Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Pentax

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 27, 2006, 1:21 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
MadMikeSS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Kenmore, NY
Posts: 743
Default

RiceHigh wrote:
Quote:
Do note that the "Worst Digital Camera Ever" is the title created by DCHQ's Editor for his latest article, which subsequently appeared as the headline news at PentaxLife.com on the day before.

Do note also that it was the Editor who selected Pentax as the brand who have made such a "Worst DC Ever", not me.

Afterall, I just quoted the article title when I came across the news and post it here.

I think any Pentax user should be aware of the news and comments / feedbacks made by the Editor and most importantly, all the very fair but adversed comments reflected by numerious angry and disappointed Pentax users/buyers (almost *all* who have written an user review overthere), who have purchased the Pentax camera which they felt it is so inferior.

It is all about the brand name PENTAX, of which the brand I actually love. When the users say that they won't buy a PENTAX again and will tell all others not to buy PENTAX also, any existing Pentax users should know about this and why.

Believe it or not, it's all up to any of you folks, I think I'm a true Pentax lover (but of course not a blind one). I felt really very sad wholeheartly to see a camera with a PENTAX badge on it can perform like this! Well, my Optio 330 is a true excellent DC, in contrast. What do you think as people now say that OPTIO stands for "Oh, Please Turn It Off!"??

Do remember when you guys are being accusing me of being stirring thing(s) up and bad-mouthing Pentax, please trace back just a little bit more about the root cause and facts of each case reported, which I'm afraid you die-hard blind brand loyalists and Pentaxians would have never been able to do and with no intention of any kind to do (so that you never do).

In a few words, if Pentax don't look with a more serious sense and in a more serious way for their wrong-doings, so as to prevent future happenings, they cannot survive sooner or later and anyone who buy into Pentax can have the chance to be the next victim, no matter they are new or old Pentax users, and before that the brand name Pentax becomes a really bad name, which anyone would avoid, someday!

RiceHigh
gadgetnut wrote:
Quote:
Here I go again. I know better than to respond to this garbage, but ....BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
....as long as we said something that give just a "slight" hint of negativity.
Slight hint of negativity? Hmmm...let's look at a few of his thread Titles, shall we?

"Worst of the worst Digital Cameras ever...Pentax takes the crown"

"Pentax's marketing lie(s) on the K10D"

Slight hint? He's posting this in a Pentax forum. This isn't some poor guy who's being attacked for his opinions. This is a person who comes here for a pre-determined purpose.....to stir up trouble.Anyone can see that.

Sorry to keep this going, but companies with good names do sometimes put out a lemon. It's not unusual. Look at the auto industry, how many times have big car manufacturers put out real stinkers, yet they still also put out some quality products that keep them on top. It's the way of business. computer parts manufacturers do it all the time. ASUS, one of the biggest names in motherboards, put out some real lemons when they used some garbage capacitors, had to fix them. Still the top motherboard manufacturer around and that wouldn't hinder me from using their product again in the future because they put out a lot more good products that outweigh those bad ones. If Pentax continually put out a POS for a camera then I can see you having a point, but it's one camera.
MadMikeSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 1:39 AM   #42
Senior Member
 
errno_gmm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 518
Default

someone move/delete/close this abortion
errno_gmm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 4:00 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
nadnerb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bath, UK
Posts: 319
Default

I really want to test out this camera.

It sounds terrible!! :lol:
nadnerb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 6:05 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
I know that there are some racist in here, but never mind, I will still keep focus;

__________________________________________________ __________________

oreo57, I actually meant$500 & below wide zoomsthat starts from F/2.8 on wards, not F/2.8 zooms. :-)

Such as those4 below>>>

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/349/cat/31

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...duct/33/cat/15

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/196/cat/31

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...duct/48/cat/23

There are also $500 & below F/2.8 wide zooms too! Look below;

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/172/cat/31

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...ct/1008/cat/31

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/355/cat/23

Regards.


















BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 8:33 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 344
Default

oreo57 wrote: [align=left] [align=left] [align=left]
[/align]
Quote:
RH sometimes reflects the attitude of someone who's idol worship has been shattered...many conflicting emotions. "I love them " I hate them" ect. Actually he's the worst type of blind brand loyalist, he wants his idol restored, pedestal and all, and is going to great lengths to accomplish this..... keep bashing them, the'll come around, they have to see the error of their ways" oh dear, oh my"... type of stuff. It's truely sad to see.
Are you a psychologist? Can you explain why some people are *always* being defensive of "their" brand, and regardless of what other people mention are true or not? Can your religionous "idol worship" theory explain all those behaviours?

[/align] [/align] [align=left]
Quote:
Healthy people know that any product/line can have a dog. It's just part of life. Only idol worshippers would consider this THE END OF THE LINE for Pentax, They should be spending millions correcting there mistake, at the least apologise or bow down and cleanse themselves to the "faithful"..... Baah
[/align]
But when there are dogs after dogs and one dog is "dogger" than the previous one.. What do u think?

Have you ever seen my letter to the CEO of Pentax Corporation?

http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh/A_...rporation.html

For the Pentax E10, it is simply something that should never been produced (by anyone in this world) and not to mention it wears a Pentax badge, what do you think again?

If you're one of the Pentax E10 victim, what would you think??? and react???

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh
RiceHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 8:56 AM   #46
Senior Member
 
oreo57's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 152
Default

Only interesting one is this one:

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical IF SP AF (Tested)

Guess I've been just browsing the higher zoomland too long, i.e. 80-200 ish

Forgot about the "short" end. Thanks... We will have to wait and see if Pentax has anything in your price range. I suspect close but.... who knows. Sigma's not my favorite brand and will admit ignoring them a lot on a personal basis. Guess I'm not perfect :-)

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
I know that there are some racist in here, but never mind, I will still keep focus;

__________________________________________________ __________________

oreo57, I actually meant$500 & below wide zoomsthat starts from F/2.8 on wards, not F/2.8 zooms. :-)

Such as those4 below>>>

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/349/cat/31

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...duct/33/cat/15

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/196/cat/31

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...duct/48/cat/23

There are also $500 & below F/2.8 wide zooms too! Look below;

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/172/cat/31

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...ct/1008/cat/31

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/355/cat/23

Regards.

















oreo57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 9:02 AM   #47
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 17
Default

Read your letter, RH. You obviously put a lot of time and effort into it.

Can you please also provide the link to the reply you received?

Thanks.


Tom Lusk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 9:25 AM   #48
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:

Are you a psychologist? Can you explain why some people are *always* being defensive of "their" brand, and regardless of what other people mention are true or not? Can your religionous "idol worship" theory explain all those behaviours?

Wahahahahahahahahaha!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Quote:

Only interesting one is this one:

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical IF SP AF (Tested)

Guess I've been just browsing the higher zoomland too long, i.e. 80-200 ish

Forgot about the "short" end. Thanks... We will have to wait and see if Pentax has anything in your price range. I suspect close but.... who knows. Sigma's not my favorite brand and will admit ignoring them a lot on a personal basis. Guess I'm not perfect :-)

I agree, that is a great one! :-)The Tamron 17-50mm has one of the best MTF(s) around, and it doesn't cost a lot too! This lens is surely recommended for both professionals and amateurs alike.


BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 9:28 AM   #49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 344
Default

Actually, Phil Askey is absolutely right in his *ist DS review regarding the poor JPEG quality. Your response (as well as the phenomenon you mentioned) are indeed typical examples of how *ist DS users will defend to death without looking at the fact. The fact is the compression of JPEG in the *ist Dx is very rough with loss of much picture details (of course this will decrease resolution, undoubtedly).

The K100D is not much more heavily sharpened as you suggested and I can tell that your assumption is wrong. Actually, I have illustrated clearly in the *ist DS Vs K100D JPEG shootout in my K100D full review:- http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh/K1...#Image_Quality

Saying "Soft Jpegs" are "merely a result of less sharpening" is indeed just naive and insane, it is just a way for many Pentaxians to deceive oneself and try not to face the fact. I must mention again that the fact is *ist Dx has a poor JPEG engine. Actually, Pentax have once told that the K100D has a better engine than *ist D series in their digital support site's FAQ section:- http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/35mm/k100d/faq.html but this message of the Q&A was deleted later on.

Afterall, Sharpening cannot increase Resolution but the reverse can be true for some cases.

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh


Catbells wrote:
Quote:
BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
I just don't know why you Pentax owners are just so over protective overyour things
I don't necessarily think that we are, BUT maybe we do get rather upset when Pentax is bashed just for being Pentax.

i.e. Look at the review for *istDS at DP Review & you'll see what I mean. That review slates Pentax for it's poor JPEG quality; something that it's done so effectively, that most now believe it - that review went into such detail against Pentax which has NEVER been carried out on any other camera since - why?. At the same time when the Canon 350 was released, DP Review couldn't praise it enough BUT when test images from both cameras were compared, Pentax, IMHO, came out marginally better (and with 6M not 8M pixels).

So, if we appear a tad sensitive, it's perhaps because we have to stick up for ourselves now & again.

Footnote: Soft images are intentional for top end cameras - something that I found difficult to accept initially, especially when paying much more than for a 'point & shoot' compact. By leaving the image in it's near 'virgin' form, it allowed the user to post process to add sharpness, saturation etc to their specific needs which is something that can't be done on a heavily 'in camera' processed image - what's been added, can't be removed.

As dSRLs become more popular, there's a trend to 'beef up' the JPEG to make it instantly more appealing - to this end the Nikon D50 & now the Pentax K100 appear to have joined this trend.
RiceHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 9:32 AM   #50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 344
Default

Tom Lusk wrote:
Quote:
Read your letter, RH. You obviously put a lot of time and effort into it.

Can you please also provide the link to the reply you received?

Thanks.

Tom, what makes you think that there is a web page for the reply?

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh
RiceHigh 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 11:37 AM.