[Maxington]

Okay, I will amend the statement to "AF driving speed" from "AF speed" by adding one word. However, you query of dishonesty or "outright incompetence" on me is somehow over the top I think. I have provided all the source information for you and any readers on the net to judge the whole story. How come you should impose such a strong accuse to me personally even if the short sentences I wrote are not perfect?

Its not over the top, your blog posts are specifically worded to attack Pentax, and blithely ignore evidence to the contrary, just as you ignored my last post. Look at your latest blog entry, "Hoya to DISMISS Pentax by this Financial Year end" Dismiss? And as pointed out, look at the title for this thread. You know exactly what you are typing, and its not balanced or scientific in any way. Its operating from a pre-conceived conclusion then cherry-picking the data you want to support it while ignoring data that doesn't. A massive scientific no-no, and a credibility destroying blunder.

Nice work on ignoring my last post, glad you want to discuss technical issues as you stated. The post pointed out:

Travel time does not correlate to AF speed. (Easily testable by anyone, give it a try)
It is unknown whether lens motors operate at max speed when hunting.
It is unknown whether operating at fast speeds when hunting is a benefit or not, even Canon USM lenses don't look like they do it.

SDM might be slower in AF, it might be faster. This test proves nothing either way. Claiming it does, as you have, is dishonest. ChrisA has already pointed this out better than I could.

(Okay, I think I shall stop here on the point and if you want to discuss further on the technical issue, it will still be welcomed)

Your defense when caught out lying is that you don't want to talk about it anymore? A retraction and apology would help your credibility, rather than just altering your blog and erasing the evidence. Lucky you aren't a journalist eh?

[frank]

PErsonally I wish I could afford a DA* 500-135 to test that idea out on.

There are many happy owners of this lens already, just buy the lens if you can spare the cash. It's a great lens, I'm sure you'd love it

[Rico]

Wow this thread was started on Oct 27 and now is 9 pages long.

Kudos the Pro Troll strikes again.

Bottoms up. Sake all around.

[philmorley]

I found this experiment to be quite interesting and the results and conclusion are rather disappointing though:-

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Lack of Speed of the SDM

As this experiment or the recorded video has not been reported or quoted before here, I opt to share this information with all you guys, especially for those who has planned to acquire the new SDM lens(es) to be used on the K10D or the K100D Super. Anyway, I hope newer version of the Pentax SDM lenses can have improved faster and stronger SDM some days later, hopefully. Or, at least for new lens model(s) which are to be equipped with the SDM, this problem shall be eliminated.

Why do you bother? Why don't you sell your pentax gear and invest into canon and go out and have good time and take pics and not look back? accept that you were not happy with pentax, that pentax's offerings were up your standard and move on.

Your fixation with trying to put down everything pentax does, really can't be healthy, and really doesn't do you any favours, your credibility is extremely low and most people are not interested in what you say.

Personally, not long after it was released I ruled out the DS because of yours and others comments about it (soft jpegs, poor metering etc etc) on dpreview. I then picked one at a bargain price (thinking if it is no good it will go to ebay) when I got it I quickly realised how far ahead of me this camera was.

It was my first SLR/DSLR, yet within 12 months I made 3-4x what I had paid for it. The images from it still sell, they make for me the DS's purchase price about every 2-3 weeks. It never let me down, every crap photo was the photographer not the camera.

As such I have ignored everything you have said since not long after buying it in 2005.

Do yourself a favour, forget Pentax and move on

[lol101]

I found this experiment to be quite interesting and the results and conclusion are rather disappointing though:-

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Lack of Speed of the SDM

As this experiment or the recorded video has not been reported or quoted before here, I opt to share this information with all you guys, especially for those who has planned to acquire the new SDM lens(es) to be used on the K10D or the K100D Super. Anyway, I hope newer version of the Pentax SDM lenses can have improved faster and stronger SDM some days later, hopefully. Or, at least for new lens model(s) which are to be equipped with the SDM, this problem shall be eliminated.

There has been an interesting (?) addition to the original "sdm test" thread:

My own focus test: DRebXT 17-85mm vs. K10D 18-55mm: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

(Sorry RiceHigh, I prefer linking to the original thread...

