[johnyeros]

lol, i love reading these.. here's my 2 cent.

Ben + K10D = pro photographer.
Ricehigh + Whatever + canon 5d = still sucks and hate by many..

Btw, how are you testing all these equipment? do you buy them?

[ChrisA]

When His work is featured in National Geographic then I might listen. But to date I've never seen one decent shot from a $200 kit or a $7000 kit. Prove you can shoot to me first before I take anything you say seriously.

Incidentally, this stance is also altogether unhelpful.

It's like saying someone whose job is to measure the quality of paint, needs to be an artist like Leonardo da Vinci, else his measurements should not be taken seriously.

It may well be the case, that at least some of RH's investigations are flawed. It may also be the case, and I believe it to be so, that his comparisons between Pentax cameras and much more expensive ones are inappropriate.

However, if people feel the need to defend Pentax from his alleged attacks (and frankly, I don't see the point), then a more reasoned, factual approach would be better than what I often see here.

[Gimbal]

The test wasn't done by RH, yet he is blamed when the result is less then positive.
So the SDM motor on that lens is slower then the built in motor, deal with it, it's not RHs fault.

[lol101]

lol, i love reading these.. here's my 2 cent.

Ben + K10D = pro photographer.
Ricehigh + Whatever + canon 5d = still sucks and hate by many..

Btw, how are you testing all these equipment? do you buy them?

He doesn't need to test anything: he reads forums

Understand him, he only wants Pentax to get better and better, so his way of helping is trying to fnd any post on the web that shows that something is not working (or that HE thinks should work differently) and repost them in his blog (and here ).

BTW RH, what if the differences in AF speed between screw driven AF and SDM only meant that screw driven AF on the K10 is ultra fast?

Nah! I'm just kiddin', this SDM thing just takes forever to focus

[Maxington]

Incidentally, this stance is also altogether unhelpful.

It's like saying someone whose job is to measure the quality of paint, needs to be an artist like Leonardo da Vinci, else his measurements should not be taken seriously.

Well, actually I think its more like if your job is to review cars, you really should know how to drive one.

Would you trust a car review from a guy who put it up on a dyno, read through the specs but never actually took it out for a drive?

Or worse, he took it out for a drive and he's a terrible driver and backed into a pole?

Thats the problem with Ricehigh, he niggles constantly about minor issues, but never takes the whole machine out for a run. The camera is more than a sum of its parts. Its a whole unit.

But anyway, I might publish a shootout test with full sized photos for the following in the future, if I can still manage to do one:

I think it would be interesting to see any kind of photo from RH. Other than the occassional photo of some scale or chart.

I don't personally believe that RH has ever taken a photograph with any camera.

Maybe he(?) would honor us with a link to his(?) gallery.

Ah Yes... Here's what we need on a Saturday morning.

A blog link to s Psuedo test of some sort posted by a wannabe expert and the ensuing flamefest.

I have to hand it to Ricehigh, he is the connsummate troll.

Now, I am going out and take a series of Photographs at a Mustang show. That is, after all, what my camera is for.

---

Last edited by Ed in GA; 10-27-2007 at 08:35 AM.

[ChrisA]

if your job is to review cars, you really should know how to drive one.

This is certainly true, but it's different from what's going on here....because in the context of your question:

Would you trust a car review from a guy who put it up on a dyno, read through the specs but never actually took it out for a drive?

Not a car review, no. But if all I was interested in was power output, and he was suitably qualified, and his method was sound, then absolutely yes.

To extrapolate anything other than that from such a limited test - like the real-world driveability of the car - would, of course, be entirely invalid.

But the paint-quality tester in my example is not employed to talk about art. He's employed to report detail such as viscosity coefficients, reflectivity, resistance to wear, drying time in air at a variety of humidity levels, and other rarefied, erm, measurebations.

Correspondingly, in the camera industry, such boring things as these are important, and you can be quite sure that Pentax, as well as all the other manufacturers, employ people like this, for the specific purpose of getting repeatable, precise, accurate results.

Quite honestly, I don't want Pentax to employ people who can capture beautiful portraits and landscapes to do this. Of course we want the brilliant, creative types on the design team, but for quality control I want them to employ careful, methodical, systematic people who measure things in a scientifically sound, repeatable way, and who enjoy doing so.

