[derekkite]

Why did DPREVIEW post questionable conclusion?

It is the only way to get clicks from anyone who uses Pentax.

[clickclick]

They can comment on weight because it is valid that the DFA* 50 is heavy. All I want is balanced and fair reviews. Negatives and positives should be included. It's when things aren't balanced overall or when things are over-emphasised.

I do agree that they seem to be inherently biased against traditional DSLRs though.

I think I meant it a bit differently, but this is the problem with posts. I was thinking the lens would be stunning optically, (and it appears to be) and the only thing they would be able to complain about was the weight, which is the nature of the beast of any fat 50 from any brand.

Hope this is all making sense in the right way.

[KX5]

Better chromatic noise control in K1ii but luminance has been corrected too with some details lost in the frame. Thanks to the new accelerator unit. I just hope a new firmware will correct it soon.

[Racer X 69]

Why did DPREVIEW post questionable conclusion?

Why does anyone give their drivel credit by debating it here? It is clear that the Pentax Full Frame cameras perform quite well, as is evidenced by not only the testimonials many users post here, but also by the magnificent work that many capable hands and eyes are extracting from them.

[Class A]

I never believe this nonsense when people post unscientific tests

The measurements by Bill Claff certainly showed objective evidence for some high frequency NR:



The images that Bill Claff analysed were taken by DPReview's "science editor" Saurarshi Jyoti ("Rishi") Sanyal, though and ever since he openly declared that he believes Pentax does far too well at DPReview and that they ought to expose more of their products' flaws, I don't trust anything coming from him.

It seems to me K-1II is a bit sharper and it has a bit lower noise...!!!!

What you are seeing are both noise reduction and sharpening. The "accelerator" unit has no means to actually improve the signal from the sensor. It can just process it. Some people prefer that the camera does some basic processing for them, others would prefer to have the option of a "hands-off" approach.

DPreview did some really big mistakes that affected Pentax negatively, but in general I think they aren't biased, they just don't know how to operate a Pentax camera when it comes to the new, unique advanced features.

That's a very benevolent view which I wish I could still hold. However, whenever I thought that they saw their errors (e.g., by correcting some of their incomplete or inadequate reporting), next time they are back with the same mistake, plus new ones. What irks me is the subtle but effective difference in reporting camera properties. When a Nikon camera is heavy and large, they write "little unwieldy", "not a petite camera". The K-1 II with almost exactly the same weight/dimensions was described as a "hulking mass of a camera", "large and intimidating", and "large and obtrusive".

Potentially this is just down to the "contributions" by S.J. Sanyal but then Richard Butler watches this and does not respond when it is pointed out to him. To be fair, Richard Butler is competent and has an open ear for Pentaxian complaints. He has written very good articles and admitted that DPReview botched the Pentax Pixel Shift article. So I used to hold Richard Butler in high regard but I'm disappointed that despite all these past injustices against Pentax products, he does not interfere more when new material is created/published that paints Pentax products in a worse light than they deserve.

To top it off, the majority of DPReview staff proclaim to "love Pentax" but then tacitly agree to Chris Niccolls nominating the K-1 II to be the second-worst camera of 2018 (he even called it "the worst" and had to be corrected).

[Class A]

"This means once you reach ISO 1600, unlike most cameras such as the Pentax 645Z, the dynamic range does not drop by 1 EV drop for each 1 EV increase in ISO." If "most cameras" do this, then why not say, oh Fuji?

This is typical DPReview BS.

First, the Fuji does not retain dynamic range better than any other camera. It just doesn't multiply the RAW data. The graph that shows the same constant DR after a certain ISO value is pure misleading nonsense.

There is, of course, an advantage in not scaling the data in-camera as that means that the camera won't unnecessarily multiply the data out of the bit range. However, one can achieve exactly the same with any other camera by shooting at a lower ISO value and then push in post. The Fuji does nothing else, the only advantage is that previews won't be rendered dark.

Second, as you noticed, there is zero reason to single out the Pentax 645Z. The 645Z is the camera that first broke through the DxOMark 100 marks barrier and whose result was withheld from the public, probably in a bid to protect other brands. To pick that camera, out of any of them, is doubly wrong.

So much for "we love Pentax".

[KX5]

I confirm k1ii NR IS absolutely agressive from 1600 ISO. I tested both camera (k-1 ans k1ii) and Dpreview IS right. I juste Hope Pentax will correct it on the next model. Luminance has not to be corrected straight from RAW. Some of us like noise -and details- in their pictures. Even if i am a pentaxian, i have to admit something wrong happened in the New k1ii digital processing. I doubt a New firmware Can correct it unfortunately.

[texandrews]

That's a very benevolent view which I wish I could still hold. However, whenever I thought that they saw their errors (e.g., by correcting some of their incomplete or inadequate reporting), next time they are back with the same mistake, plus new ones. What irks me is the subtle but effective difference in reporting camera properties. When a Nikon camera is heavy and large, they write "little unwieldy", "not a petite camera". The K-1 II with almost exactly the same weight/dimensions was described as a "hulking mass of a camera", "large and intimidating", and "large and obtrusive".

Yes. The bias is very obvious, but what gets me the most is that such biases could be easily corrected if DPR created a review editing panel from the pool of moderators or others whose job it would be to look for these and other inconsistencies and call them out for elimination. Hardly a backbreaking step to take!