K-r DxOMark and Yet Another ISO Test (Full Sized but Not Original)

The DxOMark of the K-r has been out. It gets an overall score of 72.

Below are some of those endless comparisons, using the "compare" tool at the DxOMark page:-

K-x Vs K-r Vs K-7 (Well, the K-x has slightly better high ISO noise and very marginally better DR..)

A33 Vs K-r Vs A55

K-m Vs K-r Vs K200D

D5000 Vs K-r Vs D3100

550D Vs K-r Vs 60D

and so on.. that you can compare endlessly till the end of the world! ;-) There is no K-5 comparison though as the DxOMark for K-5 hasn't yet been out. :-(

Besides, here is an ISO comparison on the same scene with pics posted in full sized, but compressed and without EXIF:-

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/120750-k-r-iso-test.html

So, happy measurbations after all!


Related:-

K-r Vs K-x ISO Measurbations (Head to Head)

My K-r First Hands-ons (Tested Twice)

My Response to the "Open Letter to the Major Camera Manufacturers" from the LL

Here is the latest letter written by Mark Dubovoy of the Luminous Landscape:-

An Open Letter To The Major Camera Manufacturers - Luminous Landscape

Although I am not any of the camera manufacturers, I think I have something to respond.. :-)

First of all, there is an error at the beginning of the article, I believe. I think the fact is that *nowadays* the indicated f-stop values do have already taken account of all the light loss inside a lens and from its optical elements. Why? It is because if it is not the case, correct metering and exposure is just impossible, especially when modern (zoom) lenses that have 20+ glass elements are not uncommon nowadays, which just mean more than 40+ surfaces and physically light path boundaries/barriers in total! Well, even with the most excellent glass and state-of-art coatings and technologies, each surface can still have 0.x% light loss and with 40+ surfaces it will accumulate to a significant amount!

Btw, the lens by itself can be and should be seen as a black box actually. I firmly believe that nowadays the f-stop values indicated and shown are already the *effective* numbers. In fact, there is nothing by any means which is physically related, i.e., nothing about the true lens "diameter" to focal length ratio, which is indeed non-existent for the complicated lens formulae and designs adopted nowadays. So, after all, the loss and non-ideal factors have all been considered and taken into account, i.e., the aggregated light loss within a lens should have been reflected with the f-stop numbers already - that's my point.

But then, the light loss at the sensor could be another real issue. But yet once again, depending what you look at and where you look from, this may not be an issue again. Um.. well, the ISO value of the sensor is indeed not always be true! Everything is software adjusted nowadays! In fact, I just wish to ask: what is the true ISO value? I think the answer is: we just don't know and will never know! As I have said above, if you are viewing the whole camera (i.e., body w/ sensor & processor + lens) as a black box, everything can be compensated inside. Actually, as similarly pointed out in LL's article, a "slower" lens could be used and then the ISO to be increased and vice versa, which will yield the "same" exposure result (first putting aside the DoF concern). After all, the exposure value could yet be kept the same with the change of multiple variable at the same time. Under this case, there is NO test can be carried out to find out the "true" ISO value, indeed! It is because since everything is relative and every test used to find out the "true ISO" by the methodology of comparison on exposure times is just meaningless, IMHO. In other words, since all those tests in finding out the "true" and "actual" ISO speeds are done on the basis of assuming one or more of the variables to be correct and "trustworthy" in the very beginning, e.g., the f-stop and value.

Or, to ask the question more specifically, just think in another way and answer my this question: Why can't the testers assuming that the rated ISOs are accurate first and then to measure the "actual" f-stop, on the other hand?? This might really be the case, although it is more unlikely. So, it boils down to a basic question of logics for thinking which could shake the bases of all those similar testing methodologies, which is really worth for some more thoughts.

Do keep in mind that no two digital camera models created on Earth are made equally, neither do different sensors/imagers, non the image processors, and then nor the software written and the algorithms programmed into the firmware. So, after all, everything varies! But, only the end results and outcomes count! And, the result is the only thing that matters!

