Olympus shafts Dpreview!

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message .uk...
Pete D wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message .uk...
Pete D wrote:
[]
Almost, he made a couple of comments about the K10D that still make
people wonder how bad it is not how good it is, like a "jpegs a
little soft at standard settings", well gosh and look at all that
detail preserved and his "just" comment was just plain stupid.

I have taken some jpeg shots with the k10D that are just amazingly
sharp.

But if the same picture was taken by several camera brands, used at
their "standard settings", and the JPEG from one camera looked a
little soft compared with the others, the reviewers comment would be
completely justified. Equally, you may be completely happy with the
software, less sharpened, image, as being kinder on the eye for
extended or repeated viewing!

David


What he also said was that you would not see the difference unless you
printed at A3 size, FFS just how many print at A3 size from jpegs, it
was a stupid coment that just made him look like someone that had not
read the manual that clearly states that the standard jped settings
are purposely not sharpened much to preserve deetail and that if you
want razor sharp jpegs from the camera to adjust the settings.

Here is a shot I took a week or two back at standard default
settings, looks plenty sharp to me. This is about 2Mb straight from
the camera, yes I know it is overexposed in one or two spots.

http://pentaxworld.com/gallery/album...s/IMGP4459.JPG

Thanks for the photo, Pete. Yes, it looks sharp enough to me (although
the small amount of movement in the images makes that judgment less
certain), but I can imagine that if printed or when reduced for the Web a
small amount of extra sharpening might help. Depending on your taste and
the subject, of course.

I also prefer edges rendered without any artificial overshoot which
results from too much sharpening. To me, when "razor sharp" is mentioned,
I immediately think: "Oh, dear!".

I don't think that DP Review do this, but allowing users to add comments
like yours to the review might make them even more useful for potential
purchasers. I mean at the end of the review, not in the discussion
forums.

Cheers,
David
I really do think that most of their reviews are pretty straight down the
line but there has been a few that were questionable. I will also say that
their comparison tool is very good for doing a feature for feature
comparison at least for the cameras that have the info correct.

In article , irwell
writes
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:55:01 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article .com,
RichA writes

Nonsense. A review is a set of specific TESTS common to all reviews
that shows something about a camera. If those tests are done
precisely, then it is easy to compare one camera to another and
subjectivity never enters into it.

If it were so then all reviews would, by definition, agree.

They DON'T!

If they DON'T then the test have not been done properly by
one of the testing agents..

Opinions of individuals vary - a review is NOT a test report!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:22:45 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article , irwell
writes
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:55:01 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article .com,
RichA writes

Nonsense. A review is a set of specific TESTS common to all reviews
that shows something about a camera. If those tests are done
precisely, then it is easy to compare one camera to another and
subjectivity never enters into it.

If it were so then all reviews would, by definition, agree.

They DON'T!

If they DON'T then the test have not been done properly by
one of the testing agents..

Opinions of individuals vary - a review is NOT a test report!

Usually the opinions are at the end of the test(s)
as opinions. A review should list stated facts, not opinions.
This is in the scientific/engineering world not movies or literature.

In article , irwell
writes
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:22:45 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article , irwell
writes
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:55:01 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article .com,
RichA writes

Nonsense. A review is a set of specific TESTS common to all reviews
that shows something about a camera. If those tests are done
precisely, then it is easy to compare one camera to another and
subjectivity never enters into it.

If it were so then all reviews would, by definition, agree.

They DON'T!

If they DON'T then the test have not been done properly by
one of the testing agents..

Opinions of individuals vary - a review is NOT a test report!

Usually the opinions are at the end of the test(s)
as opinions. A review should list stated facts, not opinions.
This is in the scientific/engineering world not movies or literature.

Where the opinions are expressed in a review is irrelevant. Whilst a
review certainly can include specific tests, it is NOT limited to that -
it contains subjective assessment and opinions.

This really is a simple argument. TrollA claims a review is just a
series of standard tests but if that was the case then only test ERROR
would cause any difference between reviews. Reviews exist which differ
without errors in the tests therefore, the original claim must be false
- proven by contradiction. Just as his claim that Olympus were reacting
to a pro-Canon bias at DPR was easily proven by citing just one example
of the same response, and more, by Canon. Presumably Canon were
reacting to a pro-Canon bias at DPR too.

Nobody has yet cited an instance in this thread where DPR have
undertaken a test which is pro-Canon biased - they are citing opinions
and subjective assessment which MAY be. It is opinions and assessment
which cause reviews to differ - the standard tests give consistent
results but are frequently open to different interpretation.

One reviewer might think that the greater weight of camera A over camera
B to disadvantage A - it sure is if you are lugging lots of kit around
in your backpack - while another considers it to advantage A, since it
has greater inertia and hence lower hand-holdable shutter speeds. In
either case, each reviewer has the same test data (measured mass), one
may be pro-Canon the other pro-Olympus, but they are both perfectly
valid reviews.

If you want basic test data without assessment or opinion then, as
indicated in the name of the site, DPReview is not for you. There are
plenty of test sites around.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"Pete D" a écrit dans le message de
...

"Not Disclosed" wrote in message
. com...
Doug Jewell wrote:

I'm not convinced any review on dpreview would be a fair review. They
show a clear bias toward Canon, which stands out like dog-balls (seems
only Canon fanboi's don't see it). There was recent discussion about a
sony vs ixus review on dpreview. The Sony images were sharper, had more
detail, less noise, yet dpreview initially claimed they were worse than
the Canon. After being taken to task over it, they modified the text to
say they were basically equal.

