« The TOP Evening at Yokoso | Main | Pretty Please »

Monday, 08 November 2010

Comments

I'm not usually one to give in to gear lust. I tend to use my gear for quite some time before moving up to a new model. And you're making it very hard to resist finally upgrading my K10D to a K-5. Can we please stop saying the K-5 is uber-great? My kids college fund is in danger ...

That is great for Pentax, indeed.
But their dimensions are pretty close:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp
Nikon is some 8% taller and 5% heavier.

I'm glad Pentax is doing well, but I'm not sure doing noise-reduction in the RAW files at high ISO as they are doing in the K-5 is really a helpful approach (notice that DXO calls the noise results at higher ISOs 'smoother' - their nomenclature for cooked RAW). In a few years, software NR techniques may improve, but those RAW files will be stuck with what they have. Whatever happened to RAW being RAW?

I am almost excited when one of the non-mainstream manufacturers scores a hit, and I would definitely recommend the K5. I have to say though that I find these tests rather theoretical. I shoot with an M9 in very contrasting lighting and I pull amazing detail out of the shadows with very filmlike results, so I am not putting anything into these results for practical applications. (most of the photographs on my website were taken with the M8, some with the M9, and two with the M7 on 100speed Ektar, and I believe it is incredibly difficult to tell which ones are the color negative photos)

Wow - it looks like Pentax having to create really great processors to handle their previous not-as-great sensors is paying off.

Oh crap. I have a Canon 40D, whose color rendition and sharpness and all that other stuff very often gives me a little thrill of exceeded expectations and produces 11x14 prints (the biggest I ever make) that are really lovely both in B&W and color.

Now I find out that the K5 is an 82 and my Canon is a real POS, at only 64.

Thanks a bunch, Mike.

Mike, I've had the chance to play with a K-5 twice in the past 10 days, and I've made a point of listening to the mirror-shutter sound from different distances and angles. I can now say that it sounds like a stick of butter being hit with a tennis racquet.

Iliah Borg (Raw Photo Processor developer) just mentioned that, similar to other Sony cameras like the A900, the A580 has better color separation than its competition (K-5 and D7000.) Point being, sacrifices are constantly made to optimize various camera IQ qualities. Sony has generally taken the path of better color vs. the best possible high ISO performance, and the weakening of CFAs is something that Canon has been doing for a while.

"Still, I think it's impressive that the Nikon doesn't smack the Pentax down. Nikon is Goliath and Pentax is David, for sure."

Well, except I don't think Pentax manufacture the sensor. Is it Samsung or Sony, or...? Perhaps more interesting is how far behind Canon would seem to be, with the 7D having a score of 66. The normal rebuttal would be that DxO is a per pixel score and the Canon is higher res, but 18 vs 16 Mpix really isn't much of a difference.

Interesting times!

James

Congrats to Pentax and Nikon on this techie crown. Good to see the A55 doing so well, it being less than 1/2 the cost of the Pentax. This proves that IQ is not everything, though. The a55 body is no match for the foul weather aficionado that the K5 probably is.

Next years is do or die for Canon it would seem : update both full-frame cameras, catch up a huge lag on APS-C, defend against mirrorless systems, ...

Each of these would make for a big year of announcements, and they pretty much have to do them all in 2011.

Can Photoshop CS3 read Pentax K-5 RAW files?

Mike - The Bills are 0-8 - you should not mess with their fan base right now by reminding us of how the first trip to the Superbowl ended.

The samples in that link you provided remind me of how much recovery was possible with sample shots from the Fuji S5. Although, they were arguably even more impressive since the recovery went the other way: blown-out highlights to usable data, not pulled-up shadow detail.

Jeff K.,
Oops, I did not realize. Could be worse, though, their local news could be following the quarterback from the next State over.

(Although maybe that's not even worse....)

Mike

If you shoot the Pentax K5 in DNG mode, yes earlier versions of Photoshop, including CS3 should be able to read the files just fine. (Pentax also now supports lossless compression in DNG so there is no size penalty.)

-Z-

Go Pentax!

