 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005How reviewers shade the truth
I checked out four magazine reviews. One for the Nikon D70s, one for the Olympus E-300, one for the Canon Rebel XT and one for the Canon 20D. They all used a kind of "sin of omission" or visible data manipulation to paint a better picture of camera than reader might otherwise obtain. In the case of the D70s, they gave the price for the camera body, the kit ($100 more) but the pictures they shot with it for the article were done with a much more expensive ED Nikkor zoom. They didn't mention this fact in the article but did show a picture of the camera lens combo they used. For the Olympus E-300, the article made no mention of the noise beyond ISO 200 issue. In fact, the article was so bad that no definitive conclusion about the camera could be determined and there was no way it could be compared against competing brands. For the Rebel XT, the magazine (Digital Photographer) use the old Time Magazine trick of massaging graphs to make it look like like somethign is better or worse than it is. They flatten a curve on a stock market graph so you get the impression of stability in a stock, etc. The noise graphs in question (at first glance) give the impression the XT has virtually the same noise levels as the 20D. But check out the scales on the left of the paired graphs. http://usera.imagecave.com/rander3127/Cameratests/digitalphotographer.jpg The last magazine article was on the Canon 20D. It went to great lengths including giving the camera a 95% rating when it came to image quality, however, it only mentioned the camera's "body price" and failed to mention what the cost of the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM they used on the camera to do the review. In fact, they didn't mention the lens at all, they just showed it. Sure, the 20D is capable of superb quality shots, but not at the $1500 price point that nets you the body and a far inferior lens. In that case, the article's "95%" image quality rating would definitely have to be changed. If they were being clear the camera and tested lens price would have be noted as around $2400.00. None of these reviewers outright lied about anything. But they configure the reviews with the clear intention to "sell" you the product instead of providing a scrupulously honest examination of the camera in question. -Rich > The last magazine article was on the Canon 20D. It went to great > lengths including giving the camera a 95% rating when it came to image [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > camera in question. > -Rich The 75-300 f4-5.6 IS USM might be considered a hindrance rather than a boon...Not Canon's best zoom lens, by any means. Now, if they used a 24-70 f2.8L or even a 28-135 IS, that would be shading the results by a large margin.  SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > I checked out four magazine reviews. <SNIP>> > None of these reviewers outright lied about anything. But they > configure the reviews with the clear intention to "sell" you the > product instead of providing a scrupulously honest examination of the > camera in question. > -Rich The larger the cost, the more careful the research should be up front. I spent all of my free time for about 3 weeks checking online reviews, user reviews and lurking on many forums before buying my current camera. I read literally hundreds of reviews, compared specs, checked out sample pictures and asked LOTS of questions. I started out wanting a 8MP DSLR. Then I found that the pros seemed to prefer the image quality of the 5MP cameras over the 8MP cameras. Then I read a lot of NG's where the main topic of conversation is how to clean or keep the sensor clean and how to get a decent quality lens for less than the price of a new car. My choice was a Panasonic FZ20. I've had it for a couple of months and LOVE it! Great quality images (when I do my part). Full manual controls when I need them, Program mode when I want it. Menus and controls are mostly intuitive and simple. Handheld shots at 432mm! Who would of thought? Cost about a third of what the DSLR would have for the same capability. >>I checked out four magazine reviews. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Handheld shots at 432mm! Who would of thought? > Cost about a third of what the DSLR would have for the same capability. It does not have the same capability as a DSLR. But if it's capabilities meet your needs, then it is probably better than a dslr for you. I'm not being obscure, but if you don't understand what the advantages of a dslr might be, then there is IMO very little point in getting one, as the advantages will probably be seen as frustrations or limitations. >>> I checked out four magazine reviews. >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > of a dslr might be, then there is IMO very little point in getting one, > as the advantages will probably be seen as frustrations or limitations. Agree, people who trump about their FZ20 can do most things a dSLR can and better are just snapshoters that don't know the virtue of the flexibility of a dSLR couple with the appropriate lens and the beauty of high ISO. I don't know if you can put a flash on your FZ20 for bounced flash but even if possible, I would think it'd look top heavy and funky. >>>> I checked out four magazine reviews. >>> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > don't know if you can put a flash on your FZ20 for bounced flash but even > if possible, I would think it'd look top heavy and funky. You reckon that would be top heavy, I put an external flash on my Sony V1, now that is funky, mind you it takes pretty reasonable shots. >>>>>I checked out four magazine reviews. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > You reckon that would be top heavy, I put an external flash on my Sony V1, > now that is funky, mind you it takes pretty reasonable shots. I have a V1 too. No, I don't think I'd spend the money on an external flash for that little thing. >>>>>>I checked out four magazine reviews. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > I have a V1 too. No, I don't think I'd spend the money on an external > flash for that little thing. Thats okay, I have a boxfull from my SLR's and D-SLR. >I don't know if you can put a flash on your FZ20 for bounced > flash but even if possible, I would think it'd look top heavy and funky. Yea that's the main advantage of a dSLR, looking cool and stylish. God forbit your camera looks "funky". We all know it's what the camera LOOKS like that matters, mainly what brand name is displayed on the front of it. SignatureStacey We all know it's what the camera LOOKS > like that matters, mainly what brand name is displayed on the front of it. Exactly, just like you I guess. :-) >> Cost about a third of what the DSLR would have for the same capability. >> > It does not have the same capability as a DSLR. It actually has a GREATER capability than many dSLR's saddled with their cheap kit lens. SignatureStacey >>> Cost about a third of what the DSLR would have for the same capability. >>> >> It does not have the same capability as a DSLR. > > It actually has a GREATER capability than many dSLR's saddled with their > cheap kit lens. Sure it does Chicken Little. [] >> I started out wanting a 8MP DSLR. Then I found that the pros seemed >> to prefer the image quality of the 5MP cameras over the 8MP cameras. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > one, as the advantages will probably be seen as frustrations or > limitations. It's not necessarily a matter of "understanding advantages of a DSLR", it's making a decision as to what suits your own particular needs best. If I wanted a camera for astrophotography, or I didn't mind having to carry round a bulky set of accessory lenses etc., I would probably have moved from 35mm SLR to DSLR (and had to buy a new extreme wide-angle lens). However, I analysed what I actually needed to take the photographs I wanted, and bought point-and-shoot, and never regretted it! Like Jack, I also have an image-stabilised Panasonic, the FZ5 in my case, and quite agree that it has capabilities which were never in my SLR kit (e.g. hand-held 432mm shots). I also have a Nikon 8400 for its wide-angle and swivel LCD capability, allowing me to put the camera where I couldn't put a 35mm SLR and still see the viewfinder. Different people have different needs, but just because someone chooses not to buy a DSLR doesn't mean they don't understand the advantages. Cheers, David > [] > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Cheers, > David I guess David knows the difference, but from what frederick wrote with wrong concepts, he's a newbie. I have no doubt that the Pananonic FZ20 is a capable camera for majority of people but don't count on it in more demanding situations and definitely no need to mention it at all when the OP was not mentioning P&S. I heard you, David, many times already, but so far all you've told us is you stand in one place, doing zooming and framing and click the shutter. I am still learning in controlling lights, finding interesting angles, prespectives, creatively using shallow DoF. I sold the Canon 100mm macro lens. Someday, I'll get the 1x-5x macro and/or tilt and shift lenses and have some fun. I have learned that digital gradual filter technique and now need to proceed to shapening and technique to increase dynamic range. I know the sensor can capture the details, I wish there were software and/or Photoshop actions that can make getting extended dynamic range an easy task. [] > I heard you, David, many times already, but so far all you've told us > is you stand in one place, doing zooming and framing and click the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > capture the details, I wish there were software and/or Photoshop > actions that can make getting extended dynamic range an easy task. As I've said, different people have different needs. I'm not a professional photographer, and I do no studio photography, nor use external flashguns or strobes. I used to have perspective control lenses for my 35mm SLR, but today with digital processing I find no need. Whilst I do appreciate the technical aspects, capturing an event or a personality probably interests me more now than the "stock" shot. Actually having a point-and-shoot with you rather than leaving the DSLR at home! I do completely agree with you about dynamic range, and the limitations introduced with today's small-sensor cameras, but I don't want to go back to something as big as 35mm. Perhaps the 4/3 system will eventually suit me. Cheers, David > [] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Cheers, > David Nobody is arguing with you about the benefits (small and excellent quality in good lighting) of a P&S and in fact, many people can see and understand it without you repeating the same line of reasoning, esp. in a slr group. BTW, the 4/3 format doesn't demonstrate it to be any smaller. The Olympus E300 is roughly the same size as Pentax *ist DS and HEAVIER. The only good thing I see is 4:3 ratio