Some reviewers need a good.....

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Rich, Aug 25, 2005.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest


    The 16 July issue of the Brit mag "Amateur Photographer" tests the D50
    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, Aug 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    Jer Guest

    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, Aug 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich

    Toby Guest

    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

    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, Aug 25, 2005
  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.
    Steve Franklin, Aug 25, 2005
  5. Rich

    Rich Guest

    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, Aug 25, 2005
  6. Rich

    Jer Guest

    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, Aug 25, 2005
  7. Rich

    Tony Polson Guest

    That's because the kit lenses from the major manufacturers were
    compared in a group test in another issue of the same magazine.
    Tony Polson, Aug 25, 2005
  8. Rich

    RichA Guest

    They shouldn't presume that people buy it every week, and should know
    that some readers will be new ones or infrequent readers.
    RichA, Aug 25, 2005
  9. Rich

    Charlie Self Guest

    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.
    Charlie Self, Aug 26, 2005
  10. Rich

    RichA Guest

    The article itself could have been saved by simply indicating that the
    differences between the two kit lens "could" account for the
    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
    the fact the tests indicated the opposite, in most aspects.
    RichA, Aug 26, 2005
  11. 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...
    Martin Francis, Aug 28, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.