Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is It Just Me or ...  (Read 18587 times)
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1003


« Reply #40 on: November 04, 2008, 02:16:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BernardLanguillier
Not sure why we still need to get excited about these DSLRs comparisons. It should be clear by now that 12-15 MP is pretty much the real world resolution limit for APS sensors just like 20-25MP is the limit for FF sensors.

The game is over folks, there really isn't any significant reason to upgrade or even consider upgrading if you already own a DSLR with a similar resolution.

That's the main message of the DPreview review, we are entering the era of draws, also called area of sharply decreasing returns.

This is great news IMHO, think about the money we will be saving in the coming years with our renewed ability to take photogaphs without being afraid that the next guy will over-spec us with more MPs...  

Cheers,
Bernard


The game of the near future, and where camera companies will find a good part of their business future: to provide all those high resolution bodies with high resolution lenses.

And how well they will be doing with that will determine the success of their higher end bodies.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2008, 02:18:33 AM by The View » Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
spidermike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


« Reply #41 on: November 04, 2008, 03:06:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
But still, if it is getting to the point we are splitting hairs, then all of these cameras are pretty much capable of satisfying anyone.

Tell me about it. Also in hifi - fortunately I have reached a great system after years of messing around and trying to sort the hype from the reality. All I need to do now is really and genuinely convince myself that a better camera will not make me a better photographer  

But maybe those shots of the red kites (the birds, not the toys) would have been better with a few more MPs to allow me to crop tighter.
Dammit. There I go again....
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #42 on: November 04, 2008, 07:21:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: spidermike
Tell me about it. Also in hifi - fortunately I have reached a great system after years of messing around and trying to sort the hype from the reality. All I need to do now is really and genuinely convince myself that a better camera will not make me a better photographer  

A better camera might make you a better photographer but only if you have the skill to use it. But, that's an argument for another thread ... I think it's been done ad nauseum already.
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #43 on: November 04, 2008, 08:02:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Lemme guess who this is ... Mr. Leonard with a new handle
Was wondering when he would show up again.

Quote
So while the point you make is very valid, it doesn't change the point of my thread, and that is the DP Review analysis of this camera was poorly-done. And there are several thousand posts over on DP Review with other people who agree.
I don't think the glass mattered that much.  From what I've been able to see the problem is in the analysis.  The Jay Turberville stuff (in the dp forums) seems to indicate that the samples provided by dpreview show nearly the resolution increase one would expect from the increased pixel count.  (Like around a 20% actual increase in resolution.  22% projected.)  EDIT: This isn't what was reported, however.  So the question becomes how did they judge resolution?  By eyeballing it?

Quote
But still, if it is getting to the point we are splitting hairs, then all of these cameras are pretty much capable of satisfying anyone.
Thom Hogan has long said that if you can't get a decent 13x19 print from any available DSLR (6mp and up) then it isn't the camera.  (Sports shooters and whatnot excluded.)

(As an aside my "lol" was in regards to the "behind-the-scenes shenanigans" comment.  Just doesn't make sense for an Amazon company to rag on a camera that should sell as well as the 50D.  EDIT: However, the oddness of the analysis does make me wonder a touch.  I still do not think the lenses used mattered.)

EDIT: Added two points I thought I had typed.  What I get for rushing off to vote.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2008, 10:59:12 AM by DarkPenguin » Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #44 on: November 04, 2008, 10:45:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: redfisher
No...not same,sorry.
I had forgotten his name,but ya, I agreed with Mr. Leonard's point of view. You just come off like such a turd.


Ah yes, "I" come off like such a turd while "you" come off like such a gentleman

I see  

And you say you're not Mr. Leonard, but you claim to have been following Luminous Landscape's forums for years. Yet out of the nearly 218,000 posts that have been made here, on every subject under the sun, only my post prompted you to "officially join the forum" to post a comment ... which was to call me a rapist ... and which coincidentally was the exact same comment that got Mr. Leonard banned not even two weeks ago? Imagine the odds  

I am sure anyone of even the more basic intellect realizes that the statistical probability of you being the very same person as Mr. Leonard is rather high

You share the same denseness as Mr. Leonard and you use the same words as he. In fact, of the more than 30,000 registered members here, I would be willing to bet that only Mr. Leonard has ever called another boardmember a "rapist" (and that person being me), and here you are two weeks after Mr. Leonard did so, "coincidentally" using the same word against the same person.

Mr. Leonard, I am sorry if my comment that the lens of your chosen camera had "the shortest extendable reach" of any product touched a nerve. My comment was just a joke, and I didn't realize there was a painful truth about selection that has clearly been an issue in your life. Please don't feel threatened by me. Please be assured that, simply because my equipment has much better reach, I would never force anyone to use it. I believe a person has the right to select whatever equipment they desire ... even (as in your case) it comes with only 60mm worth  

In all seriousness, though, you are a very small man ... in more ways than one.

I don't think anyone here would descend to the level of common insult you have, well except you. So from this point forward I will ignore you, until your pending re-ban from the board.

Jack




.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2008, 10:49:36 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 608


« Reply #45 on: November 04, 2008, 10:55:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Let's hope this thread gets closed soon!

Really, do we need all these personal remarks?

Back on topic, I agree with a poster earlier, the GAME is up...megapixel crusade has met it's match. Maybe we can now worry about more interesting stuff, like DR and tonal reproductions, or better still go take photos!
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #46 on: November 04, 2008, 10:59:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
Was wondering when he would show up again.

Didn't take long  




Quote from: DarkPenguin
I don't think the glass mattered that much.  From what I've been able to see the problem is in the analysis.  The Jay Turberville stuff (in the dp forums) seems to indicate that the samples provided by dpreview show nearly the resolution increase one would expect from the increased pixel count.  (Like around a 20% actual increase in resolution.  22% projected.)

This may be true, but I gathered the opposite impression. I gathered that the glass meant the world of difference, actually, as to whether the 50D was a curse or a blessing.




Quote from: DarkPenguin
Thom Hogan has long said that if you can't get a decent 13x19 print from any available DSLR (6mp and up) then it isn't the camera.  (Sports shooters and whatnot excluded.)

True, but then there is the additional world of difference between "decent" and "flawless" ...




Quote from: DarkPenguin
(As an aside my "lol" was in regards to the "behind-the-scenes shenanigans" comment.  Just doesn't make sense for an Amazon company to rag on a camera that should sell as well as the 50D.)

Well, and as I said in the beginning, it was either intentional or negligent. Every other reviewer seemed to immediately recognize that the 50D only shined on the very best lenses. They rightly pointed out that there was a reduction in quality on certain lenses, but they also balanced this truth with the camera's stellar quality when matched with the right lenses. They didn't just report the camera as "disappointing" ... densely omitting the distinctions as DPReview did ... the other reviewers said the camera was a nice improvement with the right lens selection. In fact, one review used the same lenses and still came out with far different results.

It is simply the difference between the truth and a lie ... or between a competent review and an incompetent one.

Jack




.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2008, 11:02:30 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #47 on: November 04, 2008, 11:03:15 AM »
ReplyReply

I was editing my post when you replied.  I think everything still applies.

Quote from: JohnKoerner
This may be true, but I gathered the opposite impression. I gathered that the glass meant the world of difference, actually, as to whether the 50D was a curse or a blessing.
I agree.  I just think the lenses used were good enough for that purpose.

Quote
True, but then there is the additional world of difference between "decent" and "flawless" ...
What's even worse is that as this stuff improves "flawless" keeps getting better and better.  

Quote
Well, and as I said in the beginning, it was either intentional or negligent. Every other reviewer seemed to immediately recognize that the 50D only shined on the very best lenses. They rightly pointed out that there was a reduction in quality on certain lenses, but they also balanced this truth with the camera's stellar quality when matched with the right lenses. They didn't just densely report the camera as "disappointing" ... they said the camera was a nice improvement with the right lens selection.

It is simply the difference between the truth and a lie ... or between a competent review and an incompetent one.
I'm beginning to wonder about their competency.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2008, 11:03:56 AM by DarkPenguin » Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #48 on: November 04, 2008, 11:55:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Someone seems to have been vaporized.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2008, 01:41:50 PM by DarkPenguin » Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 04, 2008, 12:05:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: redfisher
Wow...your sarcasm is so sharp and biting. Funny how you equate my 'charm and wit' to that of creative output.
So who's the dick HUH ,SMILEY SMILEY
I didn't equate your 'charm' to your output actually.
You were so very derisory of other's work, so I simply presumed yours must be truly fantastic.
I'm trembling with anticipation!

Alternatively, why not try posting an informed/useful comment rather than simply being abusive and unpleasant.

Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #50 on: November 04, 2008, 12:09:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
I was editing my post when you replied.  I think everything still applies.
I agree.  I just think the lenses used were good enough for that purpose.

We'll just have to disagree on this then. IMO, the whole point of a crop camera is to amplify either a macro or a telephoto, not a ho-hum 50mm, so these are the lenses that should have been used.




Quote from: DarkPenguin
What's even worse is that as this stuff improves "flawless" keeps getting better and better.  

LOL, this is true




Quote from: DarkPenguin
I'm beginning to wonder about their competency.

Here is a much better, more balanced review:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E50D/E50DA.HTM

This review notes the weaknesses, but also gives full credit to the strengths and benefits, thereby providing real information and not biased information. I think the Nikon D300 should be given credit for still holding very strong even though it is a year old.

Jack



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

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 04, 2008, 12:15:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Jack,

You could have had a civil discussion here by not starting the thread with thinly veiled expletives in your title in your OP.  To paraphrase what you wrote more succinctly and less angrily, I interpreted your OP as:

DPR used a BS, mediocre, "low budget beauty" lens and they are bozos.

DPR is biased in favor of the D300.

DPR is lying by omission.

DPR is deliberately not using the absolute best lenses and sharpening files from one camera but not the other (true for the JPEG comparison to the D300 but thereby presumed for the RAW files as well).


That's the kind of post that's guaranteed to stir up an ugly discussion.  While your tone has become more civil, you are still engaging in the same commentary of DPR's 50D review.

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Well, and as I said in the beginning, it was either intentional or negligent. Every other reviewer seemed to immediately recognize that the 50D only shined on the very best lenses. They rightly pointed out that there was a reduction in quality on certain lenses, but they also balanced this truth with the camera's stellar quality when matched with the right lenses. They didn't just report the camera as "disappointing" ... densely omitting the distinctions as DPReview did ... the other reviewers said the camera was a nice improvement with the right lens selection. In fact, one review used the same lenses and still came out with far different results.

It is simply the difference between the truth and a lie ... or between a competent review and an incompetent one.

You are confusing your disappointment with the review with what DPR's review actually said, I cannot find anywhere in the review where they wrote that the 50D was "disappointing".

Quote
there is the additional world of difference between "decent" and "flawless" ...

There is no such thing as flawless.  Thom's article on "How Big Can You Print?" does not refer to "flawless:, he instead categorizes a DSLR file's enlargement potential as "Poor", "Good", and "Excellent".  He writes that:  "Well, once we get to 8mp we essentially get good results at everything a desktop inkjet printer is capable of printing (up to 13x19"). Yet even the 21mp camera doesn't have the pixels to get into good territory on that 24x36" print."  What's more, not even an 18 MP DSLR attains "excellent" at or above 13x19 enlargements.  You should read the article carefully, there are many weak points where an image can be degraded.  Another good article to read is "Becoming a Better Photographer".

Thom has written that acquiring more skills (such as spending on books, workshops and seminars, etc) will do more to improve your photography than acquiring new gear.  Since DSLRs are getting less expensive all the time, overspending on cameras relative to the skills and peripherals that can take advantage of what they have to offer does not make sense -- especially if those advantages are marginal.  DSLRs prices will continue to drop and when you find yourself consistently limited by a camera you bought one or two years ago, then you will be able to buy an even better one for less at that time than the more expensive one you passed on earlier.

Thom has also written (I believe somewhere buried in all of his DPR posts, so I have to paraphrase him here) that world class photographers have been taking great images and making money for years with DSLRs that everyone would dismiss as inadequate today.  At DPR's forums and practically every other photography forum on the Internet there are endless debates about which is the best camera, and complaints about camera's inadequacies that "need" to be addressed; while these discussions are raging, real photographers are getting great photos and satisfying their clients with those "inadequate" DSLRs.

Quote from: JohnKoerner
If a person is about to make his first investment into equipment, and if he reads a review like that one, he might make a different choice. The review was very flawed and was in stark contrast to the other reviews (if not every other review). In asking the questions I did, and in raising the cain that I did, I actually shook from the bush the exact information I wanted. I was provided links that proved my point, really, and that while the 50D looks "worse" than the 40D on some lenses ... it in fact produces better results on others ... and it just so happens that 2 of the lenses it produces superior results with (the 100 macro and the 100-400 telephoto) are the very two lenses I am interested in buying.

If you are trying to put together a system and you have a fixed budget to do so, the question becomes whether or not the extra $500 is best used on purchasing a 50D instead of a 40D.  If you are skimping on your tripod/ballhead combo, on a lens, or software, then you probably are spending your money the wrong way.

Quote
So while the point you make is very valid, it doesn't change the point of my thread, and that is the DP Review analysis of this camera was poorly-done. And there are several thousand posts over on DP Review with other people who agree.

It's no worse than any test DPR has done.  DPR has always tested using in-camera JPEGs at default settings and ACR; if that's how you use your camera then great, otherwise you should take all of DPR's test results with a grain of salt.  I find it amusing all the cackles in the DPR 50D forum about ACR versus DPP for conversions, for years Nikon users have been saying that Nikon's software is superior to ACR and many Canon users have thumped their chests proclaiming that ACR was the "neutral" tool that "proved" Canons were better than Nikons; now that the 50D has been shortchanged by ACR many at the Canon forum over there are singing a new tune.

DPR did not tell anyone not to buy the 50D, they simply wrote that:

"Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop."

I would have been even more explicit, and said they have exceeded useful resolution for the APS-C format and should have stopped at 12 megapixels.

Quote
But still, if it is getting to the point we are splitting hairs, then all of these cameras are pretty much capable of satisfying anyone.

What's more, generally we can all get more out of our cameras than DPR does -- except for DR, those wedges have no corollary in real world shooting and printing.
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3637



WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 04, 2008, 12:32:14 PM »
ReplyReply

To get back on topic.
I have often thought many reviews are deeply flawed as many reviewers bring their own preferences and quirks to the table. It rare to find unbiased comments, so what is a good thing to do is to find people whose biases agree with your own, at least that way, you get some useful information. Michael's reviews tend to be very useful for me as they are biased with a view to actually taking photographs - unusual I know for photo products, but hey I find it useful, being a photographer and all that.

For example I recently read a review of a media player and it completely dismissed one feature it had. That 'useless' feature was precisely why I bought it. Way too many reviews of stuff I read all too only illustrate how little the reviewer knows, not how knowledgable he thinks he is. And usually ignore the terrible flaws so as to keep the advertisers happy is my cynical view.
The cover of a recent sycophantic Mac magazine had the strapline something like 'Apple reinvents the laptop'. Nonsense, as I doubt making something far less useful for many of it's intended customers is what I would call a reinvention, as that's been done many times before and not just with laptops too.  


