[skierd]

This is what's selling me on a KP from that review:

...it even punches above its sensor size and price bracket, showing a similar performance to a D750, outperforming the X-T2 by nearly a stop, and coming close to the a7R II

and

High ISO performance is as good as APS-C can get, even rivaling some full-frame cameras towards the top of the ISO range.

All I have been wanting when I upgrade from my K-30 is stronger low light performance, and if I can get full frame performance or dang near it without the huge cost of upgrading, I'm in. Better AF will just be a bonus.

[wed7]

This is what's selling me on a KP from that review:

and

All I have been wanting when I upgrade from my K-30 is stronger low light performance, and if I can get full frame performance or dang near it without the huge cost of upgrading, I'm in. Better AF will just be a bonus.

We're on the same boat.

[D1N0]

Dpreview have shortened there review format so they can do more reviews so there is less room for snarkyness. The disadvantage is the reviews are less thorough. They even put battery life in the con list twice. Surely they could have come up with more cons...

[ogl]

Pentax KP Review: Digital Photography Review

AF-C and tracking ability are very weak as before?

[newmikey]

All I have been wanting when I upgrade from my K-30 is stronger low light performance, and if I can get full frame performance or dang near it without the huge cost of upgrading, I'm in. Better AF will just be a bonus.

Exactly where I'm coming from!

[D1N0]

AF-C and tracking ability are very weak as before?

Only when you are doing a stupid bike test using a tripod. Not the way AF is meant to be done at all. Handheld shooting following subjects is what you are supposed to be doing. That that gives hard to reproduce results is not our problem. It is real life use, not pseudo-scientific nonsense. Like emission tests on a roller bank .

[ogl]

They said that Nikon could do it much better - the same stupid test. And other cameras too.
Could you offer them smart test?

---

Last edited by ogl; 03-28-2017 at 08:45 PM.

[howieb101]

The question with AF-C is how common is the use case of the test they are using. For many sports the photographer is not shooting directly front on to the subject. They are often at least on some kind of side angle.

I've shot plenty of tennis shots at the Australian Open and have plenty of keepers. Is it perfect? Definitely not. But this is a sport where for the most part you would never shoot front on. To do that you would have to be directly behind the players or directly in front.

The AF-C test should really come with a big disclaimer about the frequency of such a use case. I actually think the use case they use is pretty infrequent even for sports shooters.

I hope Ricoh-Pentax continue to improve AF but for me it's already good enough with the right lenses. Wider coverage of the AF points would definitely be nice though.

I'd much rather see improvements in the video area. Why can't they use higher bit rates? Once they bring back optical shake reduction they aren't too far off having something useful for video shooters (if provided with a decent bit rate). Manual focus and using sliders, focus pullers are pretty common place for real video shooters so video AF isn't so important although it is for casual shooters. Even if they relabel the "Natural" colour profile or create a video friendly flat profile that would show some interest in the video area at virtually no cost to Ricoh-Pentax.

Howie Be

[D1N0]

Even if you were to shoot a head on finish of a bike race or something you would not use the pic at the crop levels dpr does. Anyway you can shoot that with a manual lens, because you can just set the focus on the finish line and shoot a fast burst.

[monochrome]

Dpreview have shortened there review format so they can do more reviews so there is less room for snarkyness. The disadvantage is the reviews are less thorough. They even put battery life in the con list twice. Surely they could have come up with more cons...

There are a few niggling detail inconsistencies (e.g. price of KP listed as $1,099, $1,199 in the Conclusion, same as D7200, better than D7200). As an internal research writer I attribute it this to weak editing protocols. Overall though a fair review.

[monochrome]

Only when you are doing a stupid bike test using a tripod. Not the way AF is meant to be done at all. Handheld shooting following subjects is what you are supposed to be doing. That that gives hard to reproduce results is not our problem. It is real life use, not pseudo-scientific nonsense. Like emission tests on a roller bank .

They think they need to Order cameras, Score them, Rank them, and declare a 'Best' camera. The Real-World is subjective. A real-world-test conclusion can be argued, so they tried to devise a controlled test (like IR's bottle label, fabric and embroidery thread scene) that can be scored on % in focus captures.

This is how Ph.D.'s think.

Unfortunately their test, though somewhat repeatable (human rider, changing light conditions, changing clothing), is not representative of real-world use (too much white for color-assisted AF sensors, tripod mounting f/2.8 lenses, different lenses for different bodies, etc.) The information gathered is perhaps correct but not relevant and useful, and the test is not controlled because the testing equipment is not constant.

Therefore, since the test itself is flawed any conclusion drawn is invalid on its face.

A FAIL for the bicycle test. Shame, really.

[solar1]

I think S. Spencer did a very good review for the KP, excellent in fact.
He gave very high marks on a number of areas, including that the KP
comes close to the Nikon D750 in image quality. If that doesn't make your
jaw drop, what would?

The fact that Pentax is miserable for objects coming toward the lens
with a simple test of riding a bike at you, it's the same ol' and hasn't changed.

But posting pics of huge objects flying across frame
in one direction is totally different. Apologizing for Pentax ain't gonna help. Pentax had
quite a bit more than enough time to improve tracking, video, etc but they haven't.

Other than that, SS called out the best and worst of the camera, as he should and did.
The Kp is one hell of good picture taking machine.

[monochrome]

@solar1 The bicycle test is flawed. I'm not saying Pentax AF is perfect, but it can be used successfully. Any conclusions drawn from the bicycle test are invalid on their face.

[solar1]

@solar1 The bicycle test is flawed. I'm not saying Pentax AF is perfect, but it can be used successfully. Any conclusions drawn from the bicycle test are invalid on their face.

I don't agree. There are many times Pentax cameras either freeze or simply miss focus.
I don't see posters showing a simple bike riding weaving back and forth setup going toward the lens on either PF or DPR using similar tests.

Other brand cameras can do the very same test without a hitch

[D1N0]

other brand cameras can do the very same test without a hitch

Only pentax is bad the worst ever I tell you. I have never seen such a bad brand in my life. And all other brands are absolutely the best brand ever. Believe me I know. If you don't believe me just read my book! It is the best book ever, It has facts, my facts are the best facts ever. Read it!