[Mallee Boy]

There has been an interesting (?) addition to the original "sdm test" thread:

My own focus test: DRebXT 17-85mm vs. K10D 18-55mm: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

(Sorry RiceHigh, I prefer linking to the original thread...

Good pick up 101.
Oh dear..what now? an unreserved retraction? an apology? or perhaps a recognition that quoting subjective tests (by the testers own admissions) is just a waste of everyones time.....????

[ChrisA]

A retraction and apology would help your credibility, rather than just altering your blog and erasing the evidence. Lucky you aren't a journalist eh?

He wasn't quite quick enough. I saved the original version.

Editing a report like this, without adding an annotation to explain why the edit was made, and indeed adding references to the discussion that led to the edits, is certainly an example of what I would categorise as intellectual dishonesty.

The thing that makes it so, in my opinion, is that although it's called a blog, it carries with it a quasi-scientific illusion of authority. To be credible, it needs to be subject to at least some of the rigour that would be applied to a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

Incidentally, this applies just as much to scientific reviews (which you might say this is, since it cites the original work published on DPR), as it does to original research.

To be credible, it needs to be subject to at least some of the rigour that would be applied to a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

I wish peer-reviewed scientific papers had a little bit more of rigour, many of them are plain and simple scientific noise.

Incidentally, this applies just as much to scientific reviews (which you might say this is, since it cites the original work published on DPR), as it does to original research.

Amen

[jeffkrol]

Its not over the top, your blog posts are specifically worded to attack Pentax, and blithely ignore evidence to the contrary, just as you ignored my last post. Look at your latest blog entry, "Hoya to DISMISS Pentax by this Financial Year end" Dismiss? And as pointed out, look at the title for this thread. You know exactly what you are typing, and its not balanced or scientific in any way. Its operating from a pre-conceived conclusion then cherry-picking the data you want to support it while ignoring data that doesn't. A massive scientific no-no, and a credibility destroying blunder.

Nice work on ignoring my last post, glad you want to discuss technical issues as you stated. The post pointed out:

Travel time does not correlate to AF speed. (Easily testable by anyone, give it a try)
It is unknown whether lens motors operate at max speed when hunting.
It is unknown whether operating at fast speeds when hunting is a benefit or not, even Canon USM lenses don't look like they do it.

SDM might be slower in AF, it might be faster. This test proves nothing either way. Claiming it does, as you have, is dishonest. ChrisA has already pointed this out better than I could.



Your defense when caught out lying is that you don't want to talk about it anymore? A retraction and apology would help your credibility, rather than just altering your blog and erasing the evidence. Lucky you aren't a journalist eh?

Come on guys from RH's blog "Now, the truth has been revealed again with solid evidence"...Halleluya.. go tell it on the mountain..... SOLID evidence
How can you argue w/ that?????
Oh and if you believe this Nikon expert (personal correspondence w/ an expert who doesn't see 18% grey. Don't worry if you don't understand this, RH SHOULD know who it is) "With a USM motor you can reliably predict how far to move it and a good phase detection AF system should know how far it wants to move things. Nikon and Canon maintain tables in the cameras about lenses, too" THEN giving a USM "system" a BLACK featureless starting point could or would hobble the whole system, racking speed aside.
So 1) I conclude that the original test is INVALID and 2)And IF you think the test conditions are valid, the Canon is a DOG against a screw drive. When will Canon ever do anything right?
Let's not forget the recall of the MkIII's:
For the Canon Digital Rebel XT with 17-85 USM IS:
1.766s
1.913s
1.839s
average = 1.839s

For the Pentax K10D with 18-55mm kit lens:
1.372s
1.219s
1.317s
average = 1.303s

What's the conclusion? For this particular test, the Pentax kit lens mounted to the K10D is significantly faster than the Canon 17-85mm with ring USM by 1/2 a second!!!
Don't take this too serious folks......but for even some more insight into RH, see this thread where he attempts to bait Klaus into admitting a centering defect w/ the tested Pentax zoom.... too transparent and funny. BTW, if you read a lot of what Klaus say's centering defects are quite common on all brands....especially those w/ AS as of course decentering is how you correct for shake.
Show Message

[Falcons]

Wow, from the hammering I received from some on here for using the word twit some of those same people have certainly changed their tune with terms such as liar, fraudulent, dishonest etc.

