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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

That's because the kit lenses from the major manufacturers were
compared in a group test in another issue of the same magazine.

 

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.

 

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

 

Nikon were late with supplying D50s to reviewers, so they lost a few weeks
sales as a result (the way they view it). I guess they leant extra-hard on
the reviewers to compensate.

I don't think you'll find a bad review of the D50 ANYWHERE right now...