 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2006Poor Pentax K10D. Just manages a "highly recommended" on dpreview
Not an outstanding review. Not bad at all, but considering dpreview gives out "highly recommended" ratings (particularly if the camera is a Canon) it is odd the Pentax didnt get one without reservations. Highlight dynamic range is a low point. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/page25.asp > Not an outstanding review. Not bad at all, but considering dpreview > gives out "highly recommended" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/page25.asp Why is that odd, Phil Askey will happily bag anything that is not on his hot list (Canon, Nikon). Have a look through the forums where he threatens to not post Pentax reviews of the K100D because so many "fanboys" are asking for them??? >> Not an outstanding review. Not bad at all, but considering dpreview >> gives out "highly recommended" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > not post Pentax reviews of the K100D because so many "fanboys" are asking > for them??? Don't reply to RichA, he's just a lonely troll, looking for a friend. I thought he found one when he realized what he could use his right hand for. ljc >>> Not an outstanding review. Not bad at all, but considering dpreview >>> gives out "highly recommended" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Don't reply to RichA, he's just a lonely troll, looking for a friend. > Not an outstanding review. Not bad at all, but considering dpreview > gives out "highly recommended" > ratings (particularly if the camera is a Canon) it is odd the Pentax > didnt get one without reservations. > Highlight dynamic range is a low point. Rich: Why all the interest in what Phil reports? Just curious. > > Not an outstanding review. Not bad at all, but considering dpreview > > gives out "highly recommended" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rich: Why all the interest in what Phil reports? Just curious. His site is pretty much the source for camera reviews. I doubt he's skewing them at all so you can probably take what is said at face value, provided you look at the results and "read around" some of the dialog. I think his site also has the highest traffic of any photosite outside of maybe the hosting sites. >> Rich: Why all the interest in what Phil reports? Just curious. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of maybe > the hosting sites. Phil does this for a living. His sight garners cash when folks click on the vendors listed there. He also solicits contributions (or used to). I don't spend much time there any more because it has become mundane for my tastes ... not a criticism, by the way. The cameras that I am interested in are all very good now, and I no longer worry much about the technical specs. It is time to recognize that most DSLR camera owners, with recent models, are mostly limited by their skill set and their accessories (lenses, e.g.). I never have a problem with folks making money when they also offer a service. Phil certainly meets that criterion. Highly recommended! >I never have a problem with folks making money when they also offer a >service. So you would have no problem if a web site owner recommended the products of his sponsor manufacturers and importers over the products of other manufacturers? >Phil certainly meets that criterion. He seems to meet the criterion of making money. >>I never have a problem with folks making money when they also offer a >>service. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > He seems to meet the criterion of making money. Yes he does ... but that, in and of itself, is not immoral. I worked and charged for it ... and you? You are speculating about his "sponsor manufacturers," I presume. >>>I never have a problem with folks making money when they also offer a >>>service. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Yes he does ... but that, in and of itself, is not immoral. I worked and >charged for it ... and you? I note you avoided answering the question. Perhaps you avoided reading it, in which case, here it is again: "So you would have no problem if a web site owner recommended the products of his sponsor manufacturers and importers over the products of other manufacturers?" >You are speculating about his "sponsor manufacturers," I presume. Not entirely speculation. I don't know which manufacturers support the site. I do know of manufacturers who do not. Tony Polson wrote: > >>>I never have a problem with folks making money when they also offer a > >>>service. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Not entirely speculation. I don't know which manufacturers support > the site. I do know of manufacturers who do not. Many years ago, a technical magazine editor started "tell the whole truth" in his equipment reviews. He was quickly (at the behest of a few large advertisers) shown the door. Thereafter, no negative reviews ever showed up again. There is NO doubt that advertisers dictate the tenor of reviews. > I note you avoided answering the question. Perhaps you avoided > reading it, in which case, here it is again: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not entirely speculation. I don't know which manufacturers support > the site. I do know of manufacturers who do not. I tend not to answer hypothetical questions. I have no evidence, one way or the other, that there is any such thing as "sponsorship" on that site. Also, if there is "sponsorship," what form does it take? Paid advertising. Just look at who has ads on that site. The company that has the most ads pays the most money which means they get the best reviews. They have to. If the site started blasting their products do you really think they would advertise there? No, of course not. ljc >> I note you avoided answering the question. Perhaps you avoided >> reading it, in which case, here it is again: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > or the other, that there is any such thing as "sponsorship" on that site. > Also, if there is "sponsorship," what form does it take? No. It is pretty much a given that any web site that has reviews where they do not purchase the products themselves or web site with ads from companies that makes some of the products that they review are going to be... less critical than say a regular consumer that just spent $500 on the latest camera only to find it is a POS and then decides to tell people about it. Most review sites are only truly good for get the specifications. Their opinions on a product are like the opinions of movie critics, worth less than 1/2 cent and that is counting inflation. Anyone that relies 100% on reviews to make a purchase decision is an idiot. LJC >>I never have a problem with folks making money when they also offer a >>service. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > He seems to meet the criterion of making money. > No. It is pretty much a given that any web site that has reviews where they > do not purchase the products themselves or web site with ads from companies [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > opinions on a product are like the opinions of movie critics, worth less > than 1/2 cent and that is counting inflation. Test the products with test equipment. Establish baselines and competitive benchmarks. Test the cameras and contrast it with the competition. All they do is take shots and compare them. Why no quantitative testing for noise? Or resolution tests on lenses used? What is the with the "0-5" ratings scales or a, b, c, etc? Then, once the lab testing is done, make a concerted effort to relate how this pertains to real-world imaging with examples. If they can produce a detailed histogram of an image, how about a "noise or resolution map?" Ever see isophote maps of heat of a subject? That kind of thing. Well, personally I don't find "lab" like testing to be overly useful. Labs are seldom like the real world. I would just be happy if Phil didn't come across as so biased and money hungry for the ad money he gets from his site. It doesn't make any difference how he reviews a product, he is clearly slanted in the Canon and Nikon direction and the fact that he accepts paid ads means he is going to brown nose any company that pays him the big bucks. ljc >> No. It is pretty much a given that any web site that has reviews where >> they [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > resolution map?" > Ever see isophote maps of heat of a subject? That kind of thing. >Well, personally I don't find "lab" like testing to be overly useful. Labs >are seldom like the real world. I would just be happy if Phil didn't come >across as so biased and money hungry for the ad money he gets from his site. >It doesn't make any difference how he reviews a product, he is clearly >slanted in the Canon and Nikon direction and the fact that he accepts paid >ads means he is going to brown nose any company that pays him the big bucks. Well said. I totally agree. > Well, personally I don't find "lab" like testing to be overly useful. Labs > are seldom like the real world. Thats only if you don't have comparable real world results to compare against the lab tests. For example. Lets say you do a lab test of two lenses, one comes out with an MTF or strehl ratio somewhat inferior to the other. You then take them into the field and shoot a variety of shot types to isolate if the lab-tested differences (where you obtained actual numbers) have any bearing on what is seen from the field. It's not that hard to do. No it isn't hard to do. But, few do it. Most that do the lab tests seem to feel that is more important and that is what they provide in the review. Most people probably 90% or more would never notice the difference. If they did then zoom lenses wouldn't sell like they do because they are not as a good as primes. ljc >> Well, personally I don't find "lab" like testing to be overly useful. >> Labs [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > actual numbers) have any bearing on what is seen from the field. It's > not that hard to do. >> Not an outstanding review. Not bad at all, but considering dpreview >> gives out "highly recommended" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rich: Why all the interest in what Phil reports? Just curious. He has nothing else to do. > >> Not an outstanding review. Not bad at all, but considering dpreview > >> gives out "highly recommended" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He has nothing else to do. Side note; dpreivew just reviewed ANOTHER mediocre Canon P&S. This one was just an modest upgrade from a previous one. Yeah, it got a "highly recommended." Aren't most cameras released today by Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, etc. minor updates? I mean really, when was the last time we saw any real innovation in a digital camera? That would be what Fuji did with the sensor in the S3's and what Sigma did with their cameras. Now Fuji's are nice if you want 6MP, the Sigma just sucked, but at least they were innovating instead of going mediocre. And, just incase it happens the new Sigma might finally be something to get excited about. ljc >> >> Not an outstanding review. Not bad at all, but considering dpreview >> >> gives out "highly recommended" [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > one was just an modest upgrade from a previous one. Yeah, it got a > "highly recommended." > Side note; dpreivew just reviewed ANOTHER mediocre Canon P&S. This > one was just an modest upgrade from a previous one. Yeah, it got a > "highly recommended." Have you been banned? > > Side note; dpreivew just reviewed ANOTHER mediocre Canon P&S. This > > one was just an modest upgrade from a previous one. Yeah, it got a > > "highly recommended." > > Have you been banned? They don't do that unless you personally attack someone, like some of the hyenas here do. >> Have you been banned? > > They don't do that unless you personally attack someone, like some of > the > hyenas here do. So, that was a no; or was that a yes? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.