|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-01-2016, 05:33 PM
|
| |
Well that adequately describes the situation as it exists, but it also explains why I never visit a site twice unless I find something useful there the first time. Everyone gets their 15 minutes of fame, unless your video is so bad I turn it off after 5 minutes.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-01-2016, 05:12 PM
|
| |
Saying people should have a clue about what they write about is elitist? Really?
I guess this is the internet age where every one should just run off at the mouth whether they have anything useful to contribute or not. Is that it?
From my perspective you're arguing for the dissemination of ignorance, is there som either way to see it that I'm missing?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-01-2016, 05:50 AM
|
| |
He said it a lot quicker though. he gets the brevity award. :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-01-2016, 05:15 AM
|
| |
Most reviewers, if they do steer clear of Pentax, do so because the know nothing about Pentax, and as such, they are smart enough to keep there mouths shut, rather than go through the exercise of finding out what makes the cameras tick. Be clear, an inaccurate reviewer is lazy and taking shortcuts. As in the academic world, their reputations should depend on their history of publishing credible work. Going to these guys web sites after they've committed easily correctable errors is just encouraging the wannabes. Fudge a scientific paper and you're pretty much tossed out of the community. Yet here we have someone who clearly believes in protecting incompetence defending it. This is not sub atomic particles, this a a camera that comes with a manual and with resource you can access to learn how to use it. Error in descriptions are simply unacceptable.
People like you who patronize such sites just encourage incompetence.
If you review Pentax, you need to know your stuff. And if you don't know your stuff, you need to be a little smarter about what you publish.
As, I said before...
Take in The Camera Store Video and the Imaging Resources review, patronize people who know their stuff, and perhaps. Boycott these poor ignorant reviewer wannabes.
Tony Northrup will never get a hit on his hit counter from my computer. Has anyone ever learned one pice of useful information from this clown? I can guarantee you his sloppy understanding of camera gear has misled millions.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-30-2016, 08:28 AM
|
| |
As said, I gave Tony 20 minutes of my life, and he wasted it, he doesn't get another 20. Interesting how you idolize this guy though. It's pretty clear, in your mind he can do no wrong. Tony making a reply video means Pentaxians are wrong and it makes them look bad. All those Pentaxians are wrong and Tony is right seems to be what you are implying. ya right, Pentaxians should just shut up and swallow the B.S., like you do. I get it.
I've read the IR review and seen "The Camera Store" video. Why do I need to waste my time listening to Tony Northrup. What does he say that they don't cover, better?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-30-2016, 06:42 AM
|
| |
I guess he assumes that people don't know what "the best" means. One camera company has the best series of modern lenses. All the others aren't the best. SO what does saying a company isn't the best tell you?
It tells you nothing. It doesn't tell you if the range of available lenses is 1 lens less than the best, it doesn't tell you if it's 50 lenses less than the best. It doesn't tell you a damn thing , except that with all the major camera companies, it isn't the best. That's what's known as journalistic filler, padding the number of words you need to try and sound like you know something.
The simple fact is that Pentax came out with a very nice range of zooms for this camera, and the fact that there is so much legacy glass available makes a statement like that incredibly biased in the first place. He doesn't address whether Pentax legacy glass is equivalent to or better than some of the modern stuff being released by other companies, in fact he completely ignores the existence of excellent legacy glass that performs well on DSLR equipment.
That right there, says the man is incompetent to be reviewing the camera. Because, he missed a few things, and his biases are so unconscious, he doesn't even realize he's making them. If you shoot with one system, understand how it works and get good results with it, it doesn't mean you can drop another system into his hands and he's qualified to evaluate it. If you aren't aware of the strengths of a system, or how it's works, any comment you make is by definition unfair and biased. It doesn't matter whether if it's conscious or unconscious, intelligent people don't do it, and this guy is thick as a brick.
I'm not sure why everyone is falling over backwards to defend this guy.
|
