Reading mode: Light Dark

Dpreview strikes again (Sony A900 review)

Go to last post
Member said:
But since we all appear to be reading this forum instead of being out taking > pictures, I guess it is valid for discussion.
Click to expand...
LOL, well at least I have somewhat of an excuse my camera is in for service.

OK serious stuff, consistent ratings, yep for sure. Thats one of the reasons Stereo Review (in the USA) was so popular when Julian Hirsch was writing reviews, he had a very consistent style, and many other fine attributes. After his retirement the reviews from other writers just was not the same, and I slowly stopped reading Stereo Review (now Sound and Vision) let me quote part of a tribute to him after his death.

"Julian Hirsch, an engineer and magazine writer who was instrumental in transforming hi-fi from an esoteric hobby into a multibillion-dollar global industry, died Monday, November 24, at the age of 81 after a long illness. Through more than 40 years of testing and reporting on the performance of audio equipment for consumer magazines, and especially for Stereo Review , the leader in the field, Hirsch helped demystify high-fidelity sound reproduction.

He set a high standard of scientific and journalistic integrity in his reviews, and he was always ready to debunk the gimmicks and fads exploited by overzealous marketers. Under the auspices of the Institute of High Fidelity, which was later absorbed into the Electronic Industries Association (now the Electronic Industries Alliance), he helped draft standards for the testing of power amplifiers and FM tuners that made specifications for these components easier to compare and more useful to shoppers. A die-hard fringe of audiophiles felt he gave too much weight to what was measurable, but during his long career many music lovers wouldn't buy new gear if it didn't have his imprimatur."

I have never read reviews written so well as his.

And the point, again the power of reviews, read again the above. I know people want positive reinforcement of purchases and car makers put adds in magazines not to get new buyers but to reinforce to those who have already bought to reinforce they have made the right choice, so I am not naive to this. However reviews are also powerful motivators for people deciding to buy.

So 'reviews' are very serious business, and not to be understated or made to be just someones IMO and no big deal, read the above quote if need be to understand the power of writers and reviews. Its business, big business.

--
jamesm007

http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z77/jamesm700/
 
SBS said:
Member said:
Consistency is desirable, however to put this sites popularity among
people new to photography, I'll relate a scenario that recently
occurred.

A workmate of mine --->
He found DPReview when he googled both models. He didn't even read
the reviews, just compared the specifications.
Click to expand...
Well that's enough evidence for me. One person didn't even read the
reviews so they must not really matter.
Click to expand...
I said recently smart guy.

I know several other people who have similar stories.

--
Dave Savage
GMT +8:00 hrs
http://flickr.com/photos/disavage/
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/davidsavage

 
Roland Mabo said:
That may be the case yes, but if so they should remove the "(just)"
from past reviewers too and not just (!) from the new reviews. The
reviews and the verdict must be comparable.
Click to expand...
Well, I agree. Use of "highly recommended (but...)" may confuse very casual readers (and even make the reservations look more severe than on a camera that just got "recommended").

Personally, I wouldn't let the total rating by any site or magazine influence my choice, some of the things tested are not important to me (e.g. I'd trade a high fps against almost anything else, e.g. a very silent mirror, since I very, very rarely use continuous shooting. And JPEG quality is of absolutely no interest, since I never use it). But since basically all DSLRs sold to day are very capable photographic tools, I'd always have a closer look at why a certain camera didn't get the best rating, and decide whether the reviewer's reservations apply to me or not.
--
Espen
 
SBS said:
For a third language, you write very well. Intimidatingly so. I don't
understand what "rules" Roland has violated in his post. And I think
the only difference in our opinons is that Roland and I think the
ratings should be consistent, not only with the conclusion of the
review, but also with the ratings given to other products. In the
big scheme of things, it is not that important. But since we all
appear to be reading this forum instead of being out taking pictures,
I guess it is valid for discussion.
Click to expand...
Thanks first of all.

Actually I had been out in the -10C autumn of ours for 3 hours yesterday and have been for another 5 today, taking pictures:)

The topic about inconsistent reviews is indeed valid for discussion.

My coment was related to the yelling about a specific review ;-)
--
Thomas

Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool
http://main.duplophotography.com/
 
A900 has ISO performance that matches Nikdon D700 up to ISO 3200! in raw and in 12MP.

reference:
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/10/23/the-alpha-900-as-a-high-iso-body/
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=29804929

Best in class IQ iso 100 to 800.
IQ as great DR, tonality and colors.
Best in class VF.
Excellent ergonomics and userinterface.
Small and light for a FF.
Only FF with IS
5fps at 24MP.

Worst jpeg engine in class? :) excellent iq if you dowsize, but the jpeg engine causes blotchiness at full rez at default settins.

Great jpegs can be achieved by these settings:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1037&thread=29698285&page=1
Robert Chow said:
--
rc

Click to expand...
--
-
A700 owner - Using the Cream machine - Minolta STF !
 
I suggested in another post in this thread that perhaps DPR had stopped using the qualifiers like (just) and had simply not communicated this.

I was wrong. Reading the Canon 50D review we get:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page31.asp

"The Canon EOS 50D still earns itself our highest reward but considering its price point and our slight concerns about its pixel-packed sensor, it only does so by a whisker."

Followed by a rating of, "Highly Recommended (just)".

This now looks like a lack of consistency when awarding overall ratings.
Roland Mabo said:
They writes...
"As long as you take into account our reservations about the high ISO
image quality (which we'd more easily forgive on a camera that wasn't
the best part of $3000), the Alpha 900 is a camera that just, by the
skin of its teeth, offers enough to gain our highest award."

And gives the camera a "Highly recommended" rating.

Why isn't it getting the "(just)" remark? It is even said in the
conclusion "just"...
Is "(just)" something that Dpreview only gives to Pentax? Why?

--
Take care
R
http://www.flickr.com/photos/raphaelmabo
Click to expand...
--
GMT
 
mpixel said:
I suggested in another post in this thread that perhaps DPR had
stopped using the qualifiers like (just) and had simply not
communicated this.
Click to expand...
Yes, that was what I thought, too.
mpixel said:
Followed by a rating of, "Highly Recommended (just)".
Click to expand...
Well, then I agree with Roland that the "(just)" should have been added to the A900 rating.

However, this should also put an end to the conspiracy theories about dpreview and the large brands vs. smaller brands. The flagship APS-C camera of the largest maker gets a "(just)"!

Somewhat off-topic, I noticed this from the review:

"It becomes obvious that at 15.1 megapixels nominal resolution the 50D is limited by the performance of the lens while the Pentax prime lens is still capable of resolving the K20D's 14.6 megapixels."
  • which was somewhat surprising to me. I thought the Canon 50/1.4 was a very good lens, but it's still outperformed by our good old FA50/1.4!
--
Espen
 
Just read the 50D review. DPR does solid reviews...but their rating system has become a complete joke. If every camera can get a "Highly recommended," even if it is "justed," then DPR might as well stop rating their cameras as this commendation has lost all meaning.

If you actually read the review, it is clear the 50D is inferior to the 40D. So how can it get an equivalent recommendation when the 40D is both better AND $500 cheaper? And the D300, a far superior camera, is only slightly more expensive. In fact how could DPR recommend this camera at all??

Out of curiosity, I looked at DPR's 10 most recent reviews:

Canon 50D: Highly recommended
Sony A900: Highly recommended
Nikon D90: Highly recommended
Nikon D700: Highly recommended
Pentax K200D: Highly recommended
Olympus E-520: Highly recommended
Canon 1Ds Mk III: Highly recommended
Canon Rebel XS: Highly recommended
Sony A200: Highly recommended
Pentax K20D: Highly recommended

F'ing seriously...even I didn't realize that DPR's last ten reviewed cameras were all "Highly recommended." Really? I wonder if this possibly has anything to do with not wanting to upset the cushy relationships DPR has with all the manufacturers?

What a joke.

--
http://madhubuti.deviantart.com/gallery/
 
Evil_Sheep said:
Just read the 50D review. DPR does solid reviews...but their rating
system has become a complete joke. If every camera can get a "Highly
recommended," even if it is "justed," then DPR might as well stop
rating their cameras as this commendation has lost all meaning.
Click to expand...
Here's the real DPR scale for DSLRs:
Highly Recommended = you can buy this one
Highly Recommended (just) = failure!

I was shocked to see this for a Canon, however.

Of course, we Pentaxians (no stranger to 'just') got a special one for ourselves: "Highly Recommended (if you shoot RAW)", for the K200D. Fortunately, I've been shooting RAW for a long time. I can't wait for "Highly Recommended (if you shoot with primes)" or "Highly Recommended (if you shoot with the sun at your back)".

To DPReview: we love you guys, keep up the great work, just drop the silly Recommended system. And do your primary testing with RAW, please - pixel-peepers don't shoot JPEGs.

--
http://www.pixelstatic.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelstatic/
 
Evil_Sheep said:
If you actually read the review, it is clear the 50D is inferior to
the 40D.
Click to expand...
Really? Apart from the curiously worse LiveView I see very little indication for that.

Sure. Per-pixel, it is noiser. But at the same print/display size? Not really, I reckon.
Evil_Sheep said:
F'ing seriously...even I didn't realize that DPR's last ten reviewed
cameras were all "Highly recommended." Really? I wonder if this
possibly has anything to do with not wanting to upset the cushy
relationships DPR has with all the manufacturers?
Click to expand...
I suspect is has more to do with these cameras all being very good.

Cheers
Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
JensR said:
JensR said:
If you actually read the review, it is clear the 50D is inferior to
the 40D.
Click to expand...
Really? Apart from the curiously worse LiveView I see very little
indication for that.
Sure. Per-pixel, it is noiser. But at the same print/display size?
Not really, I reckon.
Click to expand...
To quote from the review: "One consequence of this is that the 50% increase in pixel count over the 40D results in only a marginal amount of extra detail."
JensR said:
JensR said:
F'ing seriously...even I didn't realize that DPR's last ten reviewed
cameras were all "Highly recommended." Really? I wonder if this
possibly has anything to do with not wanting to upset the cushy
relationships DPR has with all the manufacturers?
Click to expand...
I suspect is has more to do with these cameras all being very good.
Click to expand...
You're right Jens, all the cameras are very good in a sense in that they can all take good photos. Any one of these cameras would have been considered a miracle even in 2000. But it's not 2000 and you can't consider cameras in a vacuum. What kind of car magazine would make all its cars "Highly recommended" on the basis that anyone from 1960 would consider the car an amazing technological achievement?

Cameras need to be compared against their competition...that is how any rational shopper chooses. Therefore, it makes zero sense that every camera is considered to be "highly recommended"...it is like saying every camera out there is as good as any of its competition, which is clearly not true. In the case of the 50D, it is outdone even by its predecessor except in rare specific cases where you would absolutely need every megapixel AND you are willing to pay the outrageous price premium for that.

--
http://madhubuti.deviantart.com/gallery/
 
After reading the review of the Canon 50D, I browsed through the Canon forums to see what the reaction was there. Apparently, many seem to be convinced that DPR used flawed testing methodology, and that the 50D was judged unfairly. Sounds familiar, eh? We all love the reviews here when our product of choice gets a hearty 'Highly Recommended' rating, but anything less and we are deeply wounded. Lots of Canon guys have called Pentaxians 'fanboys' for our past complaints. So to them I say, "Welcome to our club!"

--
http://www.pixelstatic.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelstatic/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top