My impression of the 550D's review... and ratings...

First off - I've not bashed the 550, I'm certain in sum it is a fine camera. Second - I've not said the K-X is perfect, it has it's limitations.

I just have to wonder how the 550 earns the "Next version of Sliced Bread" award when the review has so many contradictions and qualifications regards the camera's strengths. Then you throw in a significantly higher price and give it the gold star for value in an "entry" level camera.

I don't have the Pentax Persecution Complex, the issue isn't that obvious.

Obviously there's no blatant attempt to keep Pentax down, the K-X got a decent review., But it often seems there's a bias to keep the likes of Canon ahead.

Given Canon's aggressive marketing effort, and Pentax's near lack of one, that either explains things or makes you wonder why it's necessary.

Gary Martin said:

The K-x kit was $599 when brand new, and is typically under $500 now. The 550D will never be less than $800. That's a pretty huge price difference.

Click to expand...

You know, I'm amused at how the Pentax folk freak out everytime another camera review doesn't praise the Pentax equivalent and/or rates another camera above the Pentax equivalent. I can even ignore the idiotic assertions that Canon's IQ is "terrible" (eslewhere in this an every other similar threat). I mean, we all love Pentax, so Pentax has to be better, right?

But at least try to be realistic about the numbers. The 500D kit is well under $800 [1,3] already (has been for several months now). The 550D body is already $799 [2,3]. What makes you think the kit won't ever drop by $100?

[1] http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/613613-REG/Canon_3818B002_EOS_Rebel_T1i_500D