Reviews that suck .

[dvdowns]

I have a complaint about reviews that go like this [ About a lens for example ] " Pros : Quality ,solid construction , fast F2.8 large zoom range , Cons : Heavy and gets in the way of built in speedlight " . What a waste of time stating the obvious for those specs as a negative . And then there are the camera reviews that go like this :
1.) build 20/20 2.) value for money 20/20 3.) image quality 12/20 4.) ease of use 20/20 5.) extra features like games and world time 20/20 for a stunning 92% compared to the competition [ that had 20/20 for image quality ] this is our choice !" .
We need a standard like " xx% for image quality , and also to think about build,value etc. " because image quality is everything to most photographers . Who needs a review like " Wow , F2.0 18-300 zoom ...... but it's a bit heavy "

[cyclohexane]

" Pros : Quality ,solid construction , fast F2.8 large zoom range , Cons : Heavy and gets in the way of built in speedlight " .

So you don't like reading Popular Photography and Imaging for kicks? Seriously, if they say anything else, I think they'd start losing their advertising money... and then there are the times where they get things blatantly wrong- i.e. calling the D2X a "lowlight leader". That's something only Consumer Reports should approach in their take on cameras.

What I like to do is combine DPReview's stuff from Phil (the engineering all-encommpasing overview of the outside) with Thom Hogan's stuff (experiences with using the darned things for a while), and make an informed decision based on that. I also factor in word-of-mouth, and what I've read on several forums.

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

So you don't like reading Popular Photography and Imaging for kicks? Seriously, if they say anything else, I think they'd start losing their advertising money... and then there are the times where they get things blatantly wrong- i.e. calling the D2X a "lowlight leader". That's something only Consumer Reports should approach in their take on cameras.

God, don't get me started on Popular Photography. Reminds me of early imaging-resource reviews in a way:

"We found that the camera got some colors off, and could not quite autofocus in ok light, but we are sure that the entire family will enjoy taking pictures out doors and with custom white balance calibration it can be a camera that can take photos to treasure happy moments. Highly recommended."

- Raist

What I like to do is combine DPReview's stuff from Phil (the engineering all-encommpasing overview of the outside) with Thom Hogan's stuff (experiences with using the darned things for a while), and make an informed decision based on that. I also factor in word-of-mouth, and what I've read on several forums.

I would add Michael Richman's to the mix and the guy he hired/contracted or contacted to do the Olympus E-1 review at Luminous Landscape.

DPreview alone doesn't quite cut it either.

- Raist

[dvdowns]

All I want is an accurate review on image quality which would be section "A" . Then section "B" would be controlls , features , price handling etc.
Not a review that gives 82% each to two cameras , one with 19/20 for image quality and the other with 11/20 for image quality and high marks for price and ' other features ' .

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by dvdowns

All I want is an accurate review on image quality which would be section "A" . Then section "B" would be controlls , features , price handling etc.
Not a review that gives 82% each to two cameras , one with 19/20 for image quality and the other with 11/20 for image quality and high marks for price and ' other features ' .

dvdowns,

...maybe time to start DV-Review

I agree that the tests aren't all satisfactory, but when I get really interested, I just read them all, from the 'consumer-cr@p-reports' to the technical ones (DPR, Rob Galbraith, etc) and the 'field reports' from Michael Reichmann and such.

Over time, like me you will learn how to combine these published 'enthousiast's informed opinions' with your own known preferences, and you will get a good 'feel' for an item before rushing to a shop/ordering on Internet

...*my* take, just *my* €0.02 worth...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[jfrancho]

I saw raw format listed as a con in a camera review. The reviewer was looking for a "tiff mode."

[Paul Shields]

I like reviews that tie in with my own world view (I'm sure I'm not alone ). For example, I've often found DPR reviews irritating as they are pixel-peeping fixated and gloss over important things like ergonomics or the inherent attractiveness (or not) of the printed result, and focus on things that are mostly not going to be visible to the naked eye. Conversely, I've always enjoyed Amateur Photographer's reviews as they are pretty much old school and describe things in a way that lets you know how it works in the real world. There are tons of other online and magazine reviews that are not worthy of acting as emergency provision in the PaulS smallest room. I'm sure we can list many of those between us...