All in all, If LL is asking for a response from the "major manufacturers" for the "issue" and proposing to use a new value to represent the light transmission and energy, I would think that there is just no issue and everything has just been right already, although the problem is tackled in various different ways, as it might be. For some more food for thought, one more example is that with today's' lens correction function for correcting the vignetting of lens on digital sensors, i.e., one of the practical digital problems as pointed out in the LL article, WHAT "actual" ISO value should be defined for an image/picture that has been corrected via software, with the brightness value of (the pixels at) the corners are raised but the centre are kept. So? Just think about it..

In short, I am opposing to the proposition of adopting the new "T-stop" in order to "help" the current situation, which I think will just create more chaos than what it has been now - which a different sensitivity value IMO is just a non-issue in real-life, as the "true" ISO value in use is never known. As I have been emphasizing, everything is relative and all the variables are now inside a black box, e.g., even the Tv should not be trusted as it can still have variations so the exact exposure times should also be re-measured, say, in addition to the actual "real" f-stop value! After all, only the final result produced by the blackbox does matter, but anything else!

P.S. I am still glad to see that my 5D is yet the king of being having the most efficient sensor in it with the minimal light loss, amongst of all the current and past Canon and Nikon DSLRs as listed! :-) So, sometimes old stuff with more primitive structure do still shine! ;->

K-r Vs K-x PMAF and CDAF Speed Comparison Tests

Phase Matching AF:-



Although the tester did not tell what batteries were used in the K-x, I am almost certain that he used NiMHs, with which the AF speed would be slower. No surprise here.

Contrast Detection AF:-



It is yet surprised that the CDAF of the K-x is a bit faster than expected for that particular situation. But in general, I can tell that the K-r's new CDAF software algorithm is way smarter, although the forced zoom-in and out action on display is somehow annoying.


Related:-

My K-r First Hands-ons (Tested Twice)

How to Resolve the K-x Battery Problem?

AA Battery Chargers Fully Compared (4 Models)

Overclocking Your Pentax (AA Battery) DSLR(s)!?

K-m Battery Issue, Solution and Timing Measurbations

Tethering the Current Pentax DSLRs?

I've seen people from day to day are asking for tethering support for the current or just the later Pentax DSLRs including the K-5, K-r, 645D and K-7 etc., which all lacks such a function. Recent examples:-

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=36797719

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/120241-tether-my-k-7-k-5-645d-please.html

And yes, back to the old *ist D till the K10D/100D days, there was the software of Pentax Remote Assistant. But then this feature and support was dropped later on. As for competitors' products, say, every Canon EOS DSLR can be controlled via the bundled EOS Utility software, with software updates that are uploaded to Canon's websites for downloading from time to time, too.

But, I just don't understand how important this feature really is, on the other hand. If you just need just a "tethering" feature, get a Web-Cam! ;-D My opinion is for most of the time, cameras are used outside for shooting, not connecting to a PC indoor! Right? :-)

So, as you can see, last time when I think about the shortcomings of the K-5, the lack of tethering option is just Not one of the big ten reasons for still why not the K-5, as I don't think it is just significant enough to be a real issue. Nevertheless, I think the 645D, as a studio camera, would be better to have such a feature, so that images can be downloaded to the computer directly immediately after shooting. But then the 645D supports Eye-Fi, doesn't it?

K-r Full Review at the PhotographyBLOG

Here it is: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/pentax_kr_review/

There are both RAW and JPEG comparisons, e.g., the cropped ISO shootout, here. Do note the colour differences between the RAW and JPEG..

And there are full samples to download, including some original RAW files:-

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/pentax_kr_review/sample_images/

So, just enjoy yourself and happy measurbation!


