[rboy]

I'm with codiac DPreview is definetly biased in their reviewing. What they have to fear from Pentax is a mystery to me - maybe phil askey is just a fanboy for the duopoly, who knows who cares.

I still don't get it. I've since purchased one, but for months I collected every review I could find and anyone who says P.A. is the only person who mentions some reservations and/or criticisms about the Pentax didn't do much checking out. It's been generally a very well reviewed camera, but practically all of Phil's negative comments were echoed elsewhere, and in all cases couched in context.

His remarks about the in-camera processing I basically agree with, having spent a month experimenting with it. He gives it a very good review conclusion, giving it a "Highly Recommended" rating.

I have no stake in anything, but did anyone bother to actually read it? What about all the other reviews that also said it was a great camera with pretty much the same qualifications P.A. writes?

Does he have preferences? Sure. So do I. "Fanboy for the duopoly?" What a lazy argument. Hardly.

---

Last edited by rboy; 05-25-2007 at 09:31 AM.

[Terry A.]

We have come too far from the original issue. We are talking about dpi settings in a photo editor and then in a web browser. The discussion is not about Word, desktop publishers, or any of that. It is not about a 72 dpi monitor or 96 dpi monitor because the viewer will be seeing both sample on the same monitor. Dpi does make a difference in some areas, just not this one.

If I take the same photo, open it in Photoshop, duplicate it, have one set at 72 dpi and the other at 300 dpi (without changing total pixel count), and then have Photoshop zoom both to "Actual Pixels" I will get the exact same view. Sorry, Word is not a photo editor and those of you who use it as such should get with the program.

If I cut them both down to 800 pixels wide to fit on a web page, leaving them at 72 and 300 dpi respectively, they will display exactly the same on the web page.

If you think that this is not the issue at hand, remember that we are talking about what Phil is doing, and this is exactly what he is doing. He has an image from one camera that comes out as 72 dpi and one from another camera that comes out at 240 dpi. He then sets both to 100% in Photoshop (Actual Pixels, not print size) and then resizes/crops for web.

Resolution is a tricky subjest to grasp, as is evidenced here. To expand on your experiment, duplicate the image ten times, change the dpi to ten different values, (without resampling) resize each to 800 pixels wide and check them at 100% in your photo editor (or post them on the web) and what do you have?....800 pixel wide images that all look the same.

[attack11]

it's never that simple, if a different app is doing the raw processing it can result in different resolutions which change the picture. i wouldn't get hung up on the dpi of the shots 'cause like it's been said multiple times it's irrelevant for a digital viewing if you have a proper control in place.

[mattdm]

right. the original gripe is valid because all cameras and file settings are not the same. regardless of the sensitivity difference of the sensor or the general lack of understanding of dpi; the fact that he doesn't test with a lens available on all systems and keeps the bodies at the same settings negates the validity of his results for comparison.

Lenses aren't exactly comparable from system to system either -- photozone.de, for example, goes to great lengths to point this out. But that doesn't mean the results aren't valid, since we're comparing whole systems anyway.

[Falcons]

Rboy - Remove your blinkers for just a second read my post again and then come back and tell me where I wrote this was about the K10D.

To give you a hint - I DIDN"T!

I don't take notice of pixel peeping tech geek reviews - unfortunately I am in the minority. Phil Askeys reviews of Pentax (thats all models) are generally biased IMO. Most reviews nowadays also seem to focus on techno babble - I'l bet you have been asked hundreds of times by people, How many MP's, How much zoom etc

As I said in my post I tend to support the underdog,it colours my judgement I suppose. And perhaps PHil Askey tends to support the favourites. Is he a fanboy for the duopoly - I think so and I think he has very good reasons $$$$$ to have supported the duopoly.

Anyway Rboy you say this is a lazy argument all I can say is at least I have an argument - You on the otherhand just resort to insults.