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I like reviews that tie in with my own world view (I'm sure I'm not alone ). For example, I've often found DPR reviews irritating as they are pixel-peeping fixated and gloss over important things like ergonomics or the inherent attractiveness (or not) of the printed result, and focus on things that are mostly not going to be visible to the naked eye.

Exactly. Personally I think dpreview reviews come from a technically oriented-background person. Look at Reichman's revies and though I see a flaw here and there (an example was the S3 review for dynamic range part of the review), he has had to explain stuff like (direclty from the Lumix L1 field test report):

"I'll digress here for a moment with a comment addressed to those who don't "get" the criticisms that I sometimes make of camera's handing. If one is simply using a camera to take occasional snapshots, then such seemingly small design glitches may seem to get too much attention in my reviews. I make them though because for me a camera is a tool, not a fetish object or occasional toy. When I'm doing photography I do it for hours and days at a time, in every sort of weather. How well, or how poorly controls fall to hand is a critical aspect of how I end up feeling about a camera's suitability as a working companion. This is why I sometimes end up criticizing aspects of some cameras that other reviewers don't. It's because I choose to focus on traits that may not be noticed or even of interest to someone who is evaluating a camera from a different perspective."
This is something that personally dpreview doesn't seem to get.

- Raist

[dvdowns]

Well you would have to print out the online reviews to use them in the paulS smallest room woyldn't you .
To a degree the pixel peeping can also be annoying when they say that one model is better than another because of a magnifying glass test .
That's why I would like a report that says Model A.) 93.758% image quality Model B.) 93.825% image quality and then maybe list the advantages of each so that people can see that the image quality difference will not be noticed and the features can decide . Instead of a magnified view of the 0.067% difference that makes the one look twice as good as the other .
Even with things like lens reviews , there should be "pros" , " cons " and " also to consider " .
The "Also to consider would be things like weight and perhaps price in some cases because if the "pros " include ' best lens on earth ' , then the weight is not a con , it is something to keep in mind if you are a nerd that can't lift 3kg without complaining .

[cyclohexane]

While I really like Michael Reichman's reviews, he doesn't really review Nikon products; also, seeing as we're talking about Luminous Landscape... I don't shoot very many landscapes.

I actually skip DPReview's pixel-peeping sections; if I was interested in pixel-peeping I doubt I'd own a D2H.* I read the general overviews when I'm not familiar with the camera as Phil will break down individual buttons and menus.* The engineer perspective reminds me of my dad, his friends, and some of my friends, so it doesn't really bother me.* Also, aside from maybe Let's Go Digital, I can't think of many sites (besides maybe camera ads) that have close-ups of minutae on the camera, like individual dials and buttons on the camera.

That's why I would like a report that says Model A.) 93.758% image quality Model B.) 93.825% image quality and then maybe list the advantages of each so that people can see that the image quality difference will not be noticed and the features can decide

That actually sounds a lot like Pop Photo's reviews (look at the summary charts).* Also, the SQF charts, "Subjective Quality Factor", always make me chuckle.* Consumer Reports is similar, but it's even more vague with the various colored circles as ratings; CR also subscribes to the notion that "8 megapixels is better than 6, and 6 is better than 4."* They've also incorrectly explained resolution at one point.... but they review everything, so I guess we shouldn't fault them for making a mistake in our area of "expertise".* It just makes me start to wonder about their reviews of other things, like refrigerators and stuff...

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

While I really like Michael Reichman's reviews, he doesn't really review Nikon products

...complaining

...you Nikon guys have Ken Rockwell!

http://www.kenrockwell.com/

he just did a 'how to use the D200' : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d20...uide/index.htm



...just another €0.02 worth...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[cyclohexane]

Ken Rockwell is good entertainment (see his disclaimer) but not a good source for getting information out of unless you like reading between the lines... a lot. He denounces lens hoods ("use your hand or better a hat"), tripods ("VR has made tripods obsolete"), and so on. The "lens cap" and "box" comparison sections regarding digital ultrawides was classic, and I must say I learned quite a bit about how different companies package lenses... LOL. That said, I enjoy his site from a comedic standpoint, but consult the likes of Thom Hogan, Bjorn Rorstlett, Moose Peterson, and company before visiting Ken for some fun.

Ken mentioned that he was considering expanding into Canon products.... look out guys. =)