[normhead]

Pentax range of modern FF lenses isn't the best - we know that. Pentax AF isn't the best - we know that .

I guess he assumes that people don't know what "the best" means. One camera company has the best series of modern lenses. All the others aren't the best. SO what does saying a company isn't the best tell you?

It tells you nothing. It doesn't tell you if the range of available lenses is 1 lens less than the best, it doesn't tell you if it's 50 lenses less than the best. It doesn't tell you a damn thing , except that with all the major camera companies, it isn't the best. That's what's known as journalistic filler, padding the number of words you need to try and sound like you know something.

The simple fact is that Pentax came out with a very nice range of zooms for this camera, and the fact that there is so much legacy glass available makes a statement like that incredibly biased in the first place. He doesn't address whether Pentax legacy glass is equivalent to or better than some of the modern stuff being released by other companies, in fact he completely ignores the existence of excellent legacy glass that performs well on DSLR equipment.

Yes he missed a few things and yes he reviewed it in terms of how it suited his personal style, but I really don't think he was wilfully or actually unfair or biased.

That right there, says the man is incompetent to be reviewing the camera. Because, he missed a few things, and his biases are so unconscious, he doesn't even realize he's making them. If you shoot with one system, understand how it works and get good results with it, it doesn't mean you can drop another system into his hands and he's qualified to evaluate it. If you aren't aware of the strengths of a system, or how it's works, any comment you make is by definition unfair and biased. It doesn't matter whether if it's conscious or unconscious, intelligent people don't do it, and this guy is thick as a brick.

I'm not sure why everyone is falling over backwards to defend this guy.

[dcBear78]

I thought it was a fair enough review. The camera isn't amazing in things like focus and buffer size. But the areas it does do well at it exceeds in and I think Tony addressed that well enough. He could've been more objective in some things. Of course there will not be as mature lens options for such a new system. That's understandable. And I don't think comparing second hand prices is really fair either, but I do see where he is coming from.

I also think that he felt the need to make a reply video is a bit embarrassing. It's not a good look for Pentaxians.

---------- Post added 1st Jul 2016 at 12:43 AM ----------

The simple fact is that Pentax came out with a very nice range of zooms for this camera, and the fact that there is so much legacy glass available makes a statement like that incredibly biased in the first place. He doesn't address whether Pentax legacy glass is equivalent to or better than some of the modern stuff being released by other companies, in fact he completely ignores the existence of excellent legacy glass that performs well on DSLR equipment.

You haven't watched the 2nd video have you? He addresses this in that and shows evidence to back up his claim.

[pathdoc]

He doesn't address whether Pentax legacy glass is equivalent to or better than some of the modern stuff being released by other companies, in fact he completely ignores the existence of excellent legacy glass that performs well on DSLR equipment.

That was what got under my skin, especially in the all too widely known context of Canon users mutilating Taks and Pentax-branded lenses to fit them on full-frame DSLR cameras (and I've seen at least one Canon shooter on YT bemoan also the fact that some of the Taks he'd love to use are barred to his full-frame bodies because of rear-element intrusion into the mirror box at infinity). He can't possibly be ignorant of that, surely? Either way, it doesn't paint him in a good light.

Every other negative I could let slide, but that one just grated and IMO made the entire review about as useful and relevant as mammaries on a male bovine.

[normhead]

I thought it was a fair enough review. The camera isn't amazing in things like focus and buffer size. But the areas it does do well at it exceeds in and I think Tony addressed that well enough. He could've been more objective in some things. Of course there will not be as mature lens options for such a new system. That's understandable. And I don't think comparing second hand prices is really fair either, but I do see where he is coming from.

I also think that he felt the need to make a reply video is a bit embarrassing. It's not a good look for Pentaxians.

---------- Post added 1st Jul 2016 at 12:43 AM ----------



You haven't watched the 2nd video have you? He addresses this in that and shows evidence to back up his claim.

As said, I gave Tony 20 minutes of my life, and he wasted it, he doesn't get another 20. Interesting how you idolize this guy though. It's pretty clear, in your mind he can do no wrong. Tony making a reply video means Pentaxians are wrong and it makes them look bad. All those Pentaxians are wrong and Tony is right seems to be what you are implying. ya right, Pentaxians should just shut up and swallow the B.S., like you do. I get it.