Read Also:-

My K-r First Hands-ons (Tested Twice)

K-5, K-r, 645D Full Size Samples (Production Firmware in Engineering Units)

K-5: http://product.pchome.net/digital_dc_pentax_k5/sample_287988.html

K-r：http://product.pchome.net/digital_dc_pentax_kr/sample_291912.html

645D: http://product.pchome.net/digital_dc_pentax_645_digital/sample_145846.html

via http://blog.pchome.net/article/315371.html

(in Simplified Chinese, English Translation via Google Here)

To download full samples, click on the sample gallery, select the picture and then click "查看原图", which means "view original picture". The original picture will then be downloaded in a new browser tab/window.

Although the author does make the disclaimer that those sample pics are not from production units, I have just checked that all his units are already programmed with the latest production firmware. As such, I don't think those samples would be far from what other Pentax users could get with their street units, so they are still of good reference value after all.

Furthermore, as a famous Chinese blogger on photo gear (and also an editor of the Chinese PC Home), I think the author should at least know very well how to properly use his gear (and get the best results from them)..

Pentax Completely Abandons Screw-drive Body-AF for All Upcoming New Lenses (If Any!) >:-[

This is disclosed from an interview with the senior officials of the Pentax Imaging, at the recently held New York PhotoPlus Expo:-

http://enticingthelight.com/2010/11/01/speaking-to-pentax-at-photoplus-expo-in-new-york/

Quoted:-

• DC is a new type of in-lens focusing motor that’s intended for consumer lenses. DA* lenses will incorporate the higher grade SDM focusing.
• Going forward, all DA lenses will have DC focusing only, losing the screwdrive option. The exception will be the DA Limited lenses, which will stick with screwdrive focusing.
• The new DC 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 is DA focus only and will be available within a few weeks (the display unit I tried out is a preproduction model). It is “weather resistant” and has a metal mount. Price will be $530 in the US.
• Still no official statement from Pentax about the SDM failures. I was told Pentax USA was aware of the issues people were reporting, but that it was Pentax Japan who had to acknowledge a problem (if there is one). Pentax USA doesn’t know if the alleged issue is being addressed, but I was told the engineers are continually working on improving their designs so it could be new SDM lenses would be more resilient. As of now, Pentax Japan have not informed them of an SDM II being developed.
• No word on any possible new lenses.

Well.. Oh, NO! >:-{

When some people are always blaming me for being "negative" from time to time. But in reality, aren't all these news are just too discouraging enough? Mind that almost every person writes his/her own words in the Internet now, and I am surely not the only Pentaxian who are being "negative". Do note that the above are all told by the senior officials of the Pentax Imaging of USA. I believe that the author does not mis-quote what the officials said.

At the end of this post, I just can't help myself and just wish to ask: With the drop of backward system compatibility with all the new lenses (which are yet unknown for their actual existence!), why people should go Pentax now? Just because their SDM is known to be particularly superior in performance and more reliable?? Besides, it should be noted that the performance and reliability of the DC motor is yet not proven, but time will tell.

Finally, do note that if they now could abandon the support of those a bit older DSLR bodies that were made only back to 2006 (K100D and before), a few years later they can yet once again abandon the support of the *current* screw-driven DA/FA Limited lenses on their new bodies, which possibly by that time will only support lenses that have an in-lens AF motor in them. So, this would be something that we should really think about..

Indeed, Pentax *was* the company whom once had insisted the most on system forward and backward compatibilities. But now, everything shows that Hoya just breaks this good tradition too easily, but without good enough reasons, which is rather disgusting after all!


Read Also:-

1,000 Signatures of the Pentax SDM Petition Online!

Really NO MORE HOPE WITH PENTAX (Dozen Reasons for WHY NOT PENTAX NOW)

Pentax Starts to Drop Support for Body Driven AF

WHY HOYA's PR is Really So BAD?! (in Promoting Pentax..)

I just wish to ask, Is and If their PR department really existent?

See this case, as reported by Simon Joinson, a reviewer of the DPR:-

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=36748834

View the topic of the post, "Where are all the reviews? They're coming!" But after you've read the full post. It should be: They are all coming, except the Pentax(es)!!

In fact, whilst Canon, Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic and Samsung have all already given their latest camera gear and models to DPR for testing and reviewing as told (Nikon's gear was expected to arrive by "today"..), there is just even not an expected date of delivery for the Pentax K-5 to the DPR. Simon just commented that it is still under "waiting" and it "won't be started for (within) a month", as obviously the Pentax K-5 will be the last one in the batch of all those new cameras for testing even when it will arrive later. In fact, DPR has not yet got any idea when it will come, even up till now! >:-[ Well, the K-5 was announced more than one month ago by Pentax and has already been marketed for two weeks! So, what's going on??!

Sometimes, what's happening just make me wonder.., IF Hoya *intentionally* delayed the delivery of a test unit to the DPR so that the review will be published later!? It is just because as there are K-5 units sold worldwide already and even there are so many new K-5 users have got their new units from the streets (market) into their hands already. As such, how difficult is the case for Hoya to send a production unit to the DPR for their testing and reviewing?? Not even to think about for making some better special arrangements to facilitate the review works of the DPR crew..

For such a company whose PR tasks (if any) are carried out in such an unbelievably sucking way, do you think that they will succeed? >:-x

I think that Hoya would have forgot that DPR is still the largest and most popular No.1 camera gear review site in the Internet on Earth. So, unless they are just being so afraid of that DPR will reveal some shortcomings of the K-5 that would look too unfavourable and will hurt their interests eventually, I simply can't think of a single reason why they should delay the delivery of the K-5 test unit and to make such a bad relationship with the DPR, in addition.

All in all, I believe that these kind of arrogance and ignorance of such an even large company like Hoya is just the stumbling block which hinders their succeed and indeed one of the true reasons that could really hurt their sales, even if they had some good products made to begin with! Really Sad..

Anyway, I knew that there is an email address of their "PR" department, which is a proof of their existence, frankly speaking and however. If you have a question to ask them, or have a complaint you want to write to them about Pentax or simply just a suggestion, you can still try to drop them an email. I hope that you would get a response, hopefully. Good luck, folks! ;-) If you really do that, you have made a nice trial and my thumb up in advance! :-D

HOYA-pr@mb.hoya.co.jp


Related:-

Ten Reasons for Thinking Twice before Decided on a K-5..

How a Company Respond Positively to Criticisms..

New Plans / Roadmaps of Others.. And Pentax?

1,000 Signatures of the Pentax SDM Petition Online!

Site Traffic of My Blog Matches 30% of that of the Dpreview on Pentax Contents

The Pentax Quality and Warranty Crises II

IQ and AF-C of the K-5 - I am Not Impressed! :-(

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/119486-seagulla-girls-k5-auto-focus-continuous.html

View this thread and all the pictures attached. Pictures are gloomy and they are lack of sharpness and contrast, especially the seagull shots. It seems that the underexposure evil is in action. And, the blue colour of the sky is so fake. What I would say I'm not totally impressed.

As for the AF-C accuracy and hit rate, there are quite some OOF (Out Of Focus) pictures out of the series. Although the user has mentioned that it *might* be the user error on his part. I just wonder what "user error* could be made when everything is set to Auto?

As for the unfavourable colour response of the K-5, here are also some portrait samples. Again, I'm not impressed:-

http://www.dchome.net/viewthread.php?tid=947359&extra=page%3D1

Images are yet again (downsized) direct JPEGs out of the camera, lens used is the DA*55/1.4. See the English translation here.

The terrible colour response and IQ is the only thing that has impressed me deeply for these samples, frankly..

K-5 Continuous Burst YouTube Demos (Both RAW and JPEG)

There is no information for the settings of the camera nor the firmware version of it and neither what/which card was used. But since it was just posted by an ordinary Japanese K-5 user (I believe), we would assume that the original 1.0 firmware was used, since the new firmware has not yet been released.

Okay, let me do a quick summary then, on what can be counted/observed from the video clips:-

RAW: 19 frames; Time to Write: ~12 seconds

JPEG: 24 frames; Time to Write: ~16 seconds

So, it seems that if a fast card (a very fast one?) is used, it may help, in case of the K-5!