Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is It Just Me or ...  (Read 17377 times)
JohnKoerner
Guest
« on: November 01, 2008, 10:25:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I was reading the review of the 50D and, while I am still a novice, it struck me as almost a complete waste of time in the end.

First of all, when comparing images they put a bullship $325 mediocre lens on the 50D, as if that low-budget beauty is going to be able to fully reveal the advantages of the new ultra-sharp 15.1 sensor. In fact, even in their "conclusion," under Cons, they said, "High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera," so my question is why in the world didn't these bozos use a high-end lens to conduct their bleeping test to begin with?

Even the camera-versus-camera tests were biased. Against the 50D and the D300, they said they "helped (the D300) by a little bit of extra sharpening." What kind of BS is that? Then the reviewer said, "Overall however there's not a huge amount (of difference) between these two cameras and certainly in print it would be very difficult to pick a clear winner."

Are these guys politicians, or are they serious reviewers? It seems to me that they are lying through omission. They deliberately aren't saying who the "little" advantage goes to. They are deliberately sharpening and altering the images produced by one camera to its favor. They are deliberately not using the absolute best in lenses, of each company, to show the absolute clearest and most definitive results in their testing.

That is my take on this latest "review" ...

Jack

PS: I read another review (on another site) of a Canon 180 Macro lens, at the end of which they admitted they tested this macro lens "at infinity," rather than as its intended purpose, macro. I mean, what is the point of such foolishness? What is the point of spending hours "testing" something, and not even testing it for its intended purpose? It is either unscrupulous, or retarded, take your pick. These people are either deliberately misleading their readers or they are simply educated imbeciles. What they are doing is tantamount to "testing a hammer at sawing wood," and concluding that hammers don't saw wood as well other brands of saw might saw wood. I don't know whether to be angry or to laugh  

Am I missing something or are most of these "reviews" biased and therefore pretty much full of $#!^?



.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2008, 11:08:18 PM »
ReplyReply

They used every lens they had in the 50mm range they test in.  Hunt down Phil's comments on the subject.  The only lens that was suggested that they didn't try was the 60mm f2.8 ef-s macro.

Sharpening doesn't change resolution.  So if they sharpen to show the resolution differences who cares?

As to the 180 macro thing.  Most lens testing sites use software of one type or another to test their lenses.  Lens gets stuffed into the test setup.  They photograph a chart and run it through some software.  It tells you something about a lens but not everything.  Definitely silly in the case of a macro lens but still wrong for any lens you aren't likely to be shooting at infinity.

People like Thom Hogan and, from what I understand, Sean Reid tend to characterize strengths and weaknesses of lenses and cameras a little more usefully if not to as many (any) decimal places.

Quote from: JohnKoerner
I was reading the review of the 50D and, while I am still a novice, it struck me as almost a complete waste of time in the end.

First of all, when comparing images they put a bullship $325 mediocre lens on the 50D, as if that low-budget beauty is going to be able to fully reveal the advantages of the new ultra-sharp 15.1 sensor. In fact, even in their "conclusion," under Cons, they said, "High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera," so my question is why in the world didn't these bozos use a high-end lens to conduct their bleeping test to begin with?

Even the camera-versus-camera tests were biased. Against the 50D and the D300, they said they "helped (the D300) by a little bit of extra sharpening." What kind of BS is that? Then the reviewer said, "Overall however there's not a huge amount (of difference) between these two cameras and certainly in print it would be very difficult to pick a clear winner."

Are these guys politicians, or are they serious reviewers? It seems to me that they are lying through omission. They deliberately aren't saying who the "little" advantage goes to. They are deliberately sharpening and altering the images produced by one camera to its favor. They are deliberately not using the absolute best in lenses, of each company, to show the absolute clearest and most definitive results in their testing.

That is my take on this latest "review" ...

Jack

PS: I read another review (on another site) of a Canon 180 Macro lens, at the end of which they admitted they tested this macro lens "at infinity," rather than as its intended purpose, macro. I mean, what is the point of such foolishness? What is the point of spending hours "testing" something, and not even testing it for its intended purpose? It is either unscrupulous, or retarded, take your pick. These people are either deliberately misleading their readers or they are simply educated imbeciles. What they are doing is tantamount to "testing a hammer at sawing wood," and concluding that hammers don't saw wood as well other brands of saw might saw wood. I don't know whether to be angry or to laugh  

Am I missing something or are most of these "reviews" biased and therefore pretty much full of $#!^?



.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2008, 12:46:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Even the camera-versus-camera tests were biased. Against the 50D and the D300, they said they "helped (the D300) by a little bit of extra sharpening." What kind of BS is that?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page26.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page30.asp

Note that the "Measurable Results" at page 30 show a negligible advantage over the D300.  Why are you so exercised about a review?  It appears to me that your fanboy mentality has been wounded by the "Highly Recommended (just)" given by DPR.  You're basing your rant on the JPEG results, and if that's how you judge what a camera is capable of, then you're an idiot.

Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2008, 04:44:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page26.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page30.asp

Note that the "Measurable Results" at page 30 show a negligible advantage over the D300.  Why are you so exercised about a review?  It appears to me that your fanboy mentality has been wounded by the "Highly Recommended (just)" given by DPR.  You're basing your rant on the JPEG results, and if that's how you judge what a camera is capable of, then you're an idiot.

The OP has a point. To address the testing first, I do not put too much weight on tests based on MTF plots from Imatest software etc. My experience is that the data they produce is not sufficient to characterise a lens, beyond "might be good" or "poor". The truth is that the tests are not sufficient. In the field testing is required to really find out how lenses perform. The OP has put forward one good reason why they are poor for macro lenses.

As for the first point, reviews on DPREVIEW have a veneer of objectivity as they are full of measurements. But again, they focus on certain aspects to the detriment of others. Unless I am mistaken they do not perform extensive tests of the AF. And the dynamic range results are strange, when it hardly reduces as the ISO is set to 1600 and higher. They do not perform careful battery testing. Nor do they perform tests of the build quality. IMO they are the sort of test needed to have a rather vicious and personal argument that you see all too often in the forums on that site. I trust real world tests, and user comments.

Of course the vicious hordes that inhabit dpreview will discount real world tests as 'unscientific' and not 'objective'. Well, I can tell you the size of a camera and the weight, and those are scientific and objective measurements. But they are not much use when it comes to how it feels in the hand.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2008, 09:06:32 AM »
ReplyReply

The vicious hordes that inhabit dpreview will discount real world tests as 'unscientific' and not 'objective' and they will not discount real world tests as 'unscientific' and not 'objective'.  The hordes cover all sides.

The DR tests are as expected as they are pretty much just reporting the JPEG's tone curve.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2008, 10:12:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Slough
The OP has a point.

"Am I missing something or are most of these "reviews" biased and therefore pretty much full of $#!^?"

While I don't put a lot of stock in DPR's reviews, I would not consider them biased.  If he doesn't like the tests then he shouldn't read them.  Ironically, Jack belongs at DPR where there are many who share his fanboyism and propensity to flame others; I'm pretty sure he will be just as vociferous towards anyone that dismisses the 50D or any other Canon DSLR regardless of how they arrived at that conclusion.  It's unfortunate that he brings that mentality here.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #6 on: November 02, 2008, 10:20:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page26.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page30.asp

Note that the "Measurable Results" at page 30 show a negligible advantage over the D300.  Why are you so exercised about a review?  It appears to me that your fanboy mentality has been wounded by the "Highly Recommended (just)" given by DPR.  You're basing your rant on the JPEG results, and if that's how you judge what a camera is capable of, then you're an idiot.


Fanboy? Wounded?  

I think it is rather amusing that "you" always bring-up the subject of fanboyism, when it is you who keeps waiving your Nikon pom-poms on every Canon thread I read on this forum. Perhaps a little self-awareness would do you wonders Tony  

I am a fan of both camera systems, actually, and I am rubbing my chin over the D300 every bit as much as the 50D. But when all is said and done this test doesn't help clarify anything for me. I don't shoot in .jpg and I don't plan on buying a low-budget 50mm lens to use. I am looking to get the high-end macros and zooms on whichever system I decide to go with. However, I will say if there is a slight advantage to the 50D, and it's less expensive than the D300, this makes the $200 difference in price even more attractive. But that is not the way I read things. On p. 26 of the very link you posted the reviewer said, "but the improvement is more significant on the Nikon which now has a pretty obvious per pixel detail advantage over the 50D." It seems one of us doesn't know how to read correctly, as that appeared to be a RAW comparison also. Was that misleading also? I don't know.

I just feel is that the entire exercise was a waste of time. I do not know why you are insulting me, Tony, as I never mentioned you, but I would imagine it's only because you're at a safe distance to do so. You remind me of a yapping poodle, always barking behind a screen door safely on his porch. I was merely being candid about my frustration with the lack of any meaningful conclusions being able to be drawn from such a test, I was not slamming you, Nikon, nor any member of this forum.

I guess the bottom line to me is, if these "reviewers" are going to test the very latest in camera sensory output then they ought to do so by running these capabilities through the absolute best lenses each company has to offer, not their lowest-budget lens. It just seems absolutely ludicrous to run these test through mediocre lenses and then "make a comment" at the end that "in order to get the most out of the camera you need to get the best lenses." I am still scratching my head as to why they didn't think of that before their own testing and thereby have conducted their tests through the very best lenses.

I believe this is a valid point. No camera is a world unto itself, and so for an accurate comparison of systems to carry meaning, it ought to be conducted through the very best lenses of each respective brand, not through lenses that allow neither system to be seen in its best light.

This thread was not meant to slam either system, but to slam the "review" of these systems as a complete waste of time that ultimately seemed more biased and "political" than actually striving to provide us consumers with a true evaluation. Perhaps Michael's review will address these questions.

Jack




.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2008, 10:24:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
They used every lens they had in the 50mm range they test in.  Hunt down Phil's comments on the subject.  The only lens that was suggested that they didn't try was the 60mm f2.8 ef-s macro.

Sharpening doesn't change resolution.  So if they sharpen to show the resolution differences who cares?

As to the 180 macro thing.  Most lens testing sites use software of one type or another to test their lenses.  Lens gets stuffed into the test setup.  They photograph a chart and run it through some software.  It tells you something about a lens but not everything.  Definitely silly in the case of a macro lens but still wrong for any lens you aren't likely to be shooting at infinity.

People like Thom Hogan and, from what I understand, Sean Reid tend to characterize strengths and weaknesses of lenses and cameras a little more usefully if not to as many (any) decimal places.


Thanks for the comments.

I am sorry, but I don't know who Phil is. Do you have any links to these other folks you recommend? If so, I would be interested in reading them.

Thanks again.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2008, 10:28:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am sorry, but I don't know who Phil is. Do you have any links to these other folks you recommend? If so, I would be interested in reading them.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersp...ster=hjiuiiimhx

http://www.bythom.com/

What I wrote was that judging a camera's capabilities on it's out of camera JPEG performance is idiotic -- if the shoe fits then by all means put it on.

As for your contributions to the tenor of this forum:

Quote from: JohnKoerner
...it is you who keeps waiving your Nikon pom-poms on every Canon thread I read on this forum.

I do not know why you are insulting me, Tony, as I never mentioned you, but I would imagine it's only because you're at a safe distance to do so. You remind me of a yapping poodle, always barking behind a screen door safely on his porch.

Enough said.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 10:32:25 AM by Tony Beach » Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2008, 11:23:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
they put a bullship $325 mediocre lens on the 50D

Whose full of bull here? That 50mm outresolves every L zoom I own (17-40L, 24-70L, 24-105L, 70-200 f4L IS) by f4 nevermind f8. I don't suppose the 85mm or 100mm primes would be good enough for you either as they are cheap. The fact that the 50L is less sharp at pretty much every aperture than the f1.4 is irrelevant I assume. That you suppose the lens is rubbish just because it's cheap shows that you really are clueless.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 11:26:02 AM by pom » Logged

DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2008, 11:38:40 AM »
ReplyReply

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29861905
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2008, 11:50:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from Phil:

but just how much trouble do you think the average 50D buyer should have to go to to get their 15 megapixels?


Especially given that the camera is sold as kit with the 18-200 lens (!), should have a warning on the box, only provides decent results with L primes over and including 85mm....

It does put the price advantage over the D300 into perspective. It's only cheaper if you use lenses that provide you with a camera that has less resolution and is pretty inferior as a camera all round. It will only have superior IQ if you pay through the nose for the top L lenses by which time it's far more expensive.

I still think that if you want more resolution than a 40D, buy a 5D mkI. Very cheap these days, mindblowing IQ, FF and according to canon the AF is better than that in the 50D!  
Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2008, 11:54:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach

Thanks for the links.




Quote from: Tony Beach
What I wrote was that judging a camera's capabilities on it's out of camera JPEG performance is idiotic -- if the shoe fits then by all means put it on.

No, that's not what you wrote. You said, "You're basing your rant on the JPEG results, and if that's how you judge what a camera is capable of, then you're an idiot." You assumed that's what I did and then you insulted me directly. What is funny is that your very insult missed the entire point of my thread. The very fact that they used lesser methods acrossed the board (.jpgs, low-end lenses, etc.) was the entire point of my thread, which means that in truth you are the idiot in posting what you said to begin with.




Quote from: Tony Beach
As for your contributions to the tenor of this forum:
Enough said.

Sorry Tony, you are the person who has been rude here. Again, I wasn't trying to be insulting to you, nor anyone else. But I guess you just like to yap at people for no reason, accusing "them" of being the very things you are. Again, you remind me of the cowardly poodle yapping at everything that passes by, from the safety of your door step.



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



Quote from: pom
Whose full of bull here? That 50mm outresolves every L zoom I own (17-40L, 24-70L, 24-105L, 70-200 f4L IS) by f4 nevermind f8. I don't suppose the 85mm or 100mm primes would be good enough for you either as they are cheap. The fact that the 50L is less sharp at pretty much every aperture than the f1.4 is irrelevant I assume. That you suppose the lens is rubbish just because it's cheap shows that you really are clueless.

You are right, I really am clueless about how you interpret the abilities of your own personal lenses. This does not make "me" full of bull, as I have not intentionally misrepresented anything. But it does make me clueless about your own personal opinions about your own personal equipment. I am not sure what this has to do with the subject, but now that you have piped-up and given me your opinion of the 50mm lens you own, I am no longer clueless about your opinion of your equipment. Thank you for that.

At any rate, I guess it is prime time for the peanut gallery today, who like to miss points and offer insults, but there is good news to all of this ... for (if it is true) one person on DP Review stated that Photozone is retesting all the Canon lenses with the 50D. Now, that's the kind of testing I would like to see, rather than the archaic results through old Digital Rebels XTis, etc.

Anyway, I didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers, but I just thought the tests were skewed. Judging from the provided links, it does not seem I was alone in this opinion. Someone else mentioned that these "studio" tests are inaccurate by default, as no one uses their 50Ds (etc.) in an artificial light studio, but rather out there in the real world with real lenses on real subjects, under natural lighting conditions. Judging by the few members of this forum who have actually used the 50D outside in the real world (Ray, Wayne) they have noticed an improvement overall it seems.

Thanks to those who tried to offer help and not insults.

Jack




.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2008, 12:02:14 PM »
ReplyReply

a. the 50mm f1.4 is an excellent lens when you step away from f1.4.  Its biggest issue is CA.
b. photozone is retesting lenses.  The 17-85IS and 18-55IS so far.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2008, 12:07:16 PM »
ReplyReply

The tone of your original post was in line with the answers you recieved. If you don't want to be insulted then don't be insulting about things you really do not understand. The line I quoted being a case in point. As a novice I wouldn't write a post showing my huge ignorance coloured with expletives, insults and accusations of lying, etc. When you own the lens and have done tests to show that it is an inferior lens within the canon lineup, when you have shown that cost is at all relative to sharpness (my 50mm Macro costs peanuts and is one of the sharpest canon lenses period), then possibly you can comment. Until then, especially with the manner you started this thread with, you've just made a laughing stock of yourself.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 12:16:27 PM by pom » Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2008, 02:15:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
The tone of your original post was in line with the answers you recieved. If you don't want to be insulted then don't be insulting about things you really do not understand. The line I quoted being a case in point.

The line you quoted was but a vestige of all the things that have been said by that same writer. He also said, "High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera," so I guess my real question is why didn't he try to get the most out of the camera by conducting this test with high-end lenses?  I believe this remains a valid question.





Quote from: pom
As a novice I wouldn't write a post showing my huge ignorance coloured with expletives, insults and accusations of lying, etc.

Thank you for telling me what "you" wouldn't do. Since I have no wish to be you, to put it politely, I am not worried about showing my ignorance here, as I am not thin-skinned nor am I sensitive about being ignorant of a subject in which I have only recently become interested. That is why I plainly stated "or am I missing something?" at the end of my post, so as to have you experts point out the things I am missing. So again, thank you to those who have done so.




Quote from: pom
When you own the lens and have done tests to show that it is an inferior lens within the canon lineup, when you have shown that cost is at all relative to sharpness (my 50mm Macro costs peanuts and is one of the sharpest canon lenses period), then possibly you can comment.

Well, genius, I guess that's the point. You see, I don't want to "own" either camera system until I am reasonably sure of which system is worth the investment. And I was not sure if the 50D was really going to be an improvement over the 40D either. I wanted to see some solid results first before making my decision. Based upon the reasons already set forth here, I just do not feel the results are very solid. In fact, one poster on DP Review said, "did they drop their 50mm, diff samples here: (I have) hand-held snapshots not even carefully carried taken and they see better than their studio shots ... maybe 50D doesn't have quite the per pixel of a 20D or 40D but the details BLOW AWAY the 20D and is clearly better than the 40D, their tests seem really weird. also why do they rag the 50D for losing detail from NR but when it was nikon doing that they soley praised it for getting low noise??"  So, again, I am not alone in a sense of dissatisfaction with their test ...

I was not commenting here as an expert at all, oh truly astute one, I was commenting precisely as someone wanting to read a definitive test result prior to making my purchase decision. I don't want to buy first, then find out later. I was interested in seeing some definitive results, but I do not feel these test results are that.




Quote from: pom
Until then, especially with the manner you started this thread with, you've just made a laughing stock of yourself.

It's good to laugh, so I don't mind being a laughing stock

To me, you trying to insult my intelligence while misspelling the word "receive," and while using the word "with" twice in the same sentence, is funny

But neither my ignorance on camera issues, nor your poor use of the English language, is relevant to the subject. I don't mind you laughing at me, but I do mind being insulted. Again, I do not seem to be the only one dissatisfied with the test results and the methods used to obtain them. Perhaps many were simply hoping for more and voicing our disappointment, and that is all that is happening. Or, just perhaps, the whole test was a half-baked effort that really did leave alot to be desired.

Jack
« Last Edit: November 02, 2008, 02:18:29 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2008, 02:39:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
The line you quoted was but a vestige of all the things that have been said by that same writer. He also said, "High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera," so I guess my real question is why didn't he try to get the most out of the camera by conducting this test with high-end lenses?  I believe this remains a valid question.
He did.
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2008, 02:52:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
He did.

Not so. He only did with a few lenses. Here is what a current owner had to say (named Jay Brookstone), which to me provided a more revealing picture of the truth than that entire 30+ page review. Mr. Brookstone said:



"The DPReview article on the 50D states that the prime lenses the test was conducted with may have limited resolution results due to pixel density of the sensor. After using a 50D for several weeks, I'm sure they did. Many of mine do.