Now what happened to embracing Ricehigh with open arms to our community and thanking him for sharing his opinions along with treating him with the respect he deserves.

Yeah I know - it's pretty obvious that being called a twit is a lot worse than being called a dishonest fraudulent liar with no credibility what so ever.

But hey apparently I'm rude so what would I know.

I still maintain that the motives behind running his blog are suspicious or just sheer twittery take your pick. One day I will be able to afford a camera that uses SDM and a SDM lens to go with it and discover for myself whether it is faster or not.

My last say on this matter - I promise. Ricehigh has new friends to play with now so I'll let them bond.

[anomaly]

RiceHigh, why don't you compare to the XTI or D80? That is the group that the K10D was made to compete with.

[jeffkrol]

Thank you Ricehigh for your most informative expression of your opinion and the facts regarding Pentax auto focus speed.

I personally didn't understand a word of it but I am sure that many of the more knowledgeable contributors to this forum will be in bewildered wonderment at your contribution as well as thrilled with your concise reporting of the facts.

I have seen the error of my ways and wish to thank all those who pointed out my very naughty behaviour, I am reformed and will show ricehigh the courtesy and respect he deserves for his selfless contribution to the betterment of Pentax.

Through his consistent exposing of the irrefutable scientifically sound factual evidence that proves Pentax is inferior we must applaud this saint, ricehigh, for ensuring the world is warned of the dangers of a slow AF system and the damage it can cause.

Once again Thank you Ricehigh.

Seems you recovered from your "illness" brought on by the above thread......
That's how it goes in RH land, love em, hate em... it can turn on a dime...
I actually have tried to ignore anything he says but....it's ...so...darn... HARD.
And to RH I'm still waiting for those side by side exposure tests w/ the 100 vs 5d: won't post the link that this comes from but it's at his blog.
> Anonymous said...
> you have a Canon and a k100. Is it so difficult to take the same picture w/ each camera?

Good idea and actually I have already done that shortly after I got my 5D in June. Do you want to have a new blog entry on that? I'm sure I shall take more new pairs of comparison shots and post more photos here when I write this article.

August 31, 2007 4:09 PM
STILL waiting for those side by side exposure shots between the Canon and Pentax... (edit for the more sensitive types) ... or is it more excuses again..

September 08, 2007 3:04 PM

Wow, from the hammering I received from some on here for using the word twit some of those same people have certainly changed their tune with terms such as liar, fraudulent, dishonest etc.

Now what happened to embracing Ricehigh with open arms to our community and thanking him for sharing his opinions along with treating him with the respect he deserves.

Yeah I know - it's pretty obvious that being called a twit is a lot worse than being called a dishonest fraudulent liar with no credibility what so ever.

But hey apparently I'm rude so what would I know.

I still maintain that the motives behind running his blog are suspicious or just sheer twittery take your pick. One day I will be able to afford a camera that uses SDM and a SDM lens to go with it and discover for myself whether it is faster or not.

My last say on this matter - I promise. Ricehigh has new friends to play with now so I'll let them bond.

In a perfect world, nobody should be called a liar or a dishonest person until it is proved. I think that it has been proved so I dont see an insult but a fact. To call somebody twit by a premonition (even if it is somehow an easy prediction) is something different. At any case, this is not a court nor I am a judge so please feel free to continue.

[ChrisA]

Wow, from the hammering I received from some on here for using the word twit some of those same people have certainly changed their tune with terms such as liar, fraudulent, dishonest etc.

This is obviously a dig at me, so I'll respond.

I distinguish between angry abuse (of which 'twit' is actually one of the more minor examples I've seen here) and a considered and impersonal debunking of groundless allegations.

We've seen how angry, personalised tirades lose their own credibility, by getting so carried away with emotion that facts get missed. And quite apart from that, people that do nothing but shout and yell just sound ridiculous, and do nothing to further the cause - quite the reverse, in fact, as I've commented. The endless tiresome sarcasm some use in their approach is also unhelpful, in my view.

However, none of this excludes a reasoned and emphatic demolition of poor science.

But it should be argued sensibly and be facts-based.

The endless tiresome sarcasm some use in their approach is also unhelpful, in my view.

Endless sarcasm can be as tiring as extreme rightfulness, in my view.:ugh: