Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 25, 2006, 8:13 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 546
Default

I'm not an experienced photographer. I don't run laboratory testsor use charts and meters to review or test a cameras features. Here is what I DO know: I got a K100D last week. I have taken photos in low light situations without SR (because I forgot) and they were blurry. I would immediately switch it on and take the same shot, and the shots came out razor sharp. It's happened more than once in the past week. Without SR, those shots would have gone in the trash bin. That tells me all I need to know.
gadgetnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2006, 8:24 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 172
Default

Amen. And he's banned at dpreview.com. Imagine that?! And he doesn't know the reason? How about 'wasting of words'.
dequardo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2006, 12:40 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

dequardo wrote:
Quote:
Amen. And he's banned at dpreview.com. Imaging that?! And he doesn't know the reason. How about 'wasting of words'.
To be honest, banning RH from dpreview is IMHO a very small-minded thing to do. He is the only person who is doing what Pentax should be doing, testing the camera to (almost) destruction.

Imagine if P/C/N etc tested their cameras the way RH does, and had a quality control to ensure they came oout perfect - we would pay 3-5 times as much, but maybe the pics would be worth it.

Who knows??

RH is entitled to his opinion and entitled to air it on free speech forums.

I have revised my viewpoint and now defend RH wholeheartedly for his tireless testing.

If you don't wanna know what he is doing, don't read his responses.





Darren
Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2006, 1:02 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 172
Default

The problem is his diatribes are nearly incomprehensible.
dequardo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 25, 2006, 2:30 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
oreo57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 152
Default

Testing involves multiple (as in MANY, many many) samples in VERY controlled conditions. At best this should be just considered "sampling". Nobody, besides the manufactures "test" cameras, not here, not any reviewer. Mr. High may have had more cameras then most but it is still a subset of a true test. Freedom of speech is fine, but that includes rebuttal as well. I'm afraid that if you supported all of his findings it would be foolish to remain with the brand. If I remember correctly, he seriously "tested" other brands but has stuck with Pentax... go figure... Tireless, more like tiresome........ but continue on, as he will, to the amazement, and amusement of others.. Trust in your own eyes and findings is more important afterall. And this goes for all brands and all models....... Believe what you like but there are more authoratative sources out there.
Dal1970 wrote:
Quote:
dequardo wrote:
Quote:
Amen. And he's banned at dpreview.com. Imaging that?! And he doesn't know the reason. How about 'wasting of words'.
To be honest, banning RH from dpreview is IMHO a very small-minded thing to do. He is the only person who is doing what Pentax should be doing, testing the camera to (almost) destruction.

Imagine if P/C/N etc tested their cameras the way RH does, and had a quality control to ensure they came oout perfect - we would pay 3-5 times as much, but maybe the pics would be worth it.

Who knows??

RH is entitled to his opinion and entitled to air it on free speech forums.

I have revised my viewpoint and now defend RH wholeheartedly for his tireless testing.

If you don't wanna know what he is doing, don't read his responses.





Darren
oreo57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2006, 7:34 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 344
Default

Dal1970 wrote:
Quote:
small-minded thing to do. He is the only person who is doing what Pentax should be doing, testing the camera to (almost) destruction.
Well, I think none of my *ist D, *ist DS and K100 bodies have ever been destructed! :-) Except the one which was "repaired" by Pentax Japan which was finally destructed by them! (Full Story: http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh/A_...rporation.html )

Actually, I was using frequently for my Pentax DSLRs and from time to time I knew what it should be avoided and adjusted/overriden. I had also sold my last *ist D and *ist DS units which the new users are both happy with them.

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh
RiceHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2006, 8:07 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 344
Default

oreo57 wrote:
Quote:
[b]Testing involves multiple (as in MANY, many many) samples in VERY controlled conditions. At best this should be just considered "sampling". Nobody, besides the manufactures "test" cameras, not here, not any reviewer.
Yes, you're right to a certain extent. I am not the manufacturer nor my home is the factory.

But the problem is that a suppose well-thought statistical method is applied at factory, the QC engineer should know what to do and how to take samples and what will be output at their factory and at what good product rate at that sample size and QC rules set.

So, every product that you/me can get at the market are actually passing the QC and is a actually a *qualified* product of Pentax (or any other manufacturers).

Quote:
Mr. High may have had more cameras then most but it is still a subset of a true test. Freedom of speech is fine, but that includes rebuttal as well.
I welcome any rebuttal based on technical grounds and with reference to applicable industrial standards and/or relevant documents. But so far there have been only very few. The usual "small sampling size" or "I have no problem at the field" arguments seem too weak to substantiate as a useful rebuttal.

Quote:
I'm afraid that if you supported all of his findings it would be foolish to remain with the brand. If I remember correctly, he seriously "tested" other brands but has stuck with Pentax... go figure... Tireless, more like
Simple, as I have always said, at forums and in my homepages for repeatedly, I have got some of the best glass from Pentax on this planet. Now that the problem is not my old Pentax glass, but the latest DSLR Pentax bodies (and the latest digital lenses). But the K100D has given me some hopes, at least I am sure that Pentax has known/admitted some of the problems I have been reporting and have done something to improve/debug.

I don't find it any justified for the cost to replace all my Pentax lenses amongst which are the best amongst all brands and models, especially I have tried the Canon 5D and 30D and also the D200 months ago and the cost for the new body and new lenses are not worth for the difference, especially the C and N glass are not as best as mine, for the same price or even much dearer.

Quote:
tiresome........ but continue on, as he will, to the amazement, and amusement of others.. Trust in your own eyes and findings is more important afterall. And this goes for all brands and all models....... Believe what you like but there are more authoratative sources out there.
I have never thought that my report authoritative as I carried out all my tests with limited knowledge, resources and time. Noted that I did and do all my tests at my home and after works (well, I'm a busy guy, honestly tell you). What I do is to try my best to check and report - end of story.

BTW, I don't find much sites on the net "authoritative" as well, for what I can see for what they did and reported. Enough said.

But you, or any others, should bear in mind that my site is not a commercial one, so that I have no commercial concern of any kind for building my site and writing my reports. Also, my gear under tests are bought from the street, instead of loan sample units lent by the manufacturers.

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh
RiceHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2006, 9:32 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Hi RH,

I have a couple of minutes so, here is an expansion of a couple of points you touched on.

Quote:
Regarding your tie-point experiment, I think it should be carried out with extreme great care, i.e., nothing physically should be changed and moved between the two SR on an off test shots.
Actually, by using the tie point approach, which is designed to eliminate the problem. This is a standard image analyist approach primarly due to the problem you cited. What is being looked for here is the jitter around the well defined (or a better defined) shape. Putting the change detection in to a different color will highlight the differences. Going to the 2 images (prior post of a camera shop) above and using the word "master" on the black background. Tie pointing this 2 areas together would super impose the two works "master" over each other. The slop (or jitter, smear, what ever you wish to referr to it as) of each letter can then easily be measured.

Quote:
The only disagreement I would have is your mentioning about the DoF which I think is irrelevant for the blur that caused by unstable sensor (movement).
On this point - I do not think that I fully expanded where I was going with this. Using your night images of HK, there was a very large DoF, such that a pixel of the foreground (a close building) represented a smaller physical area that a pixel's worth of area for a far off object. Bear with me with a bit of mental geometry here, but in terms of response to camera shake, the pixel in the forground will have greater smear that a pixel of in the distance. Also the smear will be anplified by the saturation of the near light vs the far light.

A better test is the building photo (the two of the building early in your analysis paper) where you have less distance (DoF) in the photo. A better test subject would be a flat background (basically no DoF).

Again, bottom line - in the real world (your intent was to measure SR in a real world setting)- like your night images of HK it is difficult to measuer the effect of image stablization in the environment you were using (my opinion). However, the total effect was a set of stunning images - which is the wanted desired result. Most of us would be pretty happy with such fine results, along with such a rich span of available subjects, such as you have available to you (people, harbor, water, land , buildings, architecture, city scapes - combination of all). All I have out my back door is desert - personally I like water or the ocean, but others find Arizona a treasure trove such as Arizona Highways. Something I have to work on.

interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2006, 9:47 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
oreo57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 152
Default

Well said Mr. High....

as to tests and standards.. you maybe need to read this...

http://www.qualiteitems.com/Scene_Reflectance.pdf

Or this:

http://doug.kerr.home.att.net/pumpkin/#Optics
"EXPOSURE METER CALIBRATION" 70th Birthday

Make notes regarding the Canon section

"


[align=left]In any case, assuming that Canon's target value of Hu/Hsat is in fact[/align]

[align=left]0.173, we note that this is 0.43 stop "hotter" than the value implied[/align]

[align=left]by the ISO standards, 0.128............................................. .......[/align]

[align=left]As discussed in the body of the article, the adoption of this "above[/align]


[align=left]So that leaves Canon with only the possibility of achieving their target[/align]

[align=left]value of Hu/Hsat by using a non-standard rating of ISO sensitivity—a[/align]

[align=left]rating that is about 0.74 that which would be determined under ISO[/align]

[align=left]12232. In other words, the sensitivity that is designated "ISO 100" by[/align]

[align=left]Canon would probably be rated at about ISO 135 under ISO 12232."[/align]

[align=left]Please no rebuttal. We've been down this road once too often.... All I ask is you read the articles in the links I posted, no more no less.........[/align]

[align=left][/align]
oreo57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 26, 2006, 10:00 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 172
Default

Do you zealots actually ever take pictures?
dequardo is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 PM.