Well, I'm sure it wasn't the intention, but at least the "just" tag is kind of like throwing a bone to the complain brigade. They still have something to grasp onto. 8^)
I can understand it even if I didn't agree with the FZ30 R only.
Can that be correct? I payed roughly that amount but in euros (!) when
I dont see how bringing up the S3 review is relevant. It seems like you already have something against the reviewers, because they rated the fuji lower than you thought was fair. Each camera is rated relative to its direct competitors, and the S3 was lagging in several aspects.
I dont see any inconsistency. The panasonic has a single drawback: high iso image quality. Keep in mind that the direct competitors of this camera also have this drawback, though, to a lesser degree. The camera is not judged based on a single aspect, rather, on the overall performance. Personally, I think the "just barely" qualifier holds significant importance. The review even says the camera is HR only for "those users who can live without anything over ISO 200."
This is poor. I believe that one can learn a lot by reading these reviews. The most important thing that can be learned is whether you are one of the users that would really enjoy a particular camera, whether it was rated "above average" or "highly recommended."
Yep that is exactly how it feels, even at its lowest I think it trumpts Venus II noise reduction by a mile in pixel talk that is.
That's totally uncalled for and inappropriate.
Even though I personally don't need more MP, I have no objection to the pixel race. My objection is to increased noise and crappy noise reduction. So please just keep hammering away on the noise issues without pulling punches (as I think you did, "just" a bit, on the FZ50, in a review that was otherwise very good).
I sure hope not, because that would greatly diminish the value of the ratings. Best of a sorry lot shouldn't get the same rating as best of tough competition.
The Con list is much longer than that.
Then the HR isn't deserved.
I think DPReview probably needs a more precise final ranking (like some other reviewers); e.g., a scale of 1 to 10 where 8 or higher is HR. That way the FZ50 could be an 8 HR, while still clearly ranking below higher HR rankings.
I personally think the Pros and Cons have a lot more to say about the rating than the rating itself.
I am not sure if you were responding to my post or to everyone in general, but if you re-read my post I was referring to the rating, not the review
Rating = A couple of words such as Recommended/highly-rec/above-average --
The rating is just a rating. It may be a matter of pride, prestige, debate, marketing, etc, but what really matters when evaluating/purchasing a camera is the content of the review.
--
Luckily for you... instead of low, normal & hi, the usual in-cam parameters... For this particular feature there'll be Coffee, Tea or whiskey... Or when in Baby mode.. Milk, juice or Koolaid
Actually, both the FZ30 and FZ50 have two-wheel control
Well, although some argue the 5MP-to-8MP was not that big a jump, and then the 8MP-to-10MP wasn't that big a jump, the 5MP-to-10MP is actually a pretty big step. No, it's not really doubling the resolution, we've all read about how you have to quadruple to double.
While I agree the FZ30 should have also gotten an HR, I've looked at the FZ30-FZ50 comparison shots, and I just don't see how you can call the FZ50 "image-inferior." Do you mean after PP?