Again, hat's off to Pentax. But, real kick in the pants hers is to Canon. They are way behind the curve here, and as one previous post pointed out, will have to pull some really evolved rabbits out of their hat or see their market share begin to erode even faster.
I've been seriously considering a 60D to replace my XSi, but am now seriously thinking about waiting another year to see what they do in 2011.

"Can Photoshop CS3 read Pentax K-5 RAW files? Posted by: David Bennett | Monday, 08 November 2010 at 11:53 AM"


Pentax native format is PEF, but the Pentax SW utility in PC/Mac can convert the PEF into DNG format which is readable by Photoshop.

You can also directly use DNG format in Pentax cameras.

Say, does anyone do objective testing of shutter sounds? I mean, I'm impressed with "sounds like a stick of butter being hit with a tennis racquet", and I certainly could repeat the experiment, (How hard do you hit the butter?) but...

Will

@ David Bennett - set the K-5 to record DNG raw files and I believe CS3 will handle them.
Seriously, so many people take their raw photos, then convert them to DNG, why don't other manufacturers give the choice of recording DNGs?

What's clear to me from these rankings is that the K5 and D7000 are almost certainly using the same sensor. Perhaps Nikon or Pentax have tweaked it one way or another, but these results are far too close for this not to be the same underlying tech. Take a look at the breakdown:

Color Depth: 23.5 to 23.7 (Pentax wins)
Dynamic Range: 13.9 to 14.1 (Pentax wins)
ISO: 1167 to 1162 (Nikon wins)

It's a nice bit of bragging rights for Pentax, no doubt, but beyond that it seems like a pretty meaningless victory. At the end of the day, Nikon users are going to buy the D7000 and Pentax users will buy the K5-- this doesn't change that equation. It might help Pentax win over a few new users who aren't already committed to a particular system, but frankly I think the US $400 price difference is going to have more of an impact there.

Great news for Pentax aficionados I suppose...but astounding news for Nikon users. Why? Imagine how the new technology will translate into exceptional FF sensors (D4, D800). Think the D3s on steroids.

I am of course blowing off the whole video recording capability thingy.

Also no offense to Pentaxistas...but Pentax offers no comparable 'fast' lenses. :-) Sorry folks. But 2011 may be a defining year for Nikon not er... Pentax.

Somewhere out there my old H1a is smiling.It was last seen at the Torii Station Pawn Shop in Yomitan on Okinawa in late 1969.

>>my Canon [EOS 40D]is a real POS, at only 64.<<

Why be so negative? After all, the EOS 7D and 60D are only two points better than your 40D, so there's hardly any need to upgrade. For all practical purposes you own the best that Canon has to offer in APS-C. Better yet, if the Nikon D7000 and Pentak K-5 start eating away at Canon's market share, Canon will be forced to up their game. Until then you can continue to enjoy the great photos you're getting from the camera you already own.

Interesting times indeed.

Where do they stack up on the value metric?

At B&H, the Pentax body-only is $1599; the Nikon body only is $1199.

JC

"Can Photoshop CS3 read Pentax K-5 RAW files?"

If CS3 can read DNG raw files (presumably it can) then the answer is yes.

Kent

David Bennett: Photoshop CS3 (via Adobe Camera Raw) should indeed be able to read files from the K-5 - provided you set the K-5's Raw format to DNG instead of the default Pentax proprietary PEF.

However, the results will not quite meet what is possible via the new versions of ACR, or other more recent converters - especially once colour profiles for this particular model have been developed.

Wow - looking at that fix-up of an underexposed K-5 shot... my Canon 50D can't do that. I don't know what a DXO is or why those figures might matter, but RAW files from my 50d fall apart into noisy hash when underexposed and lightened up in ACR like that.

David Bennet asked if CS3 can read Pentax raw files. I have not tried the K 5 (yet), but all Pentax DSLR´s (at least from my K10D)can shot in PEF (Pentax Property Raw files) or in DNG Raw files. DNG can be read by CS

David - yes. Pentax offers DNG since 2006, so no need to wait for Adobe to update ACR to understand Pentax raw files. One more plus for Pentax IMO.

"That is great for Pentax, indeed. But their dimensions are pretty close..."

But the Nikon has neither weather sealing nor in-body image stabilisation that works with ALL current primes and legacy lenses.

@ James, all indications are that the D7000 and K5 use the same Sony EXMOR sensor.

Forgive me for - perhaps - seeming like a grouch, but I wonder if the camera inter-brand sensor wars do not mask something a little more fundamental? I'm a strong believer in the fact that chains are as strong as their weakest link, and it seems to me that what we're looking at in these sensor results is a very small section of a much longer chain. Only if everything else in a much longer chain is the same, or else optimised for that specific chain, could the sensor results have any real meaning.

Same scene, same viewpoint, same subject, same light, same framing in the viewfinder. 3 cameras: Nikon, Canon, Pentax. One is "full-frame", 2 are smaller sensors. Three differing exposures, although each the same EV. Two have zoom lenses (one of which is a third-party lens), one a prime. One lens has a polarising filter. Two are shot at minimum aperture (which differ), one at f11. Two shot in RAW, on in JPEG. All processed to give equal treatment to the image, but using 3 different programmes. Each image is printed using 3 different printers (and three different Cteins doing the printing), using 3 different profiles.

I think 82 vs 80 vs 78 vanishes into the error budget, unless everything else is the same.

@David Bennett:
Yes, Photoshop CS3 can read K5 raw files - because the K5 can save in Adobe DNG raw format :)

David: The K-5 supports DNG, which Lightroom 3 has no problem reading, so I would think CS3 would have no problem either.

Sure, the Pentax has better image quality, but, for the budget-conscious, the Nikon is almost as good, and it costs a good deal less ($1200 vs $1600 for body only at B-and-H, as of this writing).

I'm used to seeing that claim made the other way around. This is refreshingly different, although I'm not sure which company it counts as a win for.

On the one hand, great! On the other hand, who cares; once you get beyond a certain degree of technical competence, do you really want to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Learn to use what you have, and use it well. See www.bythom.com

GF said:

"Iliah Borg (Raw Photo Processor developer) just mentioned that, similar to other Sony cameras like the A900, the A580 has better color separation than its competition (K-5 and D7000.) Point being, sacrifices are constantly made to optimize various camera IQ qualities."

In fairness to the readers of this comments section, if you're interested in this point, you should read the response of a well respected engineer on the Pentax forum to Mr. Borg's unsupported statement here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=36858696

A short summary of this detailed response is that the differences in color separation that Mr. Borg is referring to probably would not be seen.

David: "Can Photoshop CS3 read Pentax K-5 RAW files?"

Should if you use DNG for Raw, rather than PEF. I have CS5 and started using them right away, no issues, so I would assume that Pentax hasn't played funny games with their DNG format implementation.

"There's a rather stunning demonstration of the K-5's DR prowess at Pentax Forums."

There's a DP Review posting in the Pentax SLR forum that tops that with 10 stops, but I hit my own with a 7 and half stop oops that I posted about on my website. It's a little on the side of mind blowing, I've never seen so much recovered from underexposure in my life and I expect that the D7000 is in the same ballpark.

Us Pentaxians are happy, and I'm pretty sure the Nikon world is too. The DxO differences are basically a wash.

"Still, I think it's impressive that the Nikon doesn't smack the Pentax down. Nikon is Goliath and Pentax is David, for sure."

But don't forget, Goliath didn't smack David down; David slew Goliath. Will it end the same way in Cameraland?

"Can Photoshop CS3 read Pentax K-5 RAW files?"
Nope... But you can convert them to DNG and use them in CS3, or you can upgrade to CS5. That's standard practice for older versions of Photoshop (and therefore ACR).

So the D7000 and the K-5 both beat the D700 and come close to the 5D Mark II.

Does this mean that maybe Nikon was right 5 years ago when they said they'd never make a full frame camera?

I really don't understand the price difference in the US between K5 and D7000. Here in Europe is only 80 -100 euros (in favour of Nikon).

Having used and loved the Fuji dSLRs (S3&S5) and seeing what the K5 is able to recover in underexposure, there is a similarity in behavior that comes to mind.
For those of us "stuck" with great ol' Nikkor manual glass, the only pity is the K5 does not come in F mount as well. Sacrilege, I know.
However, having read Luminous Landscape latest scoop I am able to make a connection with behavior I encountered especially with the Fuji F mount bodies: the only time they truly shined and show their true colors was when used with fast (manual) primes. It really under performed even compared to a measily D40 when used with kit lenses or the like.

No mention of quality of either these cameras or haptics/handling. I really liked the handling of the Minolta 7D I had but it wasn't lasting the course so I had to change it.
Durability followed by handling would come higher up my list when selecting a camera long before minimal variations in sensor performance. But to be honest I print very few large images.
Y.M.M.V.

For the people comparing Nikon's D7000 to Pentax K5

One shall keep in mind that the sensor is not the camera, the real competitor of the Pentax K5 is Nikon's D300s.

- Both have 100% viewfinder,
- Both are fully weathersealed (this is not the case of D7000)
- Both have full magnesium shell (this is not the case of D7000)

While the Nikon have better AF, the Pentax has better sensor (until a D300s replacement comes out)

Comparing Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000 is like comparing Pentax K-x (or now K-r) and Nikon D300, not meaningless but not really relevant.

As a Pentax user, I'm pleased. But the pointlessness of the whole DXO thing comes across when one considers the cameras marked lower than my own K7 (a dog, according to DXO - should have been called the K9). The likes of the Canon 30D, EVERY Olympus or Panasonic digital camera, etc. Has no-one ever take great photographs with these cameras?

Will, if you go back to 22nd November last year on TOP, there is a featured comment; a nice story by David Brookes where he describes a Mamiya RB67 which "sounded like someone dropping a tray of cutlery"

It's here: http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/11/where-was-the-photographer-standing.html

The Pentax K5 and the Nikon D7000 now cost around 1200 euro each in the Netherlands. I will stick to my Pentax lenses and buy the K5, after two years of fun with my K20D. Nothing wrong with the Samsung sensor (lots of detail, and lownoise up to ISO 800, I used to shoot with 50 ASA film!), but the Sony beats it!

Isn't the common thread here Sony which I believe builds the sensors for all the top three?

Jeff Kott, one needs to keep reading through the thread to see Iliah's response. Iliah is at the forefront of camera testing and color profile building (for RPP and others,) and this is a bit of tugging on Superman's cape, here. His studies are also all over Imatest's site.

Sony seems to be the only APS-C and 35mm DSLR maker that is still considering color separation, but it ultimately leads to noise disadvantages. Canon is at the opposite end of the spectrum, with Nikon and Pentax somewhere in the middle. Pick your poison.

The real problem for the K-5 is it really needed to crush the D7000 and it didn't. That makes the K-5 a great camera for the Pentax user looking to upgrade but a hard sell to someone not already invested in K-mount glass (Thom Hogan has convinced me on this point). At the end of the day, Nikon has a more complete current lens lineup, better AF, better accessory and 3rd party support, and better service. When the sensor output of comparable bodies is within the margin of 'too close to matter', Pentax loses based on total system.

From a company standpoint, it's not really good enough for Pentax to be good, they have to be better, and by a wide enough margin that choosing them over Nikon/Canon is viable for new customers (no, in body IS for ancient glass is not as big a feature as Pentax users seem to think it is). The K10D I think was, the last 3 flagship bodies have not been. So objectively, if I were a new user, I would look at this, and say "good for Pentax"... and then buy the Nikon.

And I say that as a nearly 25 year Pentax user, who's deeply invested in K-mount. The K-5 may keep me from switching for this body gen, but it hasn't ended the thought that I will have to at some point.

"When the sensor output of comparable bodies is within the margin of 'too close to matter', Pentax loses based on total system."

I don't think that's a foregone conclusion. The Pentax has some other advantages--it's smaller, it's weatherproof (as long as you use one of the weatherproof lenses), it has body-integral IS, and the system has some lenses Nikon doesn't. And its shutter release is most likely quieter (this hasn't been proved yet, but I'll bet it will be the case). One or more of those factors might sway any given individual--as I've mentioned before, body-integral IS is a very important feature for me, and puts the Big Two (Canon and Nikon) *below* the Little Three (Pentax, Sony, and Olympus) on the desirability scale.

The friend of mine who's currently shooting with a K-5 switched from a D700.

Just as possibly, a Nikon might seem a better choice for any of the reasons you mention, and because the D7000 is so much cheaper in the U.S. But there are legitimate reasons for going either way.

Mike

Roger Bradbury,
Thanks for that - I'll add it to my collection of descriptions of shutter sounds :)

Will

One of the reviews on the Pentax Forums described the K-5's shutter as "quieter than a fart in a mitt."

(Another reviewer listed, under "Cons," "Doesn't bring me beer.")

Mike

Almost everyone seems to be sold on DXO Mark ratings. Why is it being seen as 'the last word'?

I'm tempted to say 'congrats DXO' rather than saying 'congrats Nikon' or 'Pentax'. But then, judging has always been a great business idea, right? Many international award shows in numerous creative fields come to mind. You get Gold, silver, bronze...but i, the judge, am the real winner. And the great thing is...everybody ends up being happy.

I read a thread in dpreview which tried demonstratating how the whole DR thing is a 'trick' so that the camera makers are now beginning to tailor-made their cameras to get great ratings from DXO. I don't know if that's right, i don't understand much of it, but this whole thing does tell me who's really going to benefit. We need them to tell us that the camera technology is getting better.

To reassure ourselves, we can go take a look at great pictures that have been made with the simplest of cameras.

Anurag,
Who said it was the last word? Not me.

And, you find yourself tempted to believe a forumer from dpreview above the imaging scientists at DxO? Really?

Mike

Sorry about that Mike, so, let's remove the dpreview line from my comment, and lets say some of the rant as well. I did say i don't understand much of it. What i wrote was because there's so much discussion going on about it, and it does take the focus away from photography (and it does make you look at your equipment a little strangely)...and this is one thing i have learnt from here...to be able to rise above the equipment. (i shoot with a very simple camera, with 5 stops of DR, and i've never felt limited by it and i want to continue to feel this way). With due respect to the scientists at DXO, i don't mean they are not genuine.
And i completely forgot Sony. They are the common theme between Nikon and Pentax, so credit goes to them as well.

Here are a few comments I collected from Photozone's Olympus forum, made by Klaus, Photozones Chief Editor, that I found noteworthy.

{"Q: Klaus, why do you consider the K-5 to be superior to the D7000? Other than a couple of extra fps and the in-body IS, it seems to be on-par with the Nikon or even trailing (AF points, metering), while costing $400 more.

A: It's smaller & more rugged. Body-side IS as you mentioned. And more important than anything else - Pentax has a complete dedicated APS-C lens lineup. Nikon has merely isolated solutions here specifically regarding primes."}


"I think there's absolutely no doubt that Pentax has, by far, the best APS-C lineup out there. It's not even a close call. Full format lenses on APS-C DSLRs are always a compromise - at least in terms of size/weight."

"Well, I think this one is fairly obvious. Pentax is basically the only manufacturer offering APS-C pancakes. If you want to stay small with primes there's no way around Pentax. The Pentax 60-250 is also unique. There're more. This is basically the advantage of a dedicated APS-C lineup and not some sort of mix."

"The D7000 has "magnesium-alloy top and rear cover". The K-5/7 has also front and bottom plates made of metal. It is also likely that it has more seals.
The K-5/7 is a D300 class body, the D7000 is an upgraded D90 or downgraded D300, whatever you wish."

"Anyway, technically the K-5 seems to be the best new APS-C DSLR of the season. It seems superior to the 60D/D7000/A55/E5 to me at least."

Chief Editor
photozone.de

I'll add: The K-5 lowest ISO (80) reads an actual 70 ISO at DXOmark... the lower the better.

http://bit.ly/dhRTJQ

It seems to be a mathematical trick. See dpreview forum post: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=36859818

It's funny to see that manufacturers know that geeks (as opposed as photographers) do look at technical websites to be able to decide which camera to buy.

If so, in an internet era where we all spread/collect [true and false] information to/from everywhere cameras may get bad press and both Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5 seemed to be good cameras aka photographic tools.

greyhat

[Editor's Note: I hesitate to publish this link because I believe the author of the linked post is not correct. Please see Ctein's reply to Anurag later in this comment thread. --MJ]

">>my Canon [EOS 40D]is a real POS, at only 64.<<

Why be so negative? ......."

Gordon: I was trying to be ironic, and apparently failed altogether.

My real point was exactly the same as yours, and to mock the mindset that makes people covet the next camera, because it has more megapixels (or whatever) when the current camera is fine.

It's a race we can never win.

Ray: So objectively, if I were a new user, I would look at this, and say "good for Pentax"... and then buy the Nikon.

Contrariwise: I'm thinking about switching (away from Sony), and the decision between the K-5 and the D7000 looks very close. Each has plusses and minuses.

Cost-wise, the Pentax body is more expensive but when I look at the lenses I'd likely buy to start with (35mm prime, tele zoom out to 300mm, 100mm macro), the Pentax lenses total up to about $400 less than the stabilized Nikon equivalents. (The Nikon 35mm I'm thinking of isn't stabilized, but it is a stop faster than the low-end Pentax 35mm).

I'm leaning toward the Pentax at the moment, but I won't decide until February or so. And who knows, the horse might learn to sing Sony might announce they're putting that excellent sensor into a body of the K5/D7000 class.

I believe that Anurag is referring to the Luminous Landscape article making the rounds:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml
It has gotten a little distorted by forum trolls, but a good piece.

Second, I still own my ME Super, still occasionally use my PZ-1P, own the 10D & 20D.
I am happy for Pentax and happy they have produced a winner in the K5.
Still, they have not produced the digital version of the PZ-1P to date and should have by now.
I agree with Ray above, that I have been looking at other options, particularly Nikon, for the long term.
I'm a 30+ year Pentax shooter, part-time pro and teacher. Good as the K5 appears, I'm looking at the D7000 as a favorable alternative.

Re: getting hit with a wave of NaClH2O along with a K5- and body weather sealing, in case you were interested:

http://bit.ly/cyT6PW

This is getting very serious. What do we have to do to get you to post that illustration of a K-5 wearing a crown? Don't make me sign up with Facebook and start a petition.

:-)

Yep.
But none of the ther brands are "hyper".
Wink, wink.

Which is the main advantage of any given Pentax over any other comparable body from any other manufacturer.

However, the future is on LG´s hands.

In other unrelated stuff,
"I'm tempted to say 'congrats DXO' rather than saying 'congrats Nikon' or 'Pentax'. But then, judging has always been a great business idea, right? Many international award shows in numerous creative fields come to mind. You get Gold, silver, bronze...but i, the judge, am the real winner. And the great thing is...everybody ends up being happy. "

This is quite a risqué judging, right? At least on architecture and urban-city design judging, the wrong decision is very dangerous, as proven so many times.

just for the record

the K-5 reaches the maximum latitude at 80 ISO, the D8000 stops at 100 where it reaches 13.87 EV again the 13.7 of the Pentax at the same sensibility.

Ok, I have to stop measurbating...

Sounds suspiciously like sample variation, and that these two fine brands are quite possibly the same when the manufacturer's targeted tolerances.

Sample three units per month of each model, over a period of 12 months. Measure all of them. Graph out whatever sorts of comparisons or trends you please.

Then we'll see the real results. Until then, metrics give hints at differences, hints of mathematical precision, that just might not exist in the real world.

Lovely work, Pentax. Now if you could pretty please get to work on addressing these other issues I'd love to get a Pentax kit:

- AF, particularly in low light
- 35mm-equivalent fast prime (f/1.4 to f/2--the larger the better)

I was so close to getting a K-7 but those two issues combined with the rubbish K-7 sensor (be honest; it was pants) stopped me. So now 1 issue down, 2 to go. You can do it, guys!

Dear Anurag,

No, that trick-thread is not right.

Adding a constant offset does not alter the S/N ratio in an image, mathematically.

It may make detail more visible to the eye. Much the same way that shining a really bright light on a print lets you see shadow detail better. But the inherent detail in the print doesn't change when you do that.

Frankly, this seems to be more of the usual -- people who have decided that the results have just got to be wrong, so they're trying to figure out ways to make the DxO folks seem like idiots.

What we derogatorily call result-driven research.

pax / Ctein

How would the D7000 do with a
similar 3 stop under exposed
photo?

Anurag said: "I read a thread in dpreview which tried demonstratating how the whole DR thing is a 'trick' so that the camera makers are now beginning to tailor-made their cameras to get great ratings from DXO. I don't know if that's right, i don't understand much of it, but this whole thing does tell me who's really going to benefit. We need them to tell us that the camera technology is getting better."

This is a common phenomena in the motorcycle community. Racers at racetracks where there are noise regulations have been known to point their exhausts away from the part of the track where the measurement is being taken. And manufacturers, faced with similar noise and emissions regulations, have been known to tune their bikes so that they perform as required by the regulations, i.e., at a particular RPM, but at other RPMs are tuned differently.

Seeing the importance of DxO scores to Internet camera enthusiasts, it's not out of the realm of possibility that camera makers are making sure that the put their best foot forward for the tests.

Ctein,
your post clarifies this. Its difficult for a layperson not to get impressed
with technical posts like the one mentioned in my earlier post. So let's say i got a bit carried away on this one.
With these ratings, they are also doing kind of technical benchmarking, and it does help up the standards. For everybody.
anurag

"This is a common phenomena in the motorcycle community. Racers at racetracks where there are noise regulations have been known to point their exhausts away from the part of the track where the measurement is being taken. And manufacturers, faced with similar noise and emissions regulations, have been known to tune their bikes so that they perform as required by the regulations, i.e., at a particular RPM, but at other RPMs are tuned differently."

John,
Mercedes makes this same argument with regard to crash safety. It says that other car manufacturers are now designing cars specifically to do well on the (very regulated) NHTSA crash tests. Whereas Mercedes has actually exhaustively studied real-world crash situations and their frequency of occurrence, and designs its cars to do well in real crashes--one side effect of which is that its scores on the NHTSA tests are just below the best.

And to come back on topic, Leica years ago used to say something very similar about its lenses--that its lenses were designed to conform to qualities that people actually most responded to in optical rendition, and they didn't care if their lenses didn't score the highest on technical resolution tests. Leica abandoned that position some time ago, however, and now goes for technical perfection...to its own detriment, some connoisseurs think.

Mike

For those worried about Canon's future, fear not for them. Sporting events will remain a sea of huge white lenses. Aside from some exceptional short and medium Limiteds and DA* lenses, Pentax's lens offering, especially on the long & fast end, is woefully lacking. This coming from a K10D owner since 2007. I had to buy a 300/2.8 from Sigma because nothing was available from Pentax. Even trying to buy used, nothing was unavailable for months at the time. And the situation is only worse today, with the larger Pentax owner community.

Hello I am a new user! have only ever used 35mm (Pentax which I think dates from the 70s)! i finally have the 1-1.2€ to go digital. I am wavering between Nikon D7000 or K7/K5 (if I can get the price of the latter comparable to the Nikon). Once I make the choice that is probably going to be it for the next decade since I won't be able to afford to change lenses.
I am a girl, totally untechnical. But I take good photos!
A lot of photos in low light, dusk and dawn. Portraits, people in the streets, cityscapes, street scenes, interiors. Strong contrast.
Video may help with work (I cast film extras) but has to be autofocus as they move around all the time!
Please help. I feel like I am making a once-in-a-lifetime decision!!

The comments to this entry are closed.