[Ash]

Hey guys,
Interested in the topic, but .. what is the argument really about?
There will probably always be bias - everyone always has his/her favourites.
And again, being a Pentax forum, this may not be the best gauge, but it's better than nothing:
If anyone has a Pentax and a Canon or Nikon dSLR of similar caliber and lenses (tall ask I'm sure), which do you think produces the best images?
The more people who can do this comparison, the less overall bias there would be...

[rboy]

Rboy - Remove your blinkers for just a second read my post again and then come back and tell me where I wrote this was about the K10D.

To give you a hint - I DIDN"T!

I spoke of the K10D because that's where I have experience as it relates to something I own, but my opinion of P.A.'s Pentax reviews hold for his whole list overall. They're not so different from the general reviewing world in bias, certainly not as far as holding products up to Canon/Nikon familiarity, and where they are I certainly wouldn't chalk it up to $$$$ as you do

I don't take notice of pixel peeping tech geek reviews - unfortunately I am in the minority. Phil Askeys reviews of Pentax (thats all models) are generally biased IMO. Most reviews nowadays also seem to focus on techno babble - I'l bet you have been asked hundreds of times by people, How many MP's, How much zoom etc

Then you need to take notice of them. Then you'd know the good ones are so much more than useless spec droning, after they mention the specs. Read past that and finish the reviews, then comment.

As I said in my post I tend to support the underdog,it colours my judgement I suppose. And perhaps PHil Askey tends to support the favourites. Is he a fanboy for the duopoly - I think so and I think he has very good reasons $$$$$ to have supported the duopoly.

Anyway Rboy you say this is a lazy argument all I can say is at least I have an argument - You on the otherhand just resort to insults.

I didn't insult you at all. Don't take it personally. The fact is that if you think what you've read about dpreview gives you enough knowledge about the site to say that money has caused biased reviews, you don't know enough. That makes it a lazy, unfounded accusation (barely qualified by "perhaps" and "I think", and please note I didn't call YOU lazy, just the argument). His personal bias causes biased reviews that are barely more biased than anyone else's. Read all those reviews you skip, as you've said, to find this out. You don't need to understand techno-babble to weigh in on this, but if you skip too much you ought to stay out of the debate. Again, this is not an insult, so don't take it as such.


If you could build up a site as well as Phil did, kept it a great destination for photographers of all kinds, and gotten the offer from Amazon, and refuse the offer on principle, then you can insult him like you have. You don't have enough information to make the kinds of remarks about $$$$ and bias you make.

[Falcons]

If anyone has a Pentax and a Canon or Nikon dSLR of similar caliber and lenses (tall ask I'm sure), which do you think produces the best images?
The more people who can do this comparison, the less overall bias there would be...

I suppose in my usual ham fisted way this is what I am alluding to - it all comes down to personal preference - as you say Ash "which do you THINK produces the best images? Current testing pioneered by Techno geeks like Phil Askey have placed emphasis on pixel peeping blow this crop up 100% put it under the microscope then confidently claim this camera produces the best images.
I always wonder what happened to the person who presses the button. Remember Phil Askey is not a professional Photographer.

I suppose it comes down to what you as an individual place importance on - some of the best photography I have ever seen was produced with a box with a hole in it.

And the best review I have seen was Luminous landscapes (a real photographer, who uses canon) of the K10D - that IMO is what a review should be about, how effective a tool it is for the job it is supposed to do not what a blown up crop looks like on a computer screen.

[carpents]

And the best review I have seen was Luminous landscapes (a real photographer, who uses canon) of the K10D...

Hmmmmmmph.

[Falcons]

Sorry wasn't including the excellent camera and lens reviews found on this site. Your review was most thorough and balanced.

[carpents]

Sorry wasn't including the excellent camera and lens reviews found on this site. Your review was most thorough and balanced.

LOL.

Thanks!

(PS - I need to update the review to include the incredibly excellent stuff added via firmware updates, like instantly selectable ISO. Unfortunately I think I should also mention some of the severe drawbacks, like the exposure problems with manual lenses.)

