Originally posted by luftfluss These are the Lenstip folks, and unfortunately they don't translate their camera tests from Polish to English.
Er, which is probably not all that great a loss to the photography world, in my humble opinion.
I used to read their tests and conclusions with casual to medium interest, but after they had essentially trashed a whole array of Pentax classics like the DA21, DA15, and FA31 Limiteds, it dawned on me that their laboratory assessments had little relevance to the fun and the aesthetic appeal of the photographic results that could be had with those lenses. Concepts like rendering, microcontrast, 3-D pop, and human sensory evaluation of actual photographs are completely lost on those folks, as is the case with many laboratory testers.
As for their Pentax camera reviews, I can't really comment on them because I've read so few of them. From the translation of their conclusions on the K-3 III, I get the impression that they may not even be fundamentally wrong about Pentax DSLRs no longer competing with the most modern designs on the market, as it would only mirror what Ricoh representatives have stated themselves (think: brand mission videos etc.). It is more the implied backwardness and inferiority of something like the K-3 III as a photographic tool that I take exception to, I guess. When I'm interested in the K-3 III as a gear proposition, it doesn't really matter to me whether it outperforms the D500. What I'm interested in is more if Ricoh has released a camera that is fast and focus-grabbing enough to give me reasonable keeper rates for action, sports, and wildlife, and if there are somehow affordable lenses in the pipeline that can keep up with those capabilities. And shockingly enough, at the end of the day, significantly better high ISO and the refined OVF might matter at least as much to me as the AF improvements.