File :-(, x, )
DPR = Nikon/Canon fags Anonymous
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra200/

they posted the a200 review and at the very end, even though the a200 is a better value than both the Nikon D60 or Canon 1000D, they have to add their little grain of salt

>> Highly Recommended (just)

"just", what the fuck

yeah, we really like it, but since it's not a Nikon or a Canon, we'll say it's "just" okay, fucking fags
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
Why buy a Sony when you can buy a Nikon or a Canon? It really bewilders me.
>> Anonymous
So ignore them. Dpreview is starting to turn into Consumer Reports (which, until last year, would automatically give any vehicle from Toyota a "recommended" regardless of the review because they were so caught up in the Toyota love). DPreview spends all their time comparing noise shots and photographing resolution charts, and their forums are only half in english and rival youtube for post quality. I read them for news and that's about it.
>> Anonymous
another Nikon/Canon faggot moment on DPR

their review of the Sigma 70-200

>> Just posted! Our new lens review of Sigma's latest iteration of its popular fast telezoom, the snappily-entitled 70-200mm 1:2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II. Offering fast and silent autofocus to users of all brands of DSLR via its HyperSonic Motor (HSM) autofocus, and with a closest focus distance of just 1m, this certainly looks like a strong contender on paper, but with a parent design dating back to 1999, how does it match up to the current state of the art?

>> but with a parent design dating back to 1999, how does it match up to the current state of the art?

uhhhhh DPR geniuses, it's brand spanking new and came out like last year

and it's not like the Nikon and Canon designs are fucking modern either, both are also from the 90s

biased fucking idiots
>> Anonymous
>>225635

Well, I guess my Summiluxes are pretty fucking useless then, since their parent design dates back to, eh, 1940.
>> Anonymous
Oh wow, that picture just reminded me of that argument I had with Butterfly about how Pentax markets their shit for real photographers and Sony for the point-and-shoot crowd and he wouldn't have it.

10.2 MEGAPIXELS on the camera kind of gives it away.

(Fine, fine Olympus too but they've always been an odd bird)
>> Anonymous
>>225628
Why are there different car companies? Everyone should just buy (insert favorite company). It's retarded to buy any others.
>> Anonymous
>>225640
Pentax just makes a selling point of making their cheap cameras look and feel like expensive ones. They even added waterproofing to the low-end K200, making it 1.5 times as big and heavy as the closest rivals.

Everyone else goes the stupid way. "10.2 MEGAPIXULZ" isn't any more retarded than "EOS Digital REBEL XTi" in big red letters. And Canon, Sony and Olympus all ditch the retarded labels on their higher-end bodies.
>> Anonymous
>>225639
Non-retrofocus fixed focal length lenses were perfected a long time ago, but zooms have been getting seriously better over the last years.
>> Anonymous
DPreview reviews thousands of cameras and spends extensive time with them. If they like Canon and Nikon, that says something about those two brands. More than some nobody on 4chan who only buys a new camera every 5 years or so.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>225688
Exactly. Why the fuck people are still buying Fords when you can buy a Toyota or a more reliable, cheaper car bewilders me.
>> Anonymous
>>225702


I think all Olympus models are either highly recommended (just) or highly recommended. What does that mean?
>> Anonymous
>>225772
Uh, that Olympus makes decent cameras for the money?

Also, what was the last time you saw anything different from "Recommended" or "Highly Recommended" on dpreview?
>> Anonymous
>>225778


I think they're pretty realistic about their reviews for the most part. Pretty much any DSLR you buy is going to give you the opportunity to take high quality photos. They recognize that. I think the value in their reviews is not in the recommendation but in the depth. They're pretty thorough.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>225694Pentax just makes a selling point of making their cheap cameras look and feel like expensive ones.

you're a fucking idiot or have obviously never used a Pentax

they are more rugged and built better than the same price canon and nikon

yeah, that dual wheel really just makes you feel like you have an expensive camera, it's not really there, it's all pretend

yeah, that secondary display really just makes you feel like you have an expensive camera, it's a fake that doesn't work

>> They even added waterproofing to the low-end K200, making it 1.5 times as big and heavy as the closest rivals.

OH WOW, IT'S ONE AND HALF TIMES BIGGER

great logic is great

>> "10.2 MEGAPIXULZ" isn't any more retarded than "EOS Digital REBEL XTi" in big red letters.

Except Digital Rebel XTi is the goddamn logo and name just like the alpha logo and a200 badge, you fucking idiot

sony makes it a fucking point to say 10.2 megapixels right on the body

and it's not even in red letters in the rest of the world
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
DPR _is_ biased towards Nikon and Canon

maybe it depends on the writer of the review but you don't see bullshit like this in Nikon/Canon reviews
>> Anonymous
>>225896


Don't bother. Canikon faggotry isn't worth dealing with.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>225896
>they are more rugged and built better than the same price canon and nikon
That's precisely what I was talking about, fucker. Low-end functions, the look and feel of a higher-end camera.

>yeah, that dual wheel really just makes you feel like you have an expensive camera
Three-digit Pentax cameras don't have the second wheel. Two-digit ones are priced close to Canon and Nikon's offerings with two wheels.

>yeah, that secondary display really just makes you feel like you have an expensive camera, it's a fake that doesn't work
I've had cameras both with and without the secondary display and it's not really that big of a feature. A good viewfinder LCD is way more useful, but for some reason it takes ages for the manufacturers to do things as basic as putting the ISO value there.

>OH WOW, IT'S ONE AND HALF TIMES BIGGER
When you're making some of the most compact quality lenses on the market, having your lightest camera weigh 700g is a bit stupid. Also, weatherproofing on the K200D is more a gimmick than an useful feature since Pentax has a grand total of 5 weatherproof lenses, three of which are long, fast, expensive fix-focal telephotos that aren't of much interest for K200D owners.

>Except Digital Rebel XTi is the goddamn logo
So? This doesn't make it any shorter and less retarded.

>sony makes it a fucking point to say 10.2 megapixels right on the body
Canon puts "ULTRASONIC" and "IMAGE STABILIZER" in big letters on their lenses, Olympus had "HYPER CRYSTAL LCD" under their screens until recently, Pentax cameras have a nearly meaningless silver "D" badge, etc. Why do you rage at megapixels and not at that?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Color Filter Array Pattern654Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:07:21 23:01:22Exposure Time1/500 secExposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height600RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> Anonymous
>>225900
>you don't see bullshit like this in Nikon/Canon reviews
Duh, maybe that's because Nikon/Canon don't put retarded shit like this on their cameras? (I'm not sure, but I think dpreview bitched about Canon's Direct Print button at some point, too)
>> Anonymous
>>225908

wow, you're a fucking faggot who's just jealous because Pentax has a better camera than you?

holy shit, you're an idiot

>> So? This doesn't make it any shorter and less retarded.

uhhhh because it's a fucking LOGO? do you know what a LOGO is?

Digital Rebel XTi =========== alpha logo + a200
no MP badge !!!!!!!!!========== 10.2 megapixels

WOW THAT'S SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND

i fucking LOLD at your ignorant ass who thinks it's in red letters everywhere, fucking idiot

>> Canon puts "ULTRASONIC" and "IMAGE STABILIZER" in big letters on their lenses, Olympus had "HYPER CRYSTAL LCD" under their screens until recently, Pentax cameras have a nearly meaningless silver "D" badge, etc. Why do you rage at megapixels and not at that?

because those are actually features that fucking matter?

instead of 10.2 MOTHERFUCKINGMEGAPIXELS to cater to the point-and-shoot crowd

are you sad because the sony you have is for idiots like you ;______;?
>> Anonymous
>>225908
> Low-end functions, the look and feel of a higher-end camera.

This is a bad thing how? "Features" really don't matter on the camera for anyone not shooting some special niche, e.g. sports. It needs a way to focus, a good viewfinder, a way to control the aperture, shutter, and a way to either load and advance film or adjust the ISO of the sensor. A meter is nice. Beyond that, "high-end" versus "low-end" is a matter of build quality, ergonomics and so much hot air.