...

"The one exception is the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro II, which can clearly handle even more pixels than the 50D serves up. Transition boundaries in images are razor sharp from f2.8-f8, usually one pixel to two pixels wide. This is a pretty good indicator that the sensor and not the lens is the limiting factor.

...

"In summary, the DP Review article may be indicating that their own testing is flawed due to lens limits. Not surprising at 15 Mp/APS-C pixel densities. They need to pick the right lenses, and it seems older primes may not fare well. In terms of noise at the picture level, the 50D appears better than the 40D (I have both) and comparable or slightly better than in the Nikon D300 low-light images I've taken. DP Review might be correct at the pixel-by-pixel noise level,but I found it hard to tell from their images."





So again, was this a good review, or was it a complete waste of time? To me, the review smacks of the latter. This is especially true since macro is what I enjoy most, and that is where the 50D really shined the most.

Jack
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2008, 03:00:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
He also said, "High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera," so I guess my real question is why didn't he try to get the most out of the camera by conducting this test with high-end lenses?  I believe this remains a valid question.

There is nothing wrong with the lens they used.  If you actually looked at the resolution chart images you would see that Nyquist frequency limited the resolved detail at the same place on the 50D as it did on the D300, that's a sensor issue and not a lens issue.

Quote
I am not worried about showing my ignorance here...

You got that right.

Quote
Well, genius...

...oh truly astute one

Mocking will get you nowhere.

Quote
I was commenting precisely as someone wanting to read a definitive test result prior to making my purchase decision. I don't want to buy first, then find out later. I was interested in seeing some definitive results, but I do not feel these test results are that.

The test results actually are quite revealing inasmuch as we can clearly see that Canon has overshot the megapixels they are cramming onto an APS-C sensor that is slightly smaller than DX format.  The 50D has become the case study in the diffraction limitations that limit useful gains in resolution and define how much a given format can deliver.

Quote
But neither my ignorance on camera issues, nor your poor use of the English language, is relevant to the subject.

The former is entirely relevant while the latter is not.

Quote
Again, I do not seem to be the only one dissatisfied with the test results and the methods used to obtain them. Perhaps many were simply hoping for more and voicing our disappointment, and that is all that is happening. Or, just perhaps, the whole test was a half-baked effort that really did leave a lot to be desired.

No different than DPR tests have always been; they are actually very consistent in the manner in which they test cameras.  Photographers who really understand their gear dismiss all the online reviews because they are all deficient.  The most common complaint has been the use of ACR to determine noise characteristics of sensors, and that's only just now been discovered by many Canon users.

Here's the real point of the uproar over the 50D.  Yes it has more resolution than the 40D, but it does not have more resolution than the D300, and that increased resolution has come at a cost (both inflated file sizes and more noise).  Canon could have done better by backing off and sticking with 12 MP, then they could have matched the D300 on not only resolution but possibly exceeded it on noise, fps, etc; they didn't and now those that have bought 50D cameras are crying about how wrong DPR is to point this out and raising bloody hell at the DPR forum.  Now you have brought the same screaming and crying over "it's not fair" over here -- how nice of you.
Logged
skid00skid00
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2008, 03:07:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Let's cut to the chase, here, and avoid some of the personal insults.

DPReview has been angry with Canon since the flap a few years ago in which other online sites released info before Canon wanted them to, while DPR didn't, and Canon didn't 'punish' the early-releasers.

DPR unfairly/incompetantly compares all cameras at 100% zoom, handicapping higher-resolution cameras.

DPR rates noise strangely, judging cameras which blur the hell out of detail as better cameras.

DPR rates 'resolution' in a way which doesn't match the res chart images they actually show in the review.

DPR seldom notes which lenses are used in reviews.  You and I know what this results in...

Seriously, if you want to read lots of forum posts, DPR is the place.
If you want competant reviews, Imaging Resources, hell, even Steve's Digicams, are far better.  See also Camera Labs and DC Resource.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad