If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Some reviewers need a good.....
.....slap.
The 16 July issue of the Brit mag "Amateur Photographer" tests the D50 and Rebel XT. If you read the review, you'd think the D50 was the winner, in terms of exposure and overall image quality though the writer gives the nod to the Canon. However, the reviewer's criticism of the Canon (that it's images are soft) is NEVER attributed to anything but a supposed characteristic on the part of the Nikon to do more in-camera sharpening. NOWHERE are the LENSES of the two cameras questioned in this extensive, 8-page review! A visual of the two cameras in the review shows something interesting; The Canon is equipped with the horrible little plastic 18-55mm kit lens, as normal, but the Nikon has the 18-70mm lens typically found on the D70! It's a better lens than the 18-55mm the D50 generally comes with an could have easily skewed the test more in the Nikon's favour. While some would contend that testing the cameras with their respective kit lenses might be the fairest thing to do, IMO, it only shows what two impressive sensors do when limited by second-rate lenses. Focus speed, etc, could be measured using the kit lenses, but for optical tests the ideal lens would have been a top notch AFTERMARKET lens like a macro from a company that makes mounts for both Nikon and Canon. This would have allowed true abilities of the sensors to come through. As it is, IMO, the Canon was (depending on your point of view)unfairly hobbled by the lens with it. -Rich |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Rich wrote:
....slap. The 16 July issue of the Brit mag "Amateur Photographer" tests the D50 and Rebel XT. If you read the review, you'd think the D50 was the winner, in terms of exposure and overall image quality though the writer gives the nod to the Canon. However, the reviewer's criticism of the Canon (that it's images are soft) is NEVER attributed to anything but a supposed characteristic on the part of the Nikon to do more in-camera sharpening. NOWHERE are the LENSES of the two cameras questioned in this extensive, 8-page review! A visual of the two cameras in the review shows something interesting; The Canon is equipped with the horrible little plastic 18-55mm kit lens, as normal, but the Nikon has the 18-70mm lens typically found on the D70! It's a better lens than the 18-55mm the D50 generally comes with an could have easily skewed the test more in the Nikon's favour. While some would contend that testing the cameras with their respective kit lenses might be the fairest thing to do, IMO, it only shows what two impressive sensors do when limited by second-rate lenses. Focus speed, etc, could be measured using the kit lenses, but for optical tests the ideal lens would have been a top notch AFTERMARKET lens like a macro from a company that makes mounts for both Nikon and Canon. This would have allowed true abilities of the sensors to come through. As it is, IMO, the Canon was (depending on your point of view)unfairly hobbled by the lens with it. -Rich Rich, we can't have similar lenses used for this kinda thing - a shenanigan like that would only serve to confuse us with the facts. -- jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Rich wrote:
....slap. The 16 July issue of the Brit mag "Amateur Photographer" tests the D50 and Rebel XT. If you read the review, you'd think the D50 was the winner, in terms of exposure and overall image quality though the writer gives the nod to the Canon. ... [Big Snip] ... As it is, IMO, the Canon was (depending on your point of view)unfairly hobbled by the lens with it. -Rich Agree with this. As someone new to (D)SLRs, I bought that issue trying to decide between the two cameras and the bulk of the text seems to give the edge to the D50, but the conclusion box to the 350D. Also the text makes the point that the difference between 6 & 8 MPs is of little consequence, but the conclusion says IIRC that the Nikon would have won if it were 8MP! It was like the two parts were written by different people. On lenses, I think it says somewhere that the comparison pictures were tale with "top quality optics" but doesn't elaborate. Very annoying. I got a D50, which I'm happy with although still learnng how to use it. I expect I'd have been happy with the 350D. Toby |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Rich...
One word 'Women' Stop reading reviews, and go find yourself one of them. Getting all in a twist when you feel that your favourite multinational, multibillion dollar corporation is on the receiving end of a raw deal, is not living. I think you need to get a little perspective on life. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
It's not the corporation that's on the raw end, it's
the consumer. Since both cameras have similar performance, a review that is inconclusive need not be 8 pages long, it could be a paragraph long. But since they endevoured to make it "detailed" they should have at least tried to be accurate about certain things and let people know that certain specifics could skew the test itself. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Rich wrote:
It's not the corporation that's on the raw end, it's the consumer. Since both cameras have similar performance, a review that is inconclusive need not be 8 pages long, it could be a paragraph long. But since they endevoured to make it "detailed" they should have at least tried to be accurate about certain things and let people know that certain specifics could skew the test itself. Rich, we need to know who paid for the review to know why the review was the way it was. If you look up "Follow the Money" it says see this article. -- jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Rich" wrote:
The 16 July issue of the Brit mag "Amateur Photographer" tests the D50 and Rebel XT. If you read the review, you'd think the D50 was the winner, in terms of exposure and overall image quality though the writer gives the nod to the Canon. However, the reviewer's criticism of the Canon (that it's images are soft) is NEVER attributed to anything but a supposed characteristic on the part of the Nikon to do more in-camera sharpening. NOWHERE are the LENSES of the two cameras questioned in this extensive, 8-page review! That's because the kit lenses from the major manufacturers were compared in a group test in another issue of the same magazine. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
They shouldn't presume that people buy it every week, and should know
that some readers will be new ones or infrequent readers. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
RichA wrote: They shouldn't presume that people buy it every week, and should know that some readers will be new ones or infrequent readers. So what's your solution? Should the present the lens test article again, reference the results, mention the results, or assume that people realize that not everything a magazine has done in the past year fits into the pages every single month. My choice would have been to reference the results, but, speaking from experience testing tools for magazines, I can tell you that doesn't make people happy either, because the results are seldom readily available. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The article itself could have been saved by simply indicating that the
differences between the two kit lens "could" account for the differences between the cameras and that higher quality lenses from the two lines would likely result in more accurate comparison results. The interesting thing is, because of the way the article was written, it almost seemed like the reviewer was trying to indicate the Canon HAD shortchanged by it's lens because he declared the Canon the winner despite the fact the tests indicated the opposite, in most aspects. -Rich |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon 100-400mm 5.6 IS Good? | Steve Giovenella | Digital Photography | 16 | August 23rd 04 06:31 PM |