> Also, weatherproofing on the K200D is more a gimmick than an useful feature

It still would keep dust and moisture outside of the body. One entry point compared to dozens? I'll take that. Two of those lenses are designed to be do-all workhorse zooms; I'd rather if I shot Pentax if they were their 31mm, 50mm, and 70mm do-all workhorse primes, but still, the point is that the general photographer could own them as his only lenses and be happy, if he liked zooms, which most people do. Hell, owning one of them, if he doesn't need tele lengths.

Also, Pentax is what, five years into having digital bodies? Give them some fucking time; they're not Canikony, they don't have unlimited resources backing them, and even if they did, design does not happen overnight. Five years is barely time at all. And they haven't even had weathersealed bodies most of that time.

Lastly, a roll of duct tape should do a seal up nicely.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>225916
>HYPER CRYSTAL LCD
>Pentax "D" badge
>those are actually features that fucking matter

I facepalmed, then lol'd, then facepalmed again.

Picture sorta related.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern834Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:12:12 02:25:20Exposure Time1/5 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceTungstenFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1277Image Height903RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastHardSaturationHighSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>225918

ROFL

grasping at straws here because he's losing the argument

ultrasonic and IS are features that matter

whatever makes you feel better about your 10.2 megapixels sony
>> Anonymous
>>225917
>This is a bad thing how?
I never said it's a bad thing. I'm just not sure it's worth the additional weight and cost.

>It still would keep dust and moisture outside of the body.
Most DSLRs are already sealed well enough to withstand regular use. Weatherproof body is required for shooting, say, in a rain or a dust storm, where you would definitely want your lens to be weatherproof too.

>the point is that the general photographer could own them as his only lenses and be happy, if he liked zooms, which most people do.
This is true, but I'd like to see at least something wide and a macro lens in addition.

>Also, Pentax is what, five years into having digital bodies?
So is Olympus, but that doesn't prevent them from making stuff that sometimes out-features Canikon.
>> Anonymous
>>225922
Okay, IS is useful, but an ultrasonic AF motor matters about as much as megapixels, if not less (or everyone would've had them in all lenses by now).

Now go complain about "24 VALVE" labels on cars in /o/.
>> Anonymous
>>225935So is Olympus, but that doesn't prevent them from making stuff that sometimes out-features Canikon.

Uh, because Pentax doesn't?

>>225938but an ultrasonic AF motor matters about as much as megapixels, if not less (or everyone would've had them in all lenses by now).

We don't have them in every lens because it's expensive to make still?

There is a huge difference between a DC motor and an ultrasonic one.
>> Anonymous
>>225938
>ultrasonic AF motor

wait, wut?
>> Anonymous
>>225945
I'm not sure it's a price issue, Nikon puts ultrasonic motors in almost every lens, including 18-55 VR and 18-135. And they don't focus much better than their conventionally-driven Canon/Pentax/etc counterparts.

>>225946
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_motor
>> Anonymous
>>225935
>Weatherproof body is required for shooting, say, in a rain or a dust storm, where you would definitely want your lens to be weatherproof too.

And there are two general-purpose lenses spanning from 16 to 135mm that are weatherproof. For other lenses, like I said, duct tape or some other sort of homemade seal around the mount.

>This is true, but I'd like to see at least something wide and a macro lens in addition.

16mm (24mm equivalent) isn't wide?

Also, I don't think too many people will get use out of a weathersealed macro lens; IMO everything digital ought to be sealed, but I don't think it would affect many people here.

>So is Olympus, but that doesn't prevent them from making stuff that sometimes out-features Canikon.

The point was about weathersealing on lenses. Pentax is notorious for having a tough time keeping up with orders of existing lenses; they don't have the resources to instantly update their whole lens line-up (and the corresponding production lines) to match their weathersealed bodies.

Also, IIRC, wasn't the K100 not weathersealed? If that's the case, it's even more recent that there's the potential for weathersealing on all their bodies. I know the *ist DSLRs weren't weathersealed, so it isn't even over their whole history.

Pentax probably figures that people who need weathersealing will usually use zooms- A) because they figure most people change focal lengths a lot, and you don't change lenses a lot in a dust storm, and B) because most people, period, use zooms. It sucks for people who prefer sticking to one focal length, especially considering Pentax's awesome prime lineup, but they have to prioritize. Two pro f/2.8 zooms probably were the right thing to give the most benefit to the most people, and the right thing as far as business sense goes. The two superteles are probably so expensive as to almost make any extravagance affordable to produce.
>> Anonymous
>>225966
>duct tape or some other sort of homemade seal around the mount.
Umm, weather sealing doesn't work that way. Do you intend to wrap the focusing/aperture/zoom rings with duct tape too?