and 2x opening that minimizes vignetting at the corners. However, I hate pictures in 4:3 ratio. [] >> I do completely agree with you about dynamic range, and the >> limitations introduced with today's small-sensor cameras, but I >> don't want to go back to something as big as 35mm. Perhaps the 4/3 >> system will eventually suit me. [] > BTW, the 4/3 format doesn't demonstrate it to be any smaller. The > Olympus E300 is roughly the same size as Pentax *ist DS and HEAVIER. > The only good thing I see is 4:3 ratio and 2x opening that minimizes > vignetting at the corners. However, I hate pictures in 4:3 ratio. Yes, that's why I said "eventually". The present implementation of 4/3 doesn't impress me. Cheers, David > [] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Cheers, > David The lens mount is about the same size as an APS-C camera. If you talk about size strictly, it has no advantage over other d-SLR cameras...unless you like 4/3 format for some other reasons, like 4:3 ratio or appreciate the fact that it won't be a Canon or Nikon. > The lens mount is about the same size as an APS-C camera. You saye the lens mount of FourThirds is the same as an APS-C camera? Which cameras do you refer to? I know just Olympus 4:3, and I don't know any APS-C camera, since all of those I know are backwards compatible to the full format. - Martin > I guess David knows the difference, but from what frederick wrote with > wrong concepts, he's a newbie. I have no doubt that the Pananonic FZ20 > is a capable camera for majority of people but don't count on it in more > demanding situations and definitely no need to mention it at all when > the OP was not mentioning P&S. I couldn't be bothered writing a thesis. If you don't understand the fundamentals, then a dslr is probably a waste - unless you plan to learn. Good P&S cameras are fantastic. I am an ancient grey-haired newbie - a photographer for 40 years. I still have stuff to learn. I use a P&S and a dslr. I actually agree with the OP in that many reviews suck. People ask me what camera they should buy. It would be nice to be able to direct them to a no nonsense website that accurately summarises the advantages and drawbacks of the various types of digital cameras. Reviews are often close to a complete waste of time - as they focus on minor differences between models - facts that become obsolete within a short period of time. Seldom are issues like composition using DOF mentioned. In dslr reviews probably because the reviewer thinks it's a given that anyone considering a dslr would know about this - despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. Have you ever seen a review of some great new P&S with a "fast" f2 lens with a german name actually bothering to mention not to get too excited - as f2 on a P&S is equivalent to about f16 on a dslr? For the intended market for these cameras, the buyers don't know the difference. >> I guess David knows the difference, but from what frederick wrote with >> wrong concepts, he's a newbie. I have no doubt that the Pananonic FZ20 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > P&S is equivalent to about f16 on a dslr? For the intended market for > these cameras, the buyers don't know the difference. Hi frederick, I am sorry that I got the names mixed up. In my original reply, it should be "Jack Rosier," not you. What you say is totally correct. It makes me think that my Chevy Malibu (which is a free used car btw) is a very nice car. It's comfortable, and reliable, after 130K miles. I like it better than the VW Jetta I have. Maybe I should tell everyone that they don't need any fancy cars. This is THE ONE for everyone. LOL... > > I checked out four magazine reviews. > <SNIP>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Handheld shots at 432mm! Who would of thought? > Cost about a third of what the DSLR would have for the same capability. We're happy for you. Now there's no longer a reason for you to be here except for envy, right? Greg > > I checked out four magazine reviews. > <SNIP>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Handheld shots at 432mm! Who would of thought? > Cost about a third of what the DSLR would have for the same capability. Howabout that for stirring up a hornet's nest! You DSLR guys really should calm down and try to have some fun, like the rest of us. FWIW, I had a couple of top-end Nikon SLR's a couple of decades ago. They were absolutely the best thing short of medium format. When I quit using them to make money, they were too valuable to keep around for making casual snaphots, so they were passed on to a working professional photg. Point being, I have a pretty good idea of the distinction between an SLR and a "superzoom". That being said, I stand resolutely behind every word in my original post (donning asbestos suit). carry on.... >>>I checked out four magazine reviews. >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > (donning asbestos suit). > carry on.... When you say "I started out wanting a 8MP DSLR. Then I found that the pros seemed to prefer the image quality of the 5MP cameras over the 8MP cameras," without acknowledging the picture quality of an 8MP in a 22.5mmx15mm sensor is vastly different from an 8MP in a 8.8mmx6.6mm sensor, you're showing that you don't know much about digital cameras and you might as well think RAW is the same as JPEG. If you're impressed by the FZ20 and think that's is all you ever need, you're in the wrong group and in fact you ARE in the wrong group. > >>>I checked out four magazine reviews. > >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > by the FZ20 and think that's is all you ever need, you're in the wrong > group and in fact you ARE in the wrong group. Leo, My original message was in reference to the original post regarding the reliability/veracity of camera reviews. My example of my personal experience in this matter was intended to be a brief summary of some of the issues that lead me to purchase a "superzoom" rather than a DSLR ( thus apparently joining the Great Unwashed). In the interest of brevity/readability, I refrained from including the more mind-numbing details of my research. It would have been OT. I did err in comparing the capability of the FZ20 with a DSLR without specifying that my personal needs do not require some of the advanced features of the DSLR, such as raw format and poster-sized prints. I have a recently printed 11x14 from my FZ20 which I would not be ashamed to show to anyone. The color rendition and range of luminance are a credit to the folks at Panasonic. The rest was a combination of dumb luck, happy circumstance, and just a touch of sharpening in PP (I won't tell you what editor, your BP is already way too high :>) My (current) point is, the ZSLR or superzoom is EXACTLY the right tool for MY needs. When I NEED a DSLR, I'll buy one. BTW, this is (one of several) RIGHT groups for me because I frequently find very useful discussions of PP, workflow, and other photography techniques that even the Great Unwashed may benefit from. I particularly enjoy Richa's attempts to generate interesting threads. Have a nice day (really). > BTW, this is (one of several) RIGHT groups for me because I frequently find > very useful discussions of PP, workflow, and other photography techniques > that even the Great Unwashed may benefit from. I particularly enjoy Richa's > attempts to generate interesting threads. So you're basically saying that zslr users are just point-and-shooters who don't care about their photos? Greg >>>>>I checked out four magazine reviews. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > attempts to generate interesting threads. > Have a nice day (really). If you can restrain yourself from discussing your FZ20 here, you'd okay. I wouldn't discuss about my Sony V1 in this group. There are a P&S and the general r.p.digital for that matters. When you're here, you'd have to put off with people talking about RAW, sharpest lenses, nitpicking about the best bokeh, color, contrast of the lenses, sharpening techniques. I had printed a very sharp 8x10 photo from a 3MP JPEG taken from an Olympus and know that it is good enough for many people. Plus, I'd bet 99.99% of the people who have a dSLR would have at least one P&S camera, SO WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN HOW YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT FZ20 IS ALL YOU EVER NEED! And cost isn't really the issue here as you can have great picture quality with Rebel XT + 50/1.8. And even a 75-300 delivers very good result. >>>>>> I checked out four magazine reviews. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > quality with Rebel XT + 50/1.8. And even a 75-300 delivers very good > result. As far as RichA's comment go, I'd say there's no big deal about those magazines' testing. The point is to test the camera, not the combined quality of the kit lenses & cameras. It's alright because they do use the middle of the road lenses but they do need to clarify that in the reports. If you use the example of Nikon's D50 vs D70s and test only the kit lenses, I'd bet you'd find quite a dramatic difference between 18-55 and 18-70 but since they use the same sensor, the difference of the cameras should be minimal. <snip> ....................................... SO WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN HOW YOU > > COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT FZ20 IS ALL YOU EVER NEED! Leo, All that yelling hurts my eyes. Did you take a vote while I was at work or are you speaking for the 1/2% of the RPDS-S NG readers who have a mental major malfunction at the mention of a you-know-what (don't want to wind you up again). It would be easier to have a polite conversation if you could just calm yourself down a little. As to "putting up" with people discussing the fine points of bokeh, color, contrast of the lenses, sharpening techniques, well, that's why I'm here. I don't think that the image from a camera-without-a-swinging-mirror (that's a you-know-what) will benefit any less from good PP than an image from a more noble origin. Best regards, Jack > <snip> > ....................................... SO WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN HOW YOU [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > more noble origin. > Best regards, Jack NO, I AM NOT ANGRY. THERE ARE, HOWEVER, OTHER FORUMS (THREE OF THEM) THAT DEAL WITH CAMERAS WITHOUT A MIRROR BOX. >>>>>>I checked out four magazine reviews. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] >And cost isn't really the issue here as you can have great picture >quality with Rebel XT + 50/1.8. And even a 75-300 delivers very good result. Well, at least mentioning it is something because I can guarantee no one at the photo stores is telling their customer to buy 50mm primes for a DSLR (unless it's a macro lens) and nearly none of the buyers of cheap DSLRs want to use a short prime lens unless it's a wide angle. Cheap zooms are dominating the middle ground so the 50-150mm prime is basically dead. -Rich |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.