I have a similar theory with many how-to books you can buy. They are all to often written by people who are not good enough to  be paid to use the software professionally and so resort to telling others how to use it instead. Thankfully there are exceptions -  Jeff Schewe and Martin Evening for example can actually take good photographs and made/make money from it too.
BTW I do realise teaching something is a separate skill from doing something and those that are are good are not always the best teachers. A hugely underated skill teaching.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #53 on: November 04, 2008, 03:07:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
Jack,
You could have had a civil discussion here by not starting the thread with thinly veiled expletives in your title in your OP.  To paraphrase what you wrote more succinctly and less angrily, I interpreted your OP as:
DPR used a BS, mediocre, "low budget beauty" lens and they are bozos.
DPR is biased in favor of the D300.
DPR is lying by omission.
DPR is deliberately not using the absolute best lenses and sharpening files from one camera but not the other (true for the JPEG comparison to the D300 but thereby presumed for the RAW files as well).

That's the kind of post that's guaranteed to stir up an ugly discussion.  While your tone has become more civil, you are still engaging in the same commentary of DPR's 50D review.

LOL, my tone was always civil Tony. And I don't need you to repeat-back to me what I said. I made those comments and I still believe those comments. I consider that review to be biased and incompetent, and I was angry at said review, and expressed that anger here.

But I don't see where that translated into me being uncivil to anyone here  

You read my angry comments at DPReview, and for some reason chose to come on this thread and be uncivil towards me, repeatedly, when I did not even address you  

But I do agree, this discussion is becoming more civil, and I hope it stays that way. I just thought I'd shake the bush a bit with the inflammatory title, but again this wasn't an insult to anyone here. I did the same thing on the nature thread on my own photo-posts: I posted The Beauty of Evil on an insect kill, as an inflammatory title to get people to look at the photo, but I wasn't trying to insult anyone there either. I likewise posted ROBBER FLY vs ROBBER FLY (No Honor Among Thieves) as a provocative title, yet here again I wasn't trying to bash fellow forum members

So likewise, I started the thread topic here a bit provocatively, but was not intending to bash anyone here




 
Quote from: Tony Beach
You are confusing your disappointment with the review with what DPR's review actually said, I cannot find anywhere in the review where they wrote that the 50D was "disappointing".

LOL, no, you are confusing your attempted projection of my feelings with what I truly felt. I truly feel that review was incompetent and did not address key issues adequately at all. I feel it was a "go through the motions" non-effort, without trying to pay particular attention to the key elements already discussed.




Quote from: Tony Beach
There is no such thing as flawless ...

I understand this.




Quote from: Tony Beach
Thom has written that acquiring more skills (such as spending on books, workshops and seminars, etc) will do more to improve your photography than acquiring new gear.  Since DSLRs are getting less expensive all the time, overspending on cameras relative to the skills and peripherals that can take advantage of what they have to offer does not make sense -- especially if those advantages are marginal.  DSLRs prices will continue to drop and when you find yourself consistently limited by a camera you bought one or two years ago, then you will be able to buy an even better one for less at that time than the more expensive one you passed on earlier.

Good point.




Quote from: Tony Beach
Thom has also written (I believe somewhere buried in all of his DPR posts, so I have to paraphrase him here) that world class photographers have been taking great images and making money for years with DSLRs that everyone would dismiss as inadequate today.  At DPR's forums and practically every other photography forum on the Internet there are endless debates about which is the best camera, and complaints about camera's inadequacies that "need" to be addressed; while these discussions are raging, real photographers are getting great photos and satisfying their clients with those "inadequate" DSLRs.

Good point.




Quote from: Tony Beach
If you are trying to put together a system and you have a fixed budget to do so, the question becomes whether or not the extra $500 is best used on purchasing a 50D instead of a 40D.  If you are skimping on your tripod/ballhead combo, on a lens, or software, then you probably are spending your money the wrong way.

Another good point. And yes, I have already purchased a good tripod and ballhead for the reasons you stated. I am just looking to purchase a system that I won't have to replace again for at least 3-5 years, and where I don't have to spend more than about $5000 for the camera and maybe 3-4 good lenses.




Quote from: Tony Beach
It's no worse than any test DPR has done.  DPR has always tested using in-camera JPEGs at default settings and ACR; if that's how you use your camera then great, otherwise you should take all of DPR's test results with a grain of salt.  I find it amusing all the cackles in the DPR 50D forum about ACR versus DPP for conversions, for years Nikon users have been saying that Nikon's software is superior to ACR and many Canon users have thumped their chests proclaiming that ACR was the "neutral" tool that "proved" Canons were better than Nikons; now that the 50D has been shortchanged by ACR many at the Canon forum over there are singing a new tune.

But yet this still admits the flaw. And there were still other flaws too, in the line of what JJJ said (to which I will respond in a moment).

If the very best reviews are those that can be described as "all encompassing," then the very worst reviews would be those which omit key elements.




Quote from: Tony Beach
DPR did not tell anyone not to buy the 50D, they simply wrote that:
"Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop."
I would have been even more explicit, and said they have exceeded useful resolution for the APS-C format and should have stopped at 12 megapixels.
What's more, generally we can all get more out of our cameras than DPR does -- except for DR, those wedges have no corollary in real world shooting and printing.

This is still incorrect IMO. The most accurate reviews stated the limitations, with certain lenses, but also noticed the improvements. With the right lenses, the 15 mpx put out better images and better prints, which constitutes an improvement not a cessation of usefulness. Plus, with the better viewer, microfocusing, etc. these are all enhancements to the 40D.

Phil could have ended his review by saying such advantages must be married to the right lenses to obtain, rather than say (as an afterthought in a post) "how much trouble should an owner have to go to to get the 15 mpx."

This is plainly and simply biased BS to me.

As stated previously, the 50D is simply separating the high-res lenses from the fold ...

Jack
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #54 on: November 04, 2008, 03:22:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
Someone seems to have been vaporized.

Well he certainly had a short fuse, in more ways than one apparently.  
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #55 on: November 04, 2008, 03:22:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
To get back on topic.
I have often thought many reviews are deeply flawed as many reviewers bring their own preferences and quirks to the table. It rare to find unbiased comments, so what is a good thing to do is to find people whose biases agree with your own, at least that way, you get some useful information. Michael's reviews tend to be very useful for me as they are biased with a view to actually taking photographs - unusual I know for photo products, but hey I find it useful, being a photographer and all that.

Very good point! My passion is macrophotography and I have an interest in trying bird (telephoto) photography, so what a 50mm lens does on the 50D has absolutely zero relevance to what I want to do. That some lenses perform differently on different cameras is relevant to any competent review. In fact, so true is this that many telephoto lenses and macros perform only so-so on full-frame cameras, but yet they perform much better on crop cameras. Therefore, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure that the reverse might also be true (especially when talking about a brand new sensor in a brand new crop) to where an older, basic ff lens might not be the best window through which to gauge the capabilities of said brand new crop camera, with a brand new sensor, going into brand new pixel-density territories.




Quote from: jjj
For example I recently read a review of a media player and it completely dismissed one feature it had. That 'useless' feature was precisely why I bought it. Way too many reviews of stuff I read all too only illustrate how little the reviewer knows, not how knowledgable he thinks he is. And usually ignore the terrible flaws so as to keep the advertisers happy is my cynical view.  The cover of a recent sycophantic Mac magazine had the strapline something like 'Apple reinvents the laptop'. Nonsense, as I doubt making something far less useful for many of it's intended customers is what I would call a reinvention, as that's been done many times before and not just with laptops too.

Exactly the point of my post: a truly good reviewer is going to put in the time to give an all-encompassing review, which will at least address the concerns of many different kinds of consumer. In choosing the "base 50mm," the DPReviewer (Phil) was just going through the motions and not getting into any intricasies or possible differences in how different performance levels might obtain with different lenses used. He merely threw-in an ass-covering afterthought by saying, "You'll need to use the best lenses to get the most out of this camera." Well, the way I see it, that is tantamount to his saying, "In using an older, basic lens I purposely wasn't trying to get the best out of this camera," is it not?




Quote from: jjj
I have a similar theory with many how-to books you can buy. They are all to often written by people who are not good enough to  be paid to use the software professionally and so resort to telling others how to use it instead. Thankfully there are exceptions -  Jeff Schewe and Martin Evening for example can actually take good photographs and made/make money from it too.BTW I do realise teaching something is a separate skill from doing something and those that are are good are not always the best teachers. A hugely underated skill teaching.

Good points. There are a lot of great boxers who can't train or communicate what they know to young boxers. And some of the greatest trainers in history were either not boxers at all, or only reached a very mediocre level themselves, athletically. Yet they were able to communicate superbly and thus were great teachers.

Anyway, I think the link that I posted above provides a more balanced view of things, and I too am waiting to read Michael's review. Hopefully, some of the subjects discussed here will be specifically addressed in his own presentation.

Jack
« Last Edit: November 04, 2008, 03:26:20 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #56 on: November 04, 2008, 03:31:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jjj
To get back on topic.
I have often thought many reviews are deeply flawed as many reviewers bring their own preferences and quirks to the table. It rare to find unbiased comments, so what is a good thing to do is to find people whose biases agree with your own, at least that way, you get some useful information. Michael's reviews tend to be very useful for me as they are biased with a view to actually taking photographs - unusual I know for photo products, but hey I find it useful, being a photographer and all that.

For example I recently read a review of a media player and it completely dismissed one feature it had. That 'useless' feature was precisely why I bought it. Way too many reviews of stuff I read all too only illustrate how little the reviewer knows, not how knowledgable he thinks he is. And usually ignore the terrible flaws so as to keep the advertisers happy is my cynical view.
The cover of a recent sycophantic Mac magazine had the strapline something like 'Apple reinvents the laptop'. Nonsense, as I doubt making something far less useful for many of it's intended customers is what I would call a reinvention, as that's been done many times before and not just with laptops too.  


I have a similar theory with many how-to books you can buy. They are all to often written by people who are not good enough to  be paid to use the software professionally and so resort to telling others how to use it instead. Thankfully there are exceptions -  Jeff Schewe and Martin Evening for example can actually take good photographs and made/make money from it too.
BTW I do realise teaching something is a separate skill from doing something and those that are are good are not always the best teachers. A hugely underated skill teaching.

That is the nature of magazine reviews. They often write something to get attention, and make a mark. And of course they have to reach an assessment based on the features, rather than what best suits a given reader. So a camera with 9/10 might not be better than one with 7/10 for you, or me. A lot of people when buying something they are not familiar with tend to make a short list from reviews, and choose the most appealing. I plead guilty on that count m'lud. But it does save time for gadgets such as GPS units, running shoes etc.

Have you ever noticed how more than a few of the staff journalists with well known UK photo magazines are very opinionated, especially when assessing readers pictures, but they cannot take a decent picture to save their lives? I would argue that for all but the basics you need to be a good photographer and a decent writer.
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #57 on: November 04, 2008, 03:51:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Look, you freely admit that your OP was "inflammatory", so enough said about that.

Quote from: JohnKoerner
The most accurate reviews stated the limitations, with certain lenses, but also noticed the improvements. With the right lenses, the 15 mpx put out better images and better prints, which constitutes an improvement not a cessation of usefulness. Plus, with the better viewer, microfocusing, etc. these are all enhancements to the 40D.

Phil could have ended his review by saying such advantages must be married to the right lenses to obtain, rather than say (as an afterthought in a post) "how much trouble should an owner have to go to to get the 15 mpx."

This is plainly and simply biased BS to me.

*Good viewfinder, optional focusing screens

*AF-Micro-Adjustment

There are 28 other "pros" listed in the conclusion of the review; whereas there are 7 "cons" listed:

    *  High ISO performance worse than 40D
    * Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
    * Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
    * High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
    * Poor white balance performance under artificial light
    * Flash must be up for AF assist lamp (although AF is good even in low light)
    * Live view not as accurate as on 40D (framing very slightly off-center, in contrast detect AF mode not possible to magnify right out to the extreme corners)
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #58 on: November 04, 2008, 07:17:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Tony Beach
Look, you freely admit that your OP was "inflammatory", so enough said about that.

Well, I ended by saying "provocative" ... but yes, I was trying to provoke responses to my thread regarding the legitimacy of some of these reviews; I was not trying to provoke "you" into calling me an idiot and a fanboy, nor was I trying to provoke Mr.Leonard (aka: RedHerring) into calling me a rapist

I was looking to get into a heated debate about photo reviews, I was not looking to be tarred and feathered myself

In truth though, Tony, I do believe it is your own Nikon fanboyism that makes you attack any Canon-slanted folks. I say this not to provoke another argument with you; I just think this is the truth. Yet I think you being an obvious fan of Nikon is a good thing, actually. Being a fan makes a person obsessed and therefore knowledgeable on the subject. Speaking of which ...

Do you have any direct experience using a Nikkor 80-400mm on the D300? If so, how you you rate this particular combination? I have not seen the same direct comparison for Nikon in this combo, as I have seen for the Canon 40D/50D + 100-400 combos.

I know that the Canon/100macro combos and the Nikon/105macro combos are both outstanding and both very close, but I have heard much less favorable results for the Nikkor 80-400mm vs. the Canon 100-400mm.

However, yet again, I have not read about a single review of the specific combination of a D300 + 80-400mm telephoto. What are your thoughts, if you don't mind sharing?




Quote from: Tony Beach
*Good viewfinder, optional focusing screens
*AF-Micro-Adjustment
There are 28 other "pros" listed in the conclusion of the review; whereas there are 7 "cons" listed:
    *  High ISO performance worse than 40D
    * Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
    * Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
    * High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
    * Poor white balance performance under artificial light
    * Flash must be up for AF assist lamp (although AF is good even in low light)
    * Live view not as accurate as on 40D (framing very slightly off-center, in contrast detect AF mode not possible to magnify right out to the extreme corners)

You see what I mean? This is the kind of pure bias (abbreviated BS) I am talking about

There are 28 "pros" for the 50D (yet you only list 2), while there are only 7 "cons" (and of course you list all 7)

This is exactly the kind of deliberately-negative slant I am talking about. A 28-7 ratio is a 4:1 ratio. This means if you are only going to list 2 "pros," you then you shouldn't even mention 1 "con" yet. But you go ahead and omit 26 pros, while listing all 7 cons, which is nothing but anit-fanboyism, is it not?

Further (and again, this is the whole point of my thread topic), all but 2 of these 7 "cons" are BLATANT LIES!

Let's examine these 7 "cons" and re-define them:

1. The high ISO performance is actually better, with the right lens.
2. Again, DR is again better in low light, with the right lens.
3. Per-pixel data is again better, with the right lens.
4. THE BIG KEY HERE: WITH THE RIGHT LENS ALL OF THESE "NEGATIVES" BECOME POSITIVE!
5. Okay, here is a real negative.
6. Again, this could be re-stated as a positive: Autofocus is good, even in low light (Flash must be up for AF assist lamp).
7. Okay, Live view isn't as accurate, another negative.


So you see Tony, 5 out of 7 "negatives" are really the result of DP Review's own negligent (intentional?) choice of lenses ... which would leave the 50D ultimately with 32 positives and only 2 real negatives  

Jack




.
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4915



« Reply #59 on: November 04, 2008, 07:38:46 PM »
ReplyReply

OK folks. Enough name calling.

Please remove the personal digs or I'll bag this whole thread.

Michael

Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad