[Christine Tham]

Most off base conclusions I have seen in a long time...: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Interesting quote from the above thread:

Don't expect any retractions from PF though - its not in the cards from that author.

I have also read mostly critical comments on the "review" elsewhere. It saddens me that this website is suffering from a poor reputation as a result of this "review."

Suggestion: perhaps it may be wise to retract the article or at least amend it to avoid further reputational damage?

---

Last edited by Christine Tham; 03-04-2014 at 03:00 PM.

[Rondec]

Interesting quote from the above thread:



I have also read mostly critical comments on the "review" elsewhere. It saddens me that this website is suffering from a poor reputation as a result of this "review."

Suggestion: perhaps it may be wise to retract the article or at least amend it to avoid further reputational damage?

Do you know who the author is? Overall, I found the review interesting and I doubt the site will suffer significantly as a result. Folks who like Sony NEX cameras likely have them already, those of us who like auto focus (I specifically don't buy manual focus lenses) weren't going to jump in anyway, even if manual focusing is a dream on the NEX.

For what it is worth, the most interesting two parts of the review were how the lenses performed and how the sensor performed as compared to the K3. I think these are actually the thrust of the review and unfortunately are not the things which the people discussing the review have chosen to focus on.

[rawr]

avoid further reputational damage?

It's a review, based on a user's actual field experience with the camera. It's not a scientific survey. Why should there be 'reputational damage' about that?

The points the review made about camera usage and focussing with manual lenses are fair enough. I struggle sometimes too with manual lenses on NEX, even when using all the focussing aids and the excellent FDA-EV1S external viewfinder, which I believe is equivalent to what the A7 has on board.

I can roll with criticisms of Pentax and NEX as they come up, especially when they are genuine hands-on reviews. People being upset about the A7 being revealed as not perfect in some hands should relax.

[philbaum]

It's a review, based on a user's actual field experience with the camera. It's not a scientific survey. Why should there be 'reputational damage' about that?

The points the review made about camera usage and focussing with manual lenses are fair enough. I struggle sometimes too with manual lenses on NEX, even when using all the focussing aids and the excellent FDA-EV1S external viewfinder, which I believe is equivalent to what the A7 has on board.

I can roll with criticisms of Pentax and NEX as they come up, especially when they are genuine hands-on reviews. People being upset about the A7 being revealed as not perfect in some hands should relax.

I agree with Christine Tham - PF's credibility is at stake. This isn't some half-assed reviewer throwing it out there. This is from the editorial staff of one of the largest, if not the largest consumer Pentax forum on the internet. If they didn't get it right the first time - I would think (and personally i would do) they would QUICKLY put an edit on the incorrect information and fix it.

Manual focus is not some minor issue - if its broken in a big way, then the camera is not worth anything. This is a quote from the review done several days ago:

While the image quality is not the issue, manual focusing on the A7 is the Achilles heel of using this camera in connection with Pentax lenses.
Even with focus peaking, depending on the brightness of the scene, it can be difficult to impossible to achieve spot-on focus
Focus peaking is overly optimistic as to what is in focus
It is not possible to focus manually with any accuracy if focus peaking is deactivated

In this same forum, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of pictures taken with Nex and A7 cameras that are well focused with manual lenses. I would think whoever wrote this review would question the difference between his/her conclusion and the image results in the PForums that counters his conclusions.

I see Luminous Landscape, Online Photographer, and other reputable website, often issue "Edits" to their articles when they get notified of other opinons that are credible, especially when they point out obvious erroneous conclusions. If this were my review, i would effectively apologize immediately and fix it before i went to sleep tonight. It saddens me when i see an organization, which i formerly thought highly of, let such a big error go unfixed. Pride is not a good thing when it prevents one from fixing an obvious error. And the error is so easily fixed - just an edit or two. This is your professional reputation at stake - do you really really want to leave such a shoddy result out there? Up to you - its not my reputation.

[Clavius]

We all know the OVF vs EVF experience is very personal and subjective. Give me worlds largest, brightest, clearest OVF and I probably still prefer any EVF because of all kinds of reasons. And this is valid vice versa too of course. We should respect eachothers preferences. But to let your personal preference shine through as a proven fact to the extent as in that review is a bit much. But I don't think anyone will believe it either, it shouts envy.

[osv]

I see Luminous Landscape, Online Photographer, and other reputable website, often issue "Edits" to their articles when they get notified of other opinons that are credible, especially when they point out obvious erroneous conclusions. If this were my review, i would effectively apologize immediately and fix it before i went to sleep tonight. It saddens me when i see an organization, which i formerly thought highly of, let such a big error go unfixed. Pride is not a good thing when it prevents one from fixing an obvious error. And the error is so easily fixed - just an edit or two. This is your professional reputation at stake - do you really really want to leave such a shoddy result out there? Up to you - its not my reputation.

+1

multiple people in this thread have agreed that several aspects of the review are wrong.

those mistakes make the reviewer appear to be biased, which, imho, is not true.

the problem is that things like evf vs. ovf focusing represent a sea change in the way that cameras are operated, and it takes time to get fully up to speed on how the new methodology is setup and implemented... reviews will take longer because they take a lot more research.

[ElJamoquio]

We've just posted an article about how the Sony A7 handles with adapted Pentax lenses, and how its image quality compares to that of the K-3:

Sony A7 with Pentax Full-frame Glass - Introduction - PentaxForums.com

Enjoy. Was a fun read for me but I think the wait continues on for a genuine Pentax FF!

Adam - who was the author?

[ElJamoquio]

Just wanted to confirm something the author mentioned as a possibility - the focus was not in the same place. So when you're looking at the cactus in the middle (theoretical focus point), you'd conclude that the K3 is sharper than the A7, which doesn't match expectations.

When you look around the rest of the picture, you see that the A7 is focused far in front of the K-3. Top is K-3, Bottom is A7.








If focus is critical, you should focus wide open and then stop down and/or focus bracket; which of course is not as easy as autofocus. Up to you whether it's worth it or not.

Of course with 'infinite focus' pictures it's a moot point, and the A7 will exceed the K3.

[osv]

were those autofocus pics?

wrt manual focus, you don't ever have to focus wide-open with the a7/a7r, because the evf ramps up the exposure to make up for the aperture settings... it displays what the picture will look like, so if you have it exposed correctly at a closed-down aperture, it'll look correct on the evf display.

i think that point was totally missed in the review, because the camera settings were not correct.

"Spherical aberration in lenses leads to so-called focus shifts. This term refers to the fact that changing the aperture causes a shift in the optimum focus position. This effect is particularly conspicuous in the case of fast prime lenses. You can find a more detailed description of focus shift in the article "Measuring lenses objectively" which appears in Camera Lens News Nr. 30 starting on page 24." Manual Focusing | ZEISS United States

at any rate, if you have time to use it :-/ focus magnify/peaking in the hands of a competent user will be more accurate than any autofocus system there is.

[ElJamoquio]

I don't know if those were autofocus pics on the K-3.

They were not autofocus pics on the A7.

I know you don't HAVE to focus wide open on the A7, but if you do, you're likely to get better focus results, especially if you double check after stopping down. I'm aware that some lenses change focus after stopping down but thought that most/all Pentax lenses didn't suffer from that problem.

[osv]

i have a hard time believing that focus shift makes all that much difference, especially in the context of attempting to focus with a sloppy ovf... ovf focusing is orders of magnitude worse.

looking back on the shots that i did with my pentax ovf, and what little i knew about lenses back then, it's a miracle that anything i shot got sold or published, lol

hope you are happy with the a7, it's a wonderful camera.

[Tony Belding]

Sorry for resurrecting this old thread, but. . . The article in question is still up, and it pops up easily in search results for the A7. This thread, on the other hand, took me quite a while to dig up. For some reason search had trouble picking it out.

I was interested in the A7 from the beginning. Being able to easily adapt vintage SLR lenses to a full-frame system, a body no larger than the original film cameras, and with some good manual focusing aids -- peaking and magnification -- seemed like just what the doctor ordered. I also had a friend who kept trying to nudge me in that direction. But for a couple of years I resisted. At first, when the A7 was the New Hotness, the price tag was a bit of deterrent. However. . . The main thing that held me back was this article here on PentaxForums.com, which declared the A7 as poorly suited to use with adapted lenses. The lack of aperture control by the body, I read, was a fatal flaw. And focus peaking could not be trusted. And there was a laundry list of other "cons" against it.

Other people, from other sources, kept on gushing about how well these cameras worked with vintage manual-focus lenses. But darn it. . . I've been on PentaxForums.com for years, and they had the most in-depth article on the subject that I was able to find anywhere. If they said it wasn't that good, then by God, it must not be that good.

So, I tried some other cameras. I tried a new Pentax K-S2, it was good in some ways. However. . . My experience with manual focusing on it was disappointing. Having to use the green button to meter with vintage lenses was a bit of nuisance. Accurate autofocus required spending more money on a calibration target, and extended time piddling around with test shots. And the APS-C crop factor was a nuisance.

I tried a used Fujifilm X-T1, and it was good in some ways. Native lenses were large, heavy and expensive. Manual focus-by-wire was not pleasing to me. Its autofocus was great -- until it wasn't, and it flubbed some critical, easy shots, which was infuriating. And the APS-C crop factor was a nuisance. I tried a focal reducer, but it introduced its own optical flaws.

I recently got a used Sony Alpha A7, and a couple of adapters, and I have been trying it out with adapted, manual focus lenses only, most of the M42 thread mount. I've got three Takumars, including the Super Takumar 200mm F4 which I found for peanuts on eBay, but has been a real hero. I got the Voigtlander 40mm F2 Ultron, which I'm starting to really appreciate now. I got an old Carl Zeiss Jena 20mm F4 Flektogon with the zebra stripes -- cool looking old lens that also produces quite good images. I got a very small Hanimex 100mm F4 that tucks neatly into a corner of my bag.

It took a bit of familiarization time, as any new camera (especially a new brand) generally does, but now it's working great. I'm quickly growing to love it. And I look back on that original article, and I feel that not only was it misleading on a couple of important points, but it struck a poor tone, and it's at least partially responsible for the time and money I wasted on my detour through those other cameras that just don't do what the Sony does.

Thanks a whole heap, PentaxForums.com.

[rbelyell]

im on a bunch of different forums (fora?), and ive come to a single unalterable conclusion: overwhelmingly they tolerate no challenge to the orthodoxy of the fill-in-the-blank gear that coalesces that gears users. i just read a thread on m4/3 forum that started simply posing the thought thst maybe itd be a good business idea for olympus to get into medium format digital. what followed was three pages of 'i wont apologize for m4/3', 'if you dont like m4/3 why not just sell your gear', etc etc etc. the OP LIKED his m4/3 gear, but dared to pose an outside the box question that was immediately and erroneously viewed as a challenge to everyone whose egos are tied to the gear they buy. its like that on the fuji forum, the leica forum, and unfortunately here as well. now not everyone on this or other forums (fora?) respond that way. but reasonable voices are very very often drowned out by those who take intellectual inquiry about subjective matters as personal effronts.

on the other hand, there is an astonishing amount of useful helpful information available on these forums (fora?), including this one! and much thanks should be given to the selfless impulses of so many who take time out of their day to provide help to strangers trying to get the best out of their equipment. i have benefitted greatly from that on this, and on other forums. you just have to remember, those 'selfless' implulses are geared to getting the best out of the equipment represented by that specific forum, used in the normal and proper way. everything else needs to be taken with a big grain of salt.

[surfar]

My Dslr choice is Pentax, however my other photographic tools have many different brand names.


The people who are closed minded will always exist, I like shooting and viewing my 4K videos and look forward to the next advancement on that front.


I love using my K1 for what its strong points are....but the other 2 dozen bodies do get a little jealous when I walk out of my "tech" room and they are all yelling "take me, take me"!

[rbelyell]

yeah, thats really the thing, there is no perfect tool. each has advantages and disadvantages, and even within those two groups, not everyone sees their defining criteria the same way! comfort, feel, weight, features, speed, rendering--each person can rightly define each of those essential components in vastly different terms. the problem comes in when people insist those are somehow objective, measurable and unalterable criteria. people just need to chill and realize they are not their gear! honestly, i could not possibly care less if not a single person agreed with my choice of gear, or if and endless line of critics lined up against it. im not in this to be a missionary, im in it to enjoy it.