Happily, there's room in the world for both types.

But it's important to argue composition with the creative types, and milliseconds and microns with the measurebators. And not to criticise the one, for not being able to do the other's job.

[Maxington]

This is certainly true, but it's different from what's going on here....because in the context of your question:


Not a car review, no. But if all I was interested in was power output, and he was suitably qualified, and his method was sound, then absolutely yes.

To extrapolate anything other than that from such a limited test - like the real-world driveability of the car - would, of course, be entirely invalid.

Except thats what is being done here, the AF speed of a camera is being extrapolated from the speed of the motor. Its like extrapolating the speed of a car based on the horsepower of the engine. Very close analogy too, gearing and electronics and whatnot all kick in.

By itself, this test means nothing.

[d.bradley]

Is there any reason why I had to go through RH's blog to get to the DPreview link? Why not just post the link to DPreview here?

[ChrisA]

Except thats what is being done here, the AF speed of a camera is being extrapolated from the speed of the motor. Its like extrapolating the speed of a car based on the horsepower of the engine. Very close analogy too, gearing and electronics and whatnot all kick in.

By itself, this test means nothing.

Quite so, as I observed earlier. Here's what I said:

Certainly, assuming that limit-to-limit timings of a lens drive with a lens cap on is necessarily any indication of actual focus speed is a childishly facile piece of experimental design, and it may be that much of RH's so-called measurebation is equally flawed.

However, it remains the case that you don't have to be able to take great pictures to be qualified to make measurements, and to insist on this as some are doing is absurd.

If someone measures some value or other, and then draws a conclusion that does not follow from the results, he should be challenged on the basis of his poor scientific method.

Not on the grounds that he hasn't posted any good photographs.

[ChrisA]

Except thats what is being done here, the AF speed of a camera is being extrapolated from the speed of the motor.

By the way, it's even worse than this.

The AF speed of a camera is being extrapolated from the speed of the motor, measured only in one specific way.

It hasn't even been shown that that measurement is a valid way of measuring the maximum speed of the motor. It may be, of course, but the experiment doesn't show it in itself

I despise bad science. But I'd rather bash the bad science, than bash some alleged inability to take pictures, which is completely irrelevant. Even if he had had his work published in National Geographic, it wouldn't make the science right.

[benjikan]

I am appalled at the way this forum is so selectively tolerant of offensive language.

A newbie joins up, and people are falling over themselves to say how friendly it is here.

Yet RH posts, and is instantly lynched. The nastiness of the tone in which his respondents post is in my view completely incompatible with a friendly, civilised environment. Yet such lynchings appear to be acceptable to the moderators.

Regardless of how unpopular someone's posts are, they should either be addressed reasonably, or not responded to.

I'm neither defending, nor attacking RH. I don't find his posts irritating, since I'm able to take from them the content I find interesting, and disregard what I do not.

But I find the typical swarm of nasty responses most unpleasant, and its apparent acceptability equally so.

I totally agree..

Ben

[NaClH2O]

You are 1 consumer, there are other consumers like you, but then there are also consumer like me, who can afford a Pentax around the $2000 mark. And we are not saying they should only have $2000 dollar cameras, we are saying that if you are using the k10d and its great but you want something better and you realize that that will take more money and are prepared for that, then there should be a camera available for that.

if htey expanded from k100d, k10d to k100d, k10d, k1d. would that cause a problem for you? There are more people in the world than you, you know

Why should it cause a problem for me? If you want a $2k camera than why don't you buy an expensive Canon or Nikon rather than pissing and moaning that Pentax doesn't sell one? I was commenting on the fact that RH seems to think it's a BAD THING that Pentax doesn't have a $2k camera, all I'm saying is that it ain't necessarily so. If you have the money you can buy what you want. Since I don't, I'll more than make do (and be happy with) what I can get. There is nothing wrong in searching for "bang for the buck" and IMHO Pentax, with it's K10D and K100D provide that. My first camera was a Pentax K1000 many many years ago. I got it because it was what I could afford. Was it as nice as the Nikon that cost 5X? No. Did I get good pictures out of it? Yes. Did I have fun taking pictures with it? Yes. Case closed.

NaCl(sometimes you get what you need)H2O

[roentarre]

So SDM is slower or faster comparing to FA version?