>Pentax is notorious for having a tough time keeping up with orders of existing lenses; they don't have the resources to instantly update their whole lens line-up
I don't see many reasons why Olympus can design a whole lens line-up from scratch in a few years and Pentax can't even update a few old lenses with modern AF while having a comparable market share. Probably just some management issues.

>they have to prioritize. Two pro f/2.8 zooms probably were the right thing to give the most benefit to the most people
This is true, of course. It's just a pity that Pentax is kinda slow to capitalize on their own good designs and is very reluctant to take any risks with camera design.
>> Anonymous
>>225951Nikon puts ultrasonic motors in almost every lens, including 18-55 VR and 18-135. And they don't focus much better than their conventionally-driven Canon/Pentax/etc counterparts.

shows what you know idiot

just because it says ULTRASONIC doesn't always mean it's ring USM

the cheaper lenses use micro USM which sucks shit
>> Anonymous
>>225999
No one ever said anything about ring or micro USMs. Canon puts the "ULTRASONIC" label on all of them anyway.
>> Anonymous
>>226003

just like Nikon says everything is SWM, yet they're not the ring type?

he said every lens should have it

not every lens has it because it's expensive to put in every one of them
>> Anonymous
>>225986
>Umm, weather sealing doesn't work that way. Do you intend to wrap the focusing/aperture/zoom rings with duct tape too?

It would stop it from getting into the camera body, at least. I imagine lenses are more resilient where one could at least manage in those situations without sealing. People did it for years with non-weathersealed but well built film stuff, just let it dry out and it was afterwards.

>I don't see many reasons why Olympus can design a whole lens line-up from scratch in a few years and Pentax can't even update a few old lenses with modern AF

1) They're starting a system from scratch, they have to. Pentax is saving some money and helping a lot of photographers by sticking with the K-mount.

2) If I'm not mistaken, Olympus was bigger than Pentax.

3) Pentax wasn't doing so well business-wise in recent years; it ended up being sold to Hoya, with the deal finished earlier this year. It's now just a part of the Hoya corporation, which hopefully will give it the cash it needs.

4) Olympus's Four-Thirds system also has the support of Fuji, Panasonic, Kodak, Leica, Sanyo, and Sigma. Pentax is doing it entirely alone.

5) Lens selection for Four-Thirds is not that extensive.

>Probably just some management issues.

This is almost certainly part of it; hopefully the acquisition by Hoya will give this aspect a needed kick.

>This is true, of course. It's just a pity that Pentax is kinda slow to capitalize on their own good designs and is very reluctant to take any risks with camera design.

Yep, definitely. But on the last bit- slow to take any risks- it seems that Pentax's philosophy has always been to make very good but very simple cameras, kind of a little like Leica, except not to the same extent that they don't make a metered body until the '70s IIRC.
>> Anonymous
I'm amazed that /p/ can turn a thread about dpreviews "biased" review of a Sony camera can turn into a flame war about pentax.
>> Anonymous
>>226150
Hah, and you thought /p/ stood for "photography" bahahaha.
>> Anonymous
>>225694
IIRC the K200D is essentially a re-badged K10D with some minor cosmetic/firmware differences (e.g. No little AF-S/AF-C switch on the front/less complicated menu names and easier navigation) And, from what I remember, the K10D was within the parameters of the advanced amateur market a while ago... The same league as cameras like the 40D, which is a fucking brick in it's own right. It's likely that Pentax wanted to save some money when they were working on new designs, so they stuck with the K10D idea and focused their efforts into the K20D, while sharing some of the goodies like USM capability and increased dynamic range. Not a bad idea for a smaller company like Pentax. That would explain the larger size and the weathersealing.
>> Anonymous
>>226047


Actually lens selection for Four Thirds is pretty damn good considering how long it's been around.
>> Anonymous
I hope the A900 has 24.4 motherfucking megapixels stamped on the camera.

That will show Canon who's boss.