I've read the IR review and seen "The Camera Store" video. Why do I need to waste my time listening to Tony Northrup. What does he say that they don't cover, better?

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-30-2016 at 09:55 AM.

[fromunderthebridge]

I thought it was a fair enough review. The camera isn't amazing in things like focus and buffer size. But the areas it does do well at it exceeds in and I think Tony addressed that well enough. He could've been more objective in some things. Of course there will not be as mature lens options for such a new system. That's understandable. And I don't think comparing second hand prices is really fair either, but I do see where he is coming from.

I also think that he felt the need to make a reply video is a bit embarrassing. It's not a good look for Pentaxians.

---------- Post added 1st Jul 2016 at 12:43 AM ----------



You haven't watched the 2nd video have you? He addresses this in that and shows evidence to back up his claim.

Have to say btw that his ripping of legacy glass was a tad unconvincing. Note how he howls that the glass is unusable (or clearly inferior, your pick), when, in actuality, there is image degradation in far corners and/or wide open. In many cases this quite acceptable behavior for the glass and does not make it unusable on a 36mp FF sensor at all. I mean disregarding the legacy glass altogether is a bit over the top.

[Ivor K Ecks]

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I used to like Tony and his reviews, I even have one of his books in e-form.

In his 2nd Video he is using charts he says he got from the french website spd.io. I cannot for the life of me find any such website. All i find is a reference to Tony's websites.
The site he is claiming to have tested Pentax lenses have charts that have DXO on them. If they are DXO charts were they from testing the lenses on a K1.

I would have thought that if you are going to make a professional review of anything you would make sure that you have all your facts correct.

It would seem that when reviewing cameras these days the only thing to worry about is that the camera can track fast moving objects and the lens used is perfectly sharp across the frame at all apertures.

Ability to have any lens stabilized.............not important
GPS and astrotracking...........not important
Fully weatherproof body.............not important
Ability to use slow shutter speeds on non stabilized lenses...........not important.

[lithedreamer]

In his 2nd Video he is using charts he says he got from the french website spd.io. I cannot for the life of me find any such website. All i find is a reference to Tony's websites.
The site he is claiming to have tested Pentax lenses have charts that have DXO on them. If they are DXO charts were they from testing the lenses on a K1.

He uses sdp.io as a link shortener. If you use it without any of the paths he gives you, it simply redirects you to his Stunning Digital Photography website. In this case he links to sdp.io/plens, unshortened that leads to https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.lemondedelap...K-1,12388.html

It would seem that when reviewing cameras these days the only thing to worry about is that the camera can track fast moving objects and the lens used is perfectly sharp across the frame at all apertures.

He does go out of his way to say that sharpness isn't necessarily the most important thing, simply the easiest to measure. Having the widest aperture lenses and the most megapixels in a camera aren't necessarily the most important things, either, they just give you more artistic choices while being 'easy' to measure.

Ability to have any lens stabilized.............not important

I agree that Tony undervalues legacy glass, but I think he was just comparing stabilised lenses to lens on a stabilised body in this review.

GPS and astrotracking...........not important

He does express that he likes this in his initial review.

Fully weatherproof body.............not important

So is the D810 and a7rii and probably whatever the Canon equivalent is. This feature doesn't differentiate Pentax in the full-frame market, only the APS-C one.

Ability to use slow shutter speeds on non stabilized lenses...........not important.

Again, Tony only compared stabilised lenses to lenses on a stabilised body. I think you'd first have to convince him that there are full-frame unstabilised lenses worth having.

[neostyles]

The prevailing arguement I see here is "he doesn't shoot pentax so he cant review it" which is just..sily? This is just like claiming that no one can see your imaginary friend because they don't believe in him.

Pentax is trying to compete purely in terms of spec sheets and that's where they are losing out. They are completely neglecting the human aspect of it. The camera's design leaves a little bit to be desired, I am a designer by trade and the K1 ain't exactly what you would call pretty. The controls seems to be laid out pretty well, but the boxy look went out with the pinhole cameras of the early 90s. Pentax cant seem to design decently looking cameras.

They have so many examples of this done right with canonikon. Why they insist on being different is beyond me.

We often see people refer to their cameras as tools, and to a certain extent this may be true, but as photographers we idenitify with our cameas. No one wants to spend over a thousand on something that.

None of the things he mentioned had anything to do with being a vetran user of Pentax. Pentax af has been behind even a cheaper entry level mirrorless for quite some time now.

Claiming that film lenses count as full frame digital lenses is borderline false advertising. Film is no where near 36 megapixels. There are no electrical contacts with film era lenses, depending on how old they are so you probably wont get any communication between half those lenses and the camera. It's vaguely like some kid trying to scribble over his report card or something.

In fact, as far as I can tell, the photography business as we know it didn't even exist in the days of film, so things like sharpness weren't really a high priority. Digital photography has driven a constant stream of progress, where things are always moving forward. Film was way before my time, but I dont think anyone was buying 5K lenses in the days of film.

[Gimbal]

I'm not sure you got anything right in that post...

[virusn3t]

Well... I read the last post to keep me up to date amd now i want a burguer... I havent eat one burguer in months.... stupid diet.

[fromunderthebridge]

The prevailing arguement I see here is "he doesn't shoot pentax so he cant review it" which is just..sily? This is just like claiming that no one can see your imaginary friend because they don't believe in him.

Pentax is trying to compete purely in terms of spec sheets and that's where they are losing out. They are completely neglecting the human aspect of it. The camera's design leaves a little bit to be desired, I am a designer by trade and the K1 ain't exactly what you would call pretty. The controls seems to be laid out pretty well, but the boxy look went out with the pinhole cameras of the early 90s. Pentax cant seem to design decently looking cameras.

They have so many examples of this done right with canonikon. Why they insist on being different is beyond me.

We often see people refer to their cameras as tools, and to a certain extent this may be true, but as photographers we idenitify with our cameas. No one wants to spend over a thousand on something that.

None of the things he mentioned had anything to do with being a vetran user of Pentax. Pentax af has been behind even a cheaper entry level mirrorless for quite some time now.

Claiming that film lenses count as full frame digital lenses is borderline false advertising. Film is no where near 36 megapixels. There are no electrical contacts with film era lenses, depending on how old they are so you probably wont get any communication between half those lenses and the camera. It's vaguely like some kid trying to scribble over his report card or something.

In fact, as far as I can tell, the photography business as we know it didn't even exist in the days of film, so things like sharpness weren't really a high priority. Digital photography has driven a constant stream of progress, where things are always moving forward. Film was way before my time, but I dont think anyone was buying 5K lenses in the days of film.

.. aaaaand K-01 was designed by a known designer and we all know how well that went with the general populace. I prefer edges to the vague, slopy roundness many Canon/Nikon cameras seem to exhibit. And in my hands it feels better than the Canon/Nikon counterparts so.. (I guess ergonomics is also part of the human equation?).

Point is: You have preferences, I have preferences. Neither is objectively correct. Also, you being a designer does not necessarily entail that your aesthetic values match those of everyone (ref. Marc Newson).

Continuing with authority arguments: my wife (also works in design) pointed out that having identifiable products is also part of good design (i.e. "why insist on being different"). Your move.

[2351HD]

This thread is why most reviewers steer clear of Pentax..........

[fromunderthebridge]

This thread is why most reviewers steer clear of Pentax..........

Well.. I do agree that many get a bit too incised about reviewer errors and perceived bias. I guess the biggest problem is a minority of people that get overly aggressive about the reviews instead of polite commentary. It's the classic: "If you're in the minority, even one bad apple can ruin it for everyone"- type of thing.

I mean, people can be jerks in the reviews, but it doesn't help to be a jerk back as it will just make you look bad also to anyone else who's watching.

[Rondec]

The prevailing arguement I see here is "he doesn't shoot pentax so he cant review it" which is just..sily? This is just like claiming that no one can see your imaginary friend because they don't believe in him.

Pentax is trying to compete purely in terms of spec sheets and that's where they are losing out. They are completely neglecting the human aspect of it. The camera's design leaves a little bit to be desired, I am a designer by trade and the K1 ain't exactly what you would call pretty. The controls seems to be laid out pretty well, but the boxy look went out with the pinhole cameras of the early 90s. Pentax cant seem to design decently looking cameras.

They have so many examples of this done right with canonikon. Why they insist on being different is beyond me.

We often see people refer to their cameras as tools, and to a certain extent this may be true, but as photographers we idenitify with our cameas. No one wants to spend over a thousand on something that.

None of the things he mentioned had anything to do with being a vetran user of Pentax. Pentax af has been behind even a cheaper entry level mirrorless for quite some time now.

Claiming that film lenses count as full frame digital lenses is borderline false advertising. Film is no where near 36 megapixels. There are no electrical contacts with film era lenses, depending on how old they are so you probably wont get any communication between half those lenses and the camera. It's vaguely like some kid trying to scribble over his report card or something.

In fact, as far as I can tell, the photography business as we know it didn't even exist in the days of film, so things like sharpness weren't really a high priority. Digital photography has driven a constant stream of progress, where things are always moving forward. Film was way before my time, but I dont think anyone was buying 5K lenses in the days of film.

You make a number of comments that are of uncertain value. A large number of lenses, particularly primes, are of "film" era vintage. Particularly in the 50mm range the design of those lenses has not changed significantly over time. Coatings have improved somewhat, although Pentax's SMC was top end in its day and still very good now. Zooms have improved a lot more over time with computer design, but Pentax has released four new zooms covering the range from 15mm to 450mm. That's pretty decent in my book.

Auto focus has been sub optimal in the past, but unless you are a sports photographer, the K-1 does really well, particularly with the newer zooms, with regard to tracking (general auto focus has already been adequate for a long time). A lens like the DFA *70-200 is going to track excellently and is sharp edge to edge wide open.

People did buy expensive lenses in the days of film. In fact, you can argue that fast apertures were significantly more important, as folks were shooting with film that maxed out at iso 1600 and wasn't great quality at that point. Whatever you could do to bring your iso down a little, you would do. And I don't even have an idea what you mean when you say "as far as I can tell, the photography business as we know it didn't even exist in the days of film." There have been wedding photographers, landscape photographers, sports photographers, fashion photographers since the early 1900s. Digital didn't create any of those things, it just made photography more accessible to the average man and woman -- a good thing in my book, but it isn't as though photography and excellent photos just popped up in the last ten to fifteen years.

The K-1 is a nice camera. It is a camera that brings to the table 95 percent of what is in the D810 for half the price and throws in some additional features like image stabilization on the sensor, pixel shift, astro tracer, and a third control wheel to make a camera that is very nice. It won't be for everyone, just as the D810 isn't for everyone, but there aren't any cameras priced at the 1800 dollar point that are going to beat it significantly in any area.

[normhead]

This thread is why most reviewers steer clear of Pentax..........

Most reviewers, if they do steer clear of Pentax, do so because the know nothing about Pentax, and as such, they are smart enough to keep there mouths shut, rather than go through the exercise of finding out what makes the cameras tick. Be clear, an inaccurate reviewer is lazy and taking shortcuts. As in the academic world, their reputations should depend on their history of publishing credible work. Going to these guys web sites after they've committed easily correctable errors is just encouraging the wannabes. Fudge a scientific paper and you're pretty much tossed out of the community. Yet here we have someone who clearly believes in protecting incompetence defending it. This is not sub atomic particles, this a a camera that comes with a manual and with resource you can access to learn how to use it. Error in descriptions are simply unacceptable.

People like you who patronize such sites just encourage incompetence.

If you review Pentax, you need to know your stuff. And if you don't know your stuff, you need to be a little smarter about what you publish.

As, I said before...
Take in The Camera Store Video and the Imaging Resources review, patronize people who know their stuff, and perhaps. Boycott these poor ignorant reviewer wannabes.

Tony Northrup will never get a hit on his hit counter from my computer. Has anyone ever learned one pice of useful information from this clown? I can guarantee you his sloppy understanding of camera gear has misled millions.