Web Analytics RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Pentax/Hoya Do It Again!

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Pentax/Hoya Do It Again!

For What? They post example photos of the K-x, which shows to have firmware version 1.0 in the prime EXIF tag, which implies that the photos were produced from production K-x unit(s), as it seems to be.

But then a closer look deeper inside the EXIF, it is not difficult to reveal that the firmware used is actually only up to version 0.2 and possibly it is just early beta firmware, with beta hardware! (Hint: Use PhotoMe)

That was exactly what they did last time with the early official K-7 samples, which were not looking good of course!

As for those officially edited K-x samples this time, the erratic exposure compensation values entered do scare me, but it is not surprised at all as Pentax has been infamous for exposure/metering accuracy. The IQ is not impressive and I don't like the colour response and particular the skin tone of the child, for the first sample. The reproduced skin texture looks rather plasticky too. But still I can see noise at the darker background behind, despite that the photo was taken at the lowest ISO 200 speed, which is supposed to be the least noisy. Well, I just think the IQ of the K-m is just better, or maybe obviously better. Anyway, I do believe Pentax/Hoya do need to set better default values of the settings in their cameras, too (which they usually haven't done that).

I know it is not fair to judge on the samples produced by beta unit(s) with beta firmware. But then *when* Pentax/Hoya try to tell the world that those are production samples but actually these are not.. Then? Why should they do that? Why the firmware versions inside the EXIF are mis-matched? (But for final production models that purchased in the streets never have been.) And, will there be any adverse consequences and impact?? Well, they deserved to bear all those even if there will be, as a result!

Well, whilst I am disappointed for the poor exposure accuracy/consistency, strange colour response as well as the unfavourable image quality of those samples, I am actually more upset for the inhonesty shown in the case, especially this is the second time for such bad thing to happen, but not for the first time (when some Pentaxians did discover that already before - but then they still dare to do it again!).

Comments (10)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
endorphin's avatar

endorphin · 808 weeks ago

"But I am more upset for the inhonesty shown in the case"

It's called "dishonesty" and you, of all people, should know all about that.

Why don't you buy a K1000, load some Fuji Neopan and show us what a great photographer you are? Or show us you are even a semi-competent photographer. Then we might care about your rantings.
3 replies · active 808 weeks ago
No one forced you to come to my site and read my "rantings". Who put a gun behind you back when you sit in front of your computer to access the internet? Who?
No one forced the OP of cource, but your stink spreads so far and wide sometimes it's hard to ignor. It's like you playing loud anti-social music 2am on a workday night and your neighbour coming over to tall you to shut the fuck up.
Hmm, since 'in-' is a prefix that could mean 'lacking', I would say inhonesty is pretty usable. But that's just me and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/in- . OTOH, you cannot believe all you read on the net... ;)
lol

RiceHigh, your blog cracks me up.

Though I do see a case where you often try to evaluate equipment which falls out of your area of expertise.
Which in turn leads you to make false assumptions and statements such as firmware dishonesty and so on and so forth.

Another shortcoming in your assessments seems in in part due to your own limitations as a photographer.
For example; I have looked over the image of the child and found no sign whatsoever of noise.
Which raises a significant question on the accuracy of your vision...

Still... I come here for a good laugh.
I don't know if you are mentally sound of not(if not... I apologize), however, next to your image tests, I actually find your anti-Pentax posts to be very amusing.
Hiya Buddy's avatar

Hiya Buddy · 808 weeks ago

I agree with endorphin. I'm bored with readings peoples opinions.
If Pentax waited until firmware was perfect before announcing the camera, then it may never be released. Before, Pentax was always too late "to market". Now, everybody announces their products even before beta is ready. You can see this in other industries. Microsoft and Google are the masters of this, except that Google is more honest in their labelling. Sony Ericsson announces cell phones 6-8 months before they are available for sale. Nokia has delivered most new phones with undercooked firmware. That's just the way it is.

Pentax has to make their announcements as soon as possible. One reason is to make the consumer who was planning to buy a competitor's product (or a different product) to rethink their plan. I was planning to buy a used K20d in the coming months, but now I will probably buy a new K-x. My buying a K20d used doesn't help H-P (Hoya-Pentax), but my buying a K-x does help them.

Another reason is to announce early is to stay in the media for as long as possible.

Unlike you, I want to know Pentax's plans sooner, not later. In Rice's world, the K-x would not be announced until firmware v1.1 is ready next February. In everyone else's world, we would like to know in September and receive as soon as possible.
2 replies · active 808 weeks ago
Oh, my point, my important point.

Of course Pentax needs to have sample images on their website when they announce a new camera. These sample images are not for measurebators. Any measurebator worth their weight would not trust the manufacturer's own information. Criticizing it is like shooting fish in a barrel.
The main issue here is that Hoya should post the samples as what they are and just note that these are beta samples. They should not edit the EXIF field to pretend production firmware 1.0 and tried to cheat. Nor, they shouldn't let people to think about the Image Quality is just like that, which is worse, even for production cameras, which just hurt the image of the new camera and the sales to come, which is the wrongest thing to do and will not be beneficial to anyone, including themselves. But, the reverse is true.
I certainly do not use manufacturer's website pictures for evaluating IQ performance, and I guess most knowledgable people do not do it either, so why bother. That's why serious camera review (dpreview, img-res, et al) take time to come to light, because they make sure to use a production unit.

Post a new comment

Comments by