*istD: Review of a Review v0.91 (last revised 10.03.2004)

Disclaimer: Use the information found on this page at your own risk.

 

After reading this review by Michael Reichmann, I came into conclusion that it's either he has been paid to give a bad review of this camera--or he's braindead. Either way, I would question any subsequent equipment reviews published on his website.

First off, he has a whole subsection of the article explaining how stupid the "*istD" as a name for a digital camera. OK granted that most of us agree that it's not exactly a stroke of genius, but does it warrant to have a separate subsection for that? Who cares, really?

Second, he complains about the batteries. Again, I'm confused: He cites that the ability to use AA as a disadvantage. I for one wish that ALL camera manufacturers should use AA's as their standard power source as I'm really irked at the notion of having to pay $40 for a custom rechargeable battery. He then stated that the Pentax doesn't really offer that much advantage since Pentax recommends the rechargeable AA's. I thought it was great, most speedlights/flashes/accessories use AA's; having a single type of charger for the power source of all my equipment would be really convenient!

The other thing that seems to bug him is the overall ergonomics of the camera. Different people have different preferences on how a camera should handle, and although Mr. Reichman despises the handling of the camera, a lot of other users like it.
I do agree on a few negatives that he pointed out, especially the missing histogram on the instant review which I find inexcuseable for Pentax.

To dismiss the *istD as merely an average camera is just plain dumb. At the end of the day, it's the images, right? Both the Nikon D100 and Pentax *istD share the same imaging sensor, so the D100 must be an average camera...well, Mr. Reichmann somehow managed to dodge that one on the review.

A lot of readers rely on the credibility of his reviews. I personally feel Mr. Reichmann screwed up on this one.

BTW, I don't own a *istD.

UPDATE: Since I published this article on November 11, 2003, I have received a record-breaking one e-mail about it.  Below is the original e-mail and my response in white.

-----Original Message-----

From: Paul M. Watson [mailto:xxx@xxx.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 5:48 AM
To: info@subtleimages.com
Subject: *istD: Review of a Review

Did you read his review? First paragraph "The Pentax *ist D, Pentax's new 6MP digital SLR, is an adequate offering - producing image quality competitive with similarly priced and featured cameras from Nikon, Fuji and Canon."

my point exactly. he pissed and moaned about everything else about the camera (he even have a whole subsection about the name...what's up with that?!) but he merely glossed over the image quality (compare his *istD review to his F828's). as i've said on my website, "at the end of the day, it's the images."

So it is on par with other cameras in quality, costs more than most and is a pain to handle for an experience professional photographer like Michael. To me that sounds like a poor product, rather get a 10D or D100 as they give the same image quality but handle better.

the camera being a "pain to handle" is purely subjective. how much time did he have on the camera? one, maybe two days? he is using mostly Canon equipment, and he expects to get accustomed to a new system in a matter of hours? but then i would hardly consider this as a major issue in any review (unless the camera manufacturer has done some boneheaded design like moving the shutter button at the bottom of the camera...exaggeration i know--i'm just illustrating a point) since a painful ergonomics for one photographer is the exact opposite for another.

as i've also pointed out in my website, i agree on a few points (like missing histogram on quick review), but i still felt that he was more subjective than objective on this review.

thank your for taking the time to write the e-mail. my view still stands, however. it's just an opinion, anyway...and i never try to shove mine down into anyone's throat. ;-)

regards,
Paul Watson
 

NEW UPDATE:

It seems that I'm not the only one who noticed MR's biased reviews.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1028&message=7978586

One thing that's been pointed out in this DPReview thread is the inconsistency of MR's reviews; MR praised the use of AA in one camera and yet he shot it down in another. you won't be able to stop yourself from laughing as MR tries to justify his reviews on this thread...and failed. pathetic.

The this one thing that's bugging me lately about MR's reviews is his sheer arrogance. He projects this attitude that anything that does not conform to his tastes is just wrong. His review of the *istD and the Olympus C8080 (if one could actually consider his C8080 article as a "review"...but I digress) are great examples of this embarrassing display of egotism.

---

Reading his recent "mini-review" of the new Kodak SLR/n makes me question his credibility even more. Was he paid by Kodak to give this glowing review? He despised the ergonomics of the original 14n and yet he seem so reserved about writing the same sentiments about the new SLR/n body design. How could his view suddenly change when the basic design of the SLR body has not changed significantly at all?

And he's so enthusiastic about the "improved" image quality of the camera. judging by the posted pictures on his website, it became clear to me that MR should declare himself as disabled on filing his next tax return. Why? Because he's blind.

A more suitable title would have been "Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n: My Personal Attempt To Kiss Kodak's Ass."