[Falcons]

It's a pity that no one has done a review of the best camera ever IMO - the *istDS.

I know it is not in the league of the K10D or even the original *istD - but for its market segment it was a camera that offered heaps more than the competion.

I would do it myself but I admit I am biased.

[chrisman]

And the best review I have seen was Luminous landscapes (a real photographer, who uses canon) of the K10D - that IMO is what a review should be about, how effective a tool it is for the job it is supposed to do not what a blown up crop looks like on a computer screen.

I also think the Luminous Landscape review was excellent - after all most of us use a camera to take photos of the world around us, not test cards.

I should also say that I bought my K10D after reading the DPR review - I thought it was fairly balanced. Every camera ever made has some less-than-perfect features - some more than others. I just like the way the K10D handles and the easy access to speed, aperture and ISO settings without having to mess around with menus, and I have not been disappointed with the quality of the images. The photographer could do with a major upgrade though.....

[Rupert]

Just stop, and go over to the nature photos and look at the bluebird I just posted at 1/20 500MM handheld. I see what my 10D does and forget all about Phil and anyone else.

[benjikan]

Just stop, and go over to the nature photos and look at the bluebird I just posted at 1/20 500MM handheld. I see what my 10D does and forget all about Phil and anyone else.

I have been avoiding this post for a long time. Why? Because of my obvious hostility towards Uncle Phil. This hostility never existed until, based on some rather key indicators and specific actions, Uncle Phil went over the line of "Apparent Objectivity" in to "Outright Favoritism" for the obvious competition. What do I derive my conclusions from? Let me say this. Uncle Phil is "Not" a photographer. He cannot take a photo. Now I'm sure you are thinking, yes he can, I have seen his photos. No, those are not photos. A photo "In My Not So Humble Opinion" implies a remnant of even subliminal forethought before pressing the shutter. That again "IMNSHO" does not seem to be the case with Uncle Phil. If you are not able to show even one remnant of talent with a tool how can one asses a product or the tool for creating the art form. It is the bases for all critiques. Film critics are highly evolved connoisseurs of the art form as are photo critics as are musical equipment critics. All of the music equipment critics are accomplished players and more importantly expressive players. My Dear Uncle Phil is none of the above.

His very subtle but incredibly damaging assessment of the K10D and his "JUST" word was what broke the camels back for me. I could not let this very subtle but effective "Marketing" aside pass without comment. Therefore I took the responsibility of making my own perhaps not so subtle stance of announcing the fact that even though Canon is a very good camera, I was migrating over to the Pentax brand. Now just as Uncle Phil decided to use the "Just" word which effectively diminished the "Highly Recommended" to "Highly Undesirable" to many potential customers, I did the same by stating, yes "I used Canon in the past and they are good 'BUT'", I am now switching to Pentax", which made Canon appear lesser than the shining star it was before I made the announcement. I am NOT saying that my announcement made a major dent in anyones opinion of Canon vs Pentax. That would be really bombastic on my part. But, I wanted to counter what Uncle Phil did by any possible means to prove that the K10D is as able as the "C" or "N" brands and I could prove it. Uncle Phil knew exactly what he was doing when he used the "Just" word and he also was cognoscente of the damage it would impart. That is what really "PISSED" me off.

If I was not a Pentax user but used the camera for review purposes and based on my opinion from my hands on experience, felt compelled to giving it a very good instead of an excellent that would be understandable. But that was not the case and it has passed quite admirably compared to the competition. Michel at "Luminous Landscape" another fellow Canuck, showed his true colors when he gave his assessment of the camera. His point of view was based on real hands on experience with the camera. Michel is an accomplished photographer and I have the greatest respect for him and his art.

It isn't the fact that it is a Pentax and I happen to be using it. It "IS" that the person who assessed this camera doesn't know how to express themselves with it. It would be like someone doing a "Drum" review who was comparing TAMA to DW or Gretch to Ludwig drums, but can't play the drums. Uncle Phil can't play the drums..In fact he is still learning how to hold the sticks.

Ben