[KiloHotelphoto]

A year ago people here loved that guy and always linked to his videos in support of Pentax, how things have changed.

[UncleVanya]

A year ago people here loved that guy and always linked to his videos in support of Pentax, how things have changed.

He had a rant or two where he said he wasn’t going to review Pentax anymore and then after a break he started trashing the brand at every opportunity because it’s getting eyeballs. To be fair his methods haven’t ever been transparent and his content has always been a bit strange.

[2351HD]

Then look at this:

Attachment 561311




In the past I would have ditched this pic as soon as I looked at it: but now that I have started playing with DxO's Photolab 5, I realize just how much can be retrieved.

This looks really promising. Would you have a raw file you could share with me to play around with?

Thanks

[biz-engineer]

A year ago people here loved that guy and always linked to his videos in support of Pentax, how things have changed.

That's normal behavior for the average human being.

[repaap]

Yeah! I’v been playing around with K-3III shadows too, and it is very good. I’m not going to even look at that video. K-3III can get similar to even better results than K-1, really. When you think about that for a while, how much more would one need from crop body…

[AfterPentax Mark II]

I cannot believe that there is anybody out there that still believes this person or persons. (If Cameraville is trashing one brand, you cannot take the positive remarks of other brands as serious.)

[Rondec]

A year ago people here loved that guy and always linked to his videos in support of Pentax, how things have changed.

I don't think people "loved him." I do think Pentaxians are pleased when someone pays attention to them. But this particular guy has certain things he focuses on a lot (focus breathing?) and once he finds one of them then he can't get off of it to see anything else about a particular camera body or lens.

[Stefan Jr]

For what I've seen, which isn't much I admit, "the CameraVille" seem to praise the KP a lot.

So it's not all "bad Pentax".

[house]

I suggest a K-3 III owner share a brutally under exposed raw so that people can make up their own mind. Should be a simple thing to get hold of a raw like that.

Remember that the software used as well as modules activated may influence the results. When Cameraville did the K-1, Sony, Canon comparison several of the competitors showed similar odd behaviour. It was then concluded that the K-1 was the best ever. It may well be that lightroom or it's settings influenced the end result in a bad way for some of the models in that test as well. Because as others have mentioned Cameraville is not the place to go to for careful, well described, tests. The DA*11/18 vs Fuji ultrawide zoom had lots of very strange stuff going on. That time clearly in Pentax favour. The host just doesn't seem to understand what he's looking at.

[Madaboutpix]

I want to know what settings he is using in the raw converter.

Yeah. Couple of slips with his pinky finger and, voilà, K-3 III looks decidedly crappy ... Sorry, but I'm so past being able to take that Cameraville guy even remotely seriously. Not that he ever brought much rigour to his there-you-got-it "findings" in the first place, but there used to be a time when he was at least getting the Pentax brand some (even positive) attention. Meanwhile, we're in constant-cringe land.

[BigMackCam]

A year ago people here loved that guy and always linked to his videos in support of Pentax, how things have changed.

Not me... it's three or four years since I first saw one of his videos and decided his presenting style and poor approach to testing weren't for me... and that's when he was pro-Pentax...

[Rondec]

Not me... it's three or four years since I first saw one of his videos and decided his presenting style and poor approach to testing weren't for me... and that's when he was pro-Pentax...

I think what we really want is balanced information. Don't make mountains out of molehills but be honest both about strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, it seems as though reviewers tend to be either too strongly one way or the other. There is no perfect lens out there or camera body for that matter, but the key has more to do with identifying where or who the gear is going to work best for.

Of course, moderation is seldom rewarded on the interwebs and it isn't surprising that the most strident voices are the ones that get shared and reposted.

[normhead]

Not me... it's three or four years since I first saw one of his videos and decided his presenting style and poor approach to testing weren't for me... and that's when he was pro-Pentax...

After every one of his videos, I always wondered, "did he really prove his point?" He always had evidence.... but it seemed to me often his evidence was a long way from a proof.

It really was nice to have someone ranting about Pentax in a good way given all the negative BS, but bottom line, positive BS is still BS.

[ThorSanchez]

I suggest a K-3 III owner share a brutally under exposed raw so that people can make up their own mind. Should be a simple thing to get hold of a raw like that.

Remember that the software used as well as modules activated may influence the results. When Cameraville did the K-1, Sony, Canon comparison several of the competitors showed similar odd behaviour. It was then concluded that the K-1 was the best ever. It may well be that lightroom or it's settings influenced the end result in a bad way for some of the models in that test as well. Because as others have mentioned Cameraville is not the place to go to for careful, well described, tests. The DA*11/18 vs Fuji ultrawide zoom had lots of very strange stuff going on. That time clearly in Pentax favour. The host just doesn't seem to understand what he's looking at.

Here is a folder with four K-3 Mark III DNG files, each underexposed something like three stops as per the camera's indications. Just some random things around my house. The folder also includes jpegs processed in RawTherapee, three of them pulled up three stops, the one numbered 6718 was pulled about two and then shadows also pulled up. The one at ISO 100 (6719) also had shadows pulled up in addition to the three stops of exposure compensation.

I don't see any issue with the camera's dynamic range, I'd have no problem using those pictures. Pulling an ISO 400 shot three stops should be about like ISO 3200, and those look pretty clean to me without much loss in dynamic range or addition of noise. But there are the files for anyone who wants to play with them.

[beholder3]

Has anybody here tested this?

The Imaging Ressource provides raw files of a comparable test target for both the Pentax K-3 III and multiple other models.
So if you are interested, you can do any comparison yourself and do not need to waste time with advertising videos.


Spoiler:
You'll easily find out the Cameraville obviously is a mix of incompetent and/or liar. Not that this is rare with internet-advertising-speakers.