me to be fair. I'd admit it going in that there was a conflict of interest, or more specifically, a subconscious bias.

Whenever I see his name on a review, I just skip it. The Gold, Silver, Bronze ratings are another farse.

They were giving lousy scores to Canon too and bashing their dynamic range, but suddenly turned around when canon provided a camera with somewhat improved dynamic range, the 80D. Canon started blowing the competition (read Nikon) out of the water with lenses like the 11-24 L and the 17 and 24 TSE, and now the 35f1.4 L II and so they have quiteted down a little.

I was really pissed when he claimed that the D810 sensor has slightly better DR that the K-1 when they are the same sensor; any reasonable scientist/tester would have said that its the same see Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting, that at ISO 100 rates the K-1 at 11.36 PDR vs Nikon D810 at 11.02 (lower!). But then clarifies that the the K-1 does better in DR than the D810 with Pixel shift, no kidding!!

I wouldn't think of touching Nikon equipment because its always more expensive for similar or less capability, and comes with manufacturing/design defects (remember the D600 banned in China with oil on sensor issues), D800 with green cast, etc and now issues with the D500 (that I don't care to find out because Nikon is off my radar like Samsung), that the manufacturer drags their feet on acknowledging and later fixing.

[reh321]

I am not sure why any review site would even go near another Pentax camera again after the K1. You guys are ruthless when somebody gives your baby a bad review.

The whole K1 thing has turned me off being a "Pentax" user, even though I love my camera. The carry-on here is so damn silly. It's like a mother saying "how dare you call my baby ugly". By contacting Pentax about it you've basically run to the teacher and ratted on the naughty child.

I returned my whole K1 kit for a refund because I thought the AF was not up to the task, so I kinda relate to them a little.

Apparently the K-1 is the wrong camera for you {as it is the wrong camera for me}. It is primarily a field camera, specialized for landscape and similar uses. Yes, it would be wonderful if Pentax would improve AF for moving objects, but objects from the Alps to Ayers Rock to buildings to flowers just don't move very fast. Features in the K-70 leave me with some hope that motion AF will be improved in the replacement for the K-3ii, which is where that focus needs to be.

[joergens.mi]

LOL, I am playing provocative? Right....

I'm outta here. Someone else, feel free to answer his question.

Thank you very much

[Rishi_Sanyal]

"Interestingly, I've provided evidence about the K1 AF performance with a number of actual AFC, bike tracking photos from the Pentax K1.
I've questionned the honesty of DPReview AF evaluation and contacted Ricoh marcom.
The reaction of DPReview was that I've been banned completely from DPReview.
If they are so sure about their Pentax K1 AF evaluation, why do they need to ban someone from posting annoying results?"

Hi, Technical Editor over at DPReview. I'd like to set the record straight by copying and pasting the actual exchange that occurred on DPR:

@pentaust: "I did your tests. AFC center point, focus priority. I have about 70 shots in total, all in focus. Where should I post them?"

@Rishi: "Can you upload them to your own gallery? Full resolution please.

At this point several members who've repeated our test get exactly our hit-rate. I've even received PMs saying 'I did your test and you were essentially right - thanks for pointing this out and I hope Pentax takes this critical feedback seriously.'

Ironically, thecamerastoretv video many have linked to as somehow representative of how focus works better than in our tests shows a whole lot of out-of-focus shots in the sequence of Chris running, visible even at the ridiculously low resolutions of vertical frames in a 1080p video (< 1MP resolution). They also provide no full-resolution images.

So we'd be very curious to see the actual data from someone who claims they're getting drastically better results in a similar test/scenario."

To which, instead of submitting your images ("providing evidence"), you replied:

@pentaust: "@Rishi: I'm sad of your attitude, "At this point several members who've repeated our test get exactly our hit-rate. I've even received PMs saying 'I did your test and you were essentially right - thanks for pointing this out and I hope Pentax takes this critical feedback seriously.'

This is the most dishonest comment I've ever read. I'm disgusted. Because, you are not honest, you find an excuse to any result because you don't want to see results as they are. If you have this attitude at a court, the judge will hate you and no one will trust your saying. You are totally biased.

You retain only bad results and you ignore the good ones.
You should be sued at the court for broadcasting false information.
At DPReview company, please hire personnel who has decent professionalism when responding to users of DPreview..

In other words, you didn't "provide evidence" at all, despite us asking you to. You instead responded with an uncivil, denigrating message directed at us, claiming I was dishonest and wanted to ignore your data when I said the exact opposite: that I was curious to see your data. Here, you've suggested to the Pentax Forum members that you've provided us with this evidence, when you've done no such thing. You've claimed you were banned because we didn't want to see your evidence, when the opposite is true: we wanted to see it, and you didn't provide it, instead resorting to ad hominem derogatory insults - for which you weren't even banned, you were temp banned for only 2 weeks, asking you to please be civil on our site.

I'll let this exchange speak for itself, but I will add one thing: as a trained scientist, I am always interested in the opposing viewpoint, because I want to always check and re-check if I'm right or wrong. Being wrong keeps me up at night. So when I said I was curious to see your results, I was 100% honest and sincere. Even if your results were valid - I'd be curious in the explanation for why we'd be getting different results. I wouldn't want to look at results that disagree with mine and simply come up with excuses for why we're right and you're wrong... rather, I'd want to see if there's something we missed, or you missed, to try and get at the reasons for the perceived differences.

Objective analysis, that is. But passionate, knee-jerk reactions leave no room for objective analysis, instead opting to immediately discredit the other so you don't have to change your own belief. That's not how we work - just look at my exchange with MightyMike, for example, where we're actually trying to discuss why we have slightly different results. That's how these discussions should play out. When MightyMike was wondering why his SEL33 (subject tracking) results were so vastly different from our 15% hit-rate, we problem-solved it: his subject took up the entire AF area throughout his sequence, so there was no chance of the system getting confused about which AF point to use - any one it used would still register the correct distance. Which is why his results were closer to our single-point AF-C results -- many in or close to focus with a few significantly out, which indicates that the system still does play catch-up. With our results being a bit worse because we had constant Z-axis movement with less lateral movement, and perhaps due to the lens (they were different). The point being, we're actually trying to work out the reasons for the disparities, not immediately discrediting one another. Which is exactly how it should work.

Rather than painting us the enemy, perhaps you'd find more success were you to civilly engage with us - as if we were human beings. As if we were a human being you were speaking to in person. What's sad and disappointing to us, after the thoroughness with which we try to do our work, the passion with which we approach this task of providing responsible information to our audience, is to see knee-jerk responses that treat us as an 'enemy' and frankly dehumanize us simply because of results that may disagree with your experience, or bring into question the purchase decision you yourself made. In science, if that's how disagreements played out, nothing would really move forward. Far more productive would be to try & understand the reasons for the discrepancies, try and understand (as some other audience members have) that our frames of reference may be different - given that we test many, many cameras, and therefore have a different viewpoint and basis/standard for comparison.

One thing I will concede - it's difficult for someone to trust us without knowing exactly what we did. I understand that. We're taking this reaction as impetus to write some articles on how exactly we test AF, and why. Many of the suggestions people are making for what we should and shouldn't do when it comes to testing AF - while appreciated - have already been considered. In fact, we've put far more thought into this than most give us credit for. The reality is that we, like all such media outlets, are incredibly resource restrained, and thoroughly testing AF is such a difficult task that even the manufacturers making these very devices struggle in developing relevant tests to iterate their own systems. Realizing this, and taking into account our constraints, we've tried to come up with a set of checks and balances and tests that generally allow us to "predict" camera AF performance in variety of scenarios. We're constantly checking and re-checking our understanding, and whether or not our tests correlate with real-world performance. Furthermore, we do every test at least in triplicate, changing different AF settings to try and get the best out of the system, typically handing off the camera to multiple people on the team, testing with multiple lenses, etc. - after which we look for trends (since any one AF test in isolation can be misleading - yes, we know that). It's these trends that we end up publishing, with representative bike/mannequin/face-detect/soccer, etc. rollovers that demonstrate what we've experienced in our extensive time with the camera. In other words, real-world experience and the bike/mannequin tests are used in a sort of feedback loop - where we look for repeating patterns that allow us to glean things about the AF system.

We wouldn't have to do this if we had a set set of lab tests we knew correlated with real-world performance. But it turns out that's more difficult than you might initially think. For example, a simple low light AF test that tests the lowest light level at which focus works might over-estimate the performance of, say, a Sony a7S, which can focus down to like -5 EV in our tests. But because it's CDAF, it's slow, so if your subject is moving at all, even just rocking back and forth a little bit at a bar (not even talking about sports here), the a7S may go into a perpetual hunt. So is that -5 EV rating relevant in the real world, when in a more reasonable light level, like -1 EV, a PDAF system will perform far better by just making a measurement and jumping to the right point and taking a shot? Yes, there are ways to get around this, by perhaps measuring total time to focus for 10 attempts at various light levels, but what about subject contrast now? The reality is there are many variables, and we think about all these things, and look for trends. Another example is subject tracking (auto-shifting the AF point to stay on a subject) - where a Canon can do quite well at telephoto distances, but falls apart for tracking an eye at 35mm, e.g. Whereas a Nikon can do both. One test might have missed this nuance, which is why we now evaluate at both long distance (telephoto) and short distance (wider fast prime) - also because these simulate two different use-cases: telephoto sports vs. tracking a moving toddler, or bride at a wedding, etc. I bring these things up as examples of how much thought we try to put into our tests, their limitations, and what we can extrapolate from them. We have to try and extrapolate a considerable amount from a limited number of tests, so we put a lot of thought into everything.

I suppose I could go on forever, so I'll stop now. I hope this helps clarify some misconceptions. I think all the discussion has detracted from one overarching thing: that the K-1 is really a lovely camera, with "outstanding image quality and a number of fantastic features that simply can't be matched at this price point." (last sentence of our review)

Rishi Sanyal, Ph.D
Technical Editor, DPReview.com

[Adam]

It might be best to put this thread to rest at this point. Thanks for chiming in, Rishi.