Yet they did a good review on the Pentax K10D, Go figure?


Almost, he made a couple of comments about the K10D that still make people
wonder how bad it is not how good it is, like a "jpegs a little soft at
standard settings", well gosh and look at all that detail preserved and
his
"just" comment was just plain stupid.

I have taken some jpeg shots with the k10D that are just amazingly sharp.

Since I have my K10D, I was forced to stop shooting jpg. The jpg engine is
one of the worst I have seen on this camera.

And Phil is not the only one to say that about that problem btw. Even Pentax
users are shooting RAW.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:39:22 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article , irwell
writes
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:22:45 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article , irwell
writes
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:55:01 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In article .com,
RichA writes

Nonsense. A review is a set of specific TESTS common to all reviews
that shows something about a camera. If those tests are done
precisely, then it is easy to compare one camera to another and
subjectivity never enters into it.

If it were so then all reviews would, by definition, agree.

They DON'T!

If they DON'T then the test have not been done properly by
one of the testing agents..

Opinions of individuals vary - a review is NOT a test report!

Usually the opinions are at the end of the test(s)
as opinions. A review should list stated facts, not opinions.
This is in the scientific/engineering world not movies or literature.

Where the opinions are expressed in a review is irrelevant. Whilst a
review certainly can include specific tests, it is NOT limited to that -
it contains subjective assessment and opinions.

This really is a simple argument. TrollA claims a review is just a
series of standard tests but if that was the case then only test ERROR
would cause any difference between reviews. Reviews exist which differ
without errors in the tests therefore, the original claim must be false
- proven by contradiction. Just as his claim that Olympus were reacting
to a pro-Canon bias at DPR was easily proven by citing just one example
of the same response, and more, by Canon. Presumably Canon were
reacting to a pro-Canon bias at DPR too.

Nobody has yet cited an instance in this thread where DPR have
undertaken a test which is pro-Canon biased - they are citing opinions
and subjective assessment which MAY be. It is opinions and assessment
which cause reviews to differ - the standard tests give consistent
results but are frequently open to different interpretation.

One reviewer might think that the greater weight of camera A over camera
B to disadvantage A - it sure is if you are lugging lots of kit around
in your backpack - while another considers it to advantage A, since it
has greater inertia and hence lower hand-holdable shutter speeds. In
either case, each reviewer has the same test data (measured mass), one
may be pro-Canon the other pro-Olympus, but they are both perfectly
valid reviews.

If you want basic test data without assessment or opinion then, as
indicated in the name of the site, DPReview is not for you. There are
plenty of test sites around.

Interesting summation. Where are the 'plenty of test sites'?
A link would be appreciated.

"Pete D" a écrit dans le message de
...

"Not Disclosed" wrote in message
. com...
Doug Jewell wrote:

I'm not convinced any review on dpreview would be a fair review. They
show a clear bias toward Canon, which stands out like dog-balls (seems
only Canon fanboi's don't see it). There was recent discussion about a
sony vs ixus review on dpreview. The Sony images were sharper, had more
detail, less noise, yet dpreview initially claimed they were worse than
the Canon. After being taken to task over it, they modified the text to
say they were basically equal.

Yet they did a good review on the Pentax K10D, Go figure?


Almost, he made a couple of comments about the K10D that still make people
wonder how bad it is not how good it is, like a "jpegs a little soft at
standard settings", well gosh and look at all that detail preserved and
his
"just" comment was just plain stupid.

I have taken some jpeg shots with the k10D that are just amazingly sharp.

you cant denied this:
Image sharpness / demosaicing (JPEG vs. RAW)
"We were a little disappointed that the K10D's built-in image processor
didn't deliver the crisp sharp edges which can be produced by shooting RAW
and converting using a third party engine (such as Adobe Camera RAW). It's
speculation but it does appear to me to be a combination of the type of
demosaicing algorithm used (not isolating edge detail well enough) and the
type of sharpening algorithm (as discussed earlier this appears to work to
enhance the 'undershoot', the black side, of an edge). As we saw in the
Image Parameters section of this review increasing sharpening only appears
to increase the visibility of texture type detail rather than edge
sharpness.

Below you can see a comparison using our standard studio scene between JPEG
straight from the camera and a RAW converted using Adobe Camera RAW (as per
our normal RAW converter settings, no sharpening and then a 80% unsharp mask
applied after conversion). "

Just look at the samples below that text !!!!

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PentaxK10D/page16.asp

Anyway, Im shooting RAW and Im very happy now. Great IQ, probably the best
you can get from that sensor (D80, Alpha , K10D).

Of course I need to use CS2, but guess what, I like it now, I cant explain
why, but I have fun PP all my pictures. (I never would believe this a few
months ago).

On Oct 18, 10:10 am, Slack wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:10:52 -0700, Pete D wrote:
I have taken Phil to task over other reviews and info that he just
leaves off the list of
features to make cameras look worse than they should be, he is simply
dishonest
Pete

Can you please provide an example?
--
Slack

You really are joking, aren't you Slack?
Asking Peter Dee to substantiate anything he says is like expecting DP
review to be truthful in their reviews... NOT going to happen!

Doug

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:30:12 -0700, Pete D wrote:


"?Slack" wrote in message
newsp.t0c9fzgmf3vmig@slacker...
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:10:52 -0700, Pete D wrote:

I have taken Phil to task over other reviews and info that he just
leaves off the list of
features to make cameras look worse than they should be, he is simply
dishonest
Pete


Can you please provide an example?
--
Slack

Example of what?



Of a DP review that didn't list an important feature(s).
--
Slack