[Pentax_XTC]

The point is that you can view both these articles on the Pop Photo website. Anyone looking to get into a DSLR system would be confused by the stark contrast of the 2 conflicting reviews.

[Rich_A]

The point is that you can view both these articles on the Pop Photo website. Anyone looking to get into a DSLR system would be confused by the stark contrast of the 2 conflicting reviews.

You have a good point if someone buys a camera based only on the recommendations from a couple of crappy magazine reviews. I don't know anyone who has purchased a camera based on Pop Photo's recommendations (at least no one with any common sense). Sites like The Online Photographer, DPReview, and CameraLabs seem to have far better reputations than the magazines you mentioned, at least among serious photographers.

[res3567]

I was disappointed by both tests in that issue. Besides the K7 they also tested the Nikon D300s and also found it wanting. In fact they seemed to indicate that maybe the D300s wasn't up to some of the qualities of the lesser Nikon D90.

PP and Modern Photography back in the '60's and '70's produced very detailed, thorough tests that went on for detailed page after page. I felt that by the time I read a test I knew everything about the camera.

These tests were brief and as I said before I was disappointed by both the tests of the Nikon 300s and the K7.

Although I subscribe to PP I find it's not the same magazine as it was in the late Bert Keppler's day.

I found much more detailed, informative tests in Dpreview.

The people that read reviews are generally very knowledgeable, camera aficionados and as such have great expectations.

Brief doesn't appeal.

It looks they are trying to save money. They haven't been in the news stands in the Houston area in quite a while. Back in June I got a letter offering me a year long subscription for $7.00. Unfortunately, I missed the deadline; got to busy at work. I saw the new issue with the review of the K7 and the new Nikon D300s, and the Canon 7D finally at a relatives and it has changed quite a bit. They offered him two free subcriptions with his renewel and he put me down as one.

You have a good point if someone buys a camera based only on the recommendations from a couple of crappy magazine reviews. I don't know anyone who has purchased a camera based on Pop Photo's recommendations (at least no one with any common sense). Sites like The Online Photographer, DPReview, and CameraLabs seem to have far better reputations than the magazines you mentioned, at least among serious photographers.

I used PP to get my K10D because of the detailed test and I have a ton of common sense.

[Rich_A]

I used PP to get my K10D because of the detailed test and I have a ton of common sense.

I apologize. I did overstate my criticism. I shouldn't have made a blanket statement like that. My apologies.

With that said, I have to stop short of defending Pop Photo. They appear to be more interested in pleasing their advertisers than giving independent equipment reviews. Check this "unbiased" love fest for the Tamron 18-270mm:
Virtual Lens Lab

I mean, I'm sure it's a decent lens but I think the video looks more like a paid advertisement by Tamron than an objective equipment review. We're talking about a $600 dollar lens here! Where does it talk about alternatives? Where are its shortcomings? How about different lighting conditions? AF speed? Or maybe we should just plunk down our $600 on a brand new lens 'cause it's takes real perty snapshots.

There's simply no comparing this kind of approach to the testing DPReview does with their reviews.
Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC Lens Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

A quote from the DPReview review:

The 18-270mm VC uses a small micro-motor for autofocus, and this is the weakest point of the design. It feels rather sluggish when compared to either Nikon or Canon's 18-200mm lenses, although to be fair the motor is at least reasonably quiet (although not silent like the Nikon's AF-S motor). On the bodies used for testing (Nikon D300 and D90) AF performance was relatively slow and sometimes extremely indecisive, especially at telephoto, presumably hindered by that slow maximum aperture (most autofocus systems are only specified to work reliably with lenses that are F5.6 or brighter).

I think that's a pretty significant issue to discuss for a $600 lens! No mention of anything like that on PopPhoto. Just mediocre, vanilla compliments that appease their advertisers.

[Pentax_XTC]

With that said, I have to stop short of defending Pop Photo. They appear to be more interested in pleasing their advertisers than giving independent equipment reviews. Check this "unbiased" love fest for the Tamron 18-270mm:
Virtual Lens Lab

I mean, I'm sure it's a decent lens but I think the video looks more like a paid advertisement by Tamron than an objective equipment review. We're talking about a $600 dollar lens here! Where does it talk about alternatives? Where are its shortcomings? How about different lighting conditions? AF speed? Or maybe we should just plunk down our $600 on a brand new lens 'cause it's takes real perty snapshots.

Funny that you mention this because Pentax took out a full page ad in both Pop Photo and American Photo for the K7. I guess they haven't been big advertisers for long enough.

[res3567]

I apologize. I did overstate my criticism. I shouldn't have made a blanket statement like that. My apologies.

No big deal; but I will say PP has changed over the last 6 months. The lab reports are shorter than they use to be. It looks as if they are changing with the times and I thought they did not have to. I read an reread the detailed report on the K10D and they gave it all of the good high marks for back then. They have since "upgraded" their lab specifications to reflect new technology. What was "excellent " back then is only "extremely" high or" high" now. I researched other reviews but I used PP as a deciding factor to purchase my K10D. I dunno, with the passing of Herbert Keppler....... seems the Pentax reviews.......the K7 review was medicore.............?

[Rich_A]

Funny that you mention this because Pentax took out a full page ad in both Pop Photo and American Photo for the K7. I guess they haven't been big advertisers for long enough.

That's a fair point. I don't really have a response other than to ask for the overall rating of the camera? Did it receive a below average review? Have you ever seen a review that was below average for any lens or camera? I'm curious since I can't recall ever seeing one. I don't subscribe anymore so I might be offbase on this.

The lab reports are shorter than they use to be. It looks as if they are changing with the times and I thought they did not have to. I read an reread the detailed report on the K10D and they gave it all of the good high marks for back then. They have since "upgraded" their lab specifications to reflect new technology. What was "excellent " back then is only "extremely" high or" high" now. I researched other reviews but I used PP as a deciding factor to purchase my K10D. I dunno, with the passing of Herbert Keppler....... seems the Pentax reviews.......the K7 review was medicore.............?

I read somewhere recently that they are reformatting their articles to increase the fonts and graphics to reduce the amount of author-generated content needed for an article, thereby reducing the expense of each article. I heard this second hand but it seems feasible with a rapidly collapsing print / publishing market. Creating unique content would seem to be what gave them a strategic advantage historically. Seems sad to see them make a decision to go in the opposite direction. Moving content online to compete with DPReview seems quite feasible for them given their amazing advertising base. They could offer subscription-based content and transition to online like the Wallstreet Journal did.

[res3567]

I read somewhere recently that they are reformatting their articles to increase the fonts and graphics to reduce the amount of author-generated content needed for an article, thereby reducing the expense of each article. I heard this second hand but it seems feasible with a rapidly collapsing print / publishing market. Creating unique content would seem to be what gave them a strategic advantage historically. Seems sad to see them make a decision to go in the opposite direction. Moving content online to compete with DPReview seems quite feasible for them given their amazing advertising base. They could offer subscription-based content and transition to online like the Wallstreet Journal did.

That thaught crossed my mind as well but I didn't want to beieve it. They used to show highlights of issues back in time from 25 and 50 years ago and I thought the were powerfull enough to withstand the publishing industry being devoured by he internet. It seems I was wrong. I wasn't trying to be harsh;..... going through some things right now. I applaud your honest opinion and sincerity in your posts!

[Jodokast96]

This months issue has a letter from the editor stating a lot of changes they are making. Personally, I think they all suck. Reading this mag is now a dream come true for those with ADD. Sidebars, topbars, bottombars, insets, outsets, you name it, it's there, seemingly all on a single page. I used to enjoy not having to flip to the back of the mag to finish an article from page 18, but that is no longer the case. Looking through the list of contributors, editors, etc. compared to just a year ago, it seems there are some names no longer there, and it's showing.

*EDIT*
Actually, it appears as of June to be under new ownership. Previously they were published by Hachette Filipacchi Media U.S., a division of Lagardere SCA. Now they are part of the Bonnier Corporation. From their website http://www.bonniercorp.com/news/bonnier-corp-acquires-five-magazine-brands-f...000072410.html

[Pentax_XTC]

I think with all of the changes I'm just going to let my subscription run out. I will keep the American Photo subscription though, as I enjoy the photography that is included. Pop Photo seems to be a catalog of ads more than showing photography lately.

[mrpackerguy]

Really no different to me than Roger Ebert saying he liked a movie I didn't.

[Canada_Rockies]

Outdoor Photography put a banner on the cover:

Pentax is Back!

referring to the K-7 with a pretty positive first look inside.

Shutterbug has a rave review of the K2000 in the November 2009 edition, and it is pretty exhaustive, with lots of comparative pictures. Pages 116-125. No Pentax advertising except by camera stores.