It was never my intention to flame anyone over this; I just wanted to
point out that the "perfect 10", as given by Mr. Askey to the S20's
picture quality is not justified.
Instead of going back to your argument against the 4700, which is not
really relevant to this discussion, why don't you answer the simple
question that I have posted above? IS OR IS NOT THE PERFECT 10 GIVEN BY
MR. ASKEY TO THE S20 FOR IMAGE QUALITY JUSTIFIED?
Nah. It's only a nine. As evidenced in the shots that he made with the
camera
and displayed in his gallery.
Remember, too, that this was the first quality 3 megger he'd ever seen
results
from and compared to the previous two meggers it was a distinctly giant step
forward from the body of experience. So is that the heart of the beef? The
idea that to him at that time it seemed to be a ten?
So what do you give it? A three? Because the flash makes images look blue
sometimes?
"Rearrange your life, Phil. I've had a different experience from the ones
you used to form your conclusions in that review of yours." -GC
If not, then Mr. Askey should have gone back and changed the rating for
the S20 by now, unless, of course, he's somewhat biased.
He's prejudiced*? By what? You sling the word but produce no evidence
of bias or unfair rush to judgment.
But I did notice that the mood has changed from the banner
headline that declared "Phil is Biased" to "he's somewhat biased" in your
sentence above. Is this a trend?
see synonyms
And if he still
thinks that the S20 does not exhibit a blue cast and that its image
quality still deserves a perfect 10, then I would love to see a shot
taken, under low light condition, of a human face that shows the S20's
perfect 10 capability. Peter, since you seem to support Mr. Askey
wholeheartedly on this, I assume that you own a S20 and know very well
that IT DOES NOT exhibit a blue cast when taking shots of the human skin
under low light conditions. I would love to see you post one of your own
to support your arguments and to refute mine.
No, I don't have one and am unlikely to get one. The shots you show have
some clues that may be why the blue cast is present and they may fall under
operating system oversights, operator error or boneheaded design, none of
which can be determined by me or through the gallery of shots Phil has
shown.
Maybe your camera has an "issue". It doesn't seem to be doing the right
thing
in these shots. If every single shot that is made with flash is like
this, I'd send it
back or tell Canon to shove off.
Or is the effect the product of a specific series of settings? None of
the shots
Phil showed have anything like it. Why should he retract his initial
impression
because you can demonstrate a different experience?
You seem to be taking it very, very personally that he isn't in major
agreement
with your experiences. Geez. Take responsibility for your own experiences.
Bias in my dictionary favors an interpretation that one has an opinion
derived from an unfair, not impartial, judgment.
Take a look at these two shots under low light conditions and tell me if
it deserves a perfect 10 for image quality, and whether or not the face
of this oriental girl looks blue (trust me, her skin tone is NOT that
blue):
http://pongopix.com/upload/changa/Blue1
http://pongopix.com/upload/changa/Blue2
I can see from these images that the camera is making the flash too
blue. It is as if the white balance were locked on some intermediate
setting trying to compensate between the extra warm room lighting
and the flash.
EXACTLY what causes this, I have no idea. Send me the camera and a
self addressed return label and I'll get to the bottom of it in a few weeks.
I'll even pay the return postage.
If you think that a blue cast exists and that the image quality is
anything but a perfect 10, then I would think that Mr. Askey has made "an
opinion derived from an unfair, not impartial, judgement." - Peter iNova
Huh? You have attributed a quote to me that makes no sense. I was
discussing the relative punch of "bias" versus "opinion" and "experience".
Or is that simply a typo?
Phil can do what he wishes. So can you, apparently. So can I:
"I was only kidding." -GC (I made that up.)
"Bias (noun) An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice." The
context of your original post and headline suggests that this is the
intent of your word choice.
BTW, don't forget to footnote your source when you quote something next
time =)
http://www.dictionary.com
I did. The "my dictionary" line is quoted above. How did you miss that?
This is getting dada.
I suppose you enjoy saving huge files that are every bit as sharp as
files saved at a fraction of their pixel count by other cameras. Cheers.
I give it less than a 5. It isn't even AVERAGE. Not compared to its
PROMISE. Your average may vary. Fuji's promise certainly did.
Like I said, if you compare the 4700 to the current crop of 3 megapixel
digicams, then yes, its image quality doesn't stand up too well. BUT, we
all know that it's only a 2.4 megapixel digicam, so any image quality
comparisons should be made with digicams with similar pixel count.
Unless, of course, you have chosen to make Fuji pay for its marketing
flop by deliberately making image comparisons which you know are unfair,
in the sense that the 4700 is being compared against digicams with an
extra million pixels. Why can't you all get over this? Fuji HAS
admitted that its camera is NOT a true 4.3 megapixel digicam and I think
we should just leave it at that. I think the 4700 is a great 2 megapixel
digicam, but a crappy 3 megapixel digicam.
Peter, I don't understand why you're taking this so personally.
It's the bully factor. When somebody steps up to the plate and drops a
load of pushy, inappropriate opinionation in a public forum by lashing out
against someone or group of folks it ticks me off. It is bullying. You
have
the right to say anything you wish. You even have the right to be pushy.
Apparently you don't like it if you get pushed back. How does it feel?
I started this with a discussion of the abstract in question, Bias itself.
It would seem that you took this personally. I gave it in the spirit of
recognizing an inherent human trait. I even hoped you would see how
your words could be interpreted as inflammatory and overboard.
I offered no particular opinion on the source of your concern. You wished
to raise the issue of the technical aspects of a device. You started it by
characterizing his work as "obviously biased." Is that unfair or what?
Sorry, I guess I get overly upset when somebody uses loaded words so very
far out of polite. Especially when no images from the source you accuse
of flagrant bias (I added the flagrant part) show the problem at issue.
You want to cheeze me off? Simply call somebody who tries their best to do
a good job an inappropriate name. You did. And I'm irritated with your
insensitivity and tactless characterization.
Now the thing I'm having to come to grips with is this: am I being
tactlessly
insensitive to your feelings by throwing your tactless insensitivity in your
face? It's sort of like one of those pictures of a picture inside of a
picture
inside of a picture, if you follow it endlessly.
You are ticked at Canon so you take it out on Phil who didn't have the
experience you had. Picture in a picture.
I think you owe him an apology. That's my opinion as an observer from
the sidelines of this idea.
But there are things I take personally, since the world of marketing and
product development are geared to extracting my personal money
in favor of their products by raising my personal expectations.
I feel that it is right, just and appropriate to get irritated at
companies who
miss the mark by wide margins. You may be completely right to be ticked
at Canon, for instance. When your camera arrives, I'll give it a workout
and
may become in complete technical agreement with you.
I am upset with Fuji for blunting my expectations about their new chip.
Then they pulled that camera number stunt. Just to piss me off. When
I get next to Mr. Fuj, I'm going to kick some butt. But other than that,
I think
the camera is cute.
I am upset with your flagrant use of the B word and the suggestion that
it carries concerning Phil's motives. Bias implies unfair judgment and that
seems to be what's on the brush you've painted him with.
If the only person allowed to get upset with your characterization is Phil
directly then I'm completely wrong, but I believe that this is not the case.
Your challenge wasn't even-handed, it was confrontational. Look how
far you followed this. Everybody here knows how quickly I back off of
a confrontation...
I think you meant to cast aspersions, not simply raise a technical issue.
I detect no similar bias or hidden agenda in Phil's work. He wasn't
enthusiastic out of proportion to the experience and demonstrable
gallery of shots that first S20 produced and I have no way, nor do you,
of knowing if he has one in his hands that can reproduce your results.
I think your experience has caused you to see bias where there is simply
a difference of experience, opinion, and judgment.
I'm very curious to hear whether or not every single S20 has every single
flash image turn out this poorly or if it is something that only shows up
under
certain conditions.
All
along, I've been questioning Mr. Askey on the perfect 10 rating given to
the S20; the fact that he has been denying that a blue cast exists on the
S20's images led me to speculate that he's biased.
You didn't speculate. "Phil's Biased" is a declaration, not a speculation.
Everything that I've
ever said were based on facts derived from my personal experience with
the S20.
I believe that you believe that. Now where is the thing that you have
experienced that proves a BIAS, a prejudice, an unfair judgment, a
predisposition to mangle the truth in favor of some hidden agenda?
Mr. Askey has been given the opportunity to address our
concerns (many S20 owners), but he has chosen to dismiss the blue cast
issue altogether, as if it really doesn't exist. And this is what REALLY
bothers me.
No doubt you have already read this:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=195076
But what I want to know is, how do you like the S20?
-iNova
Phil will hereafter do his review of the cameras and include a page at the end of the review that contains the fields for the 1 to 10 ratings. In fact, I would suggest changing the scale to a range of 1 to 50. More accurate statistics could be compiled that way. After a one week period of response from readers the info would be averaged and inserted as permanent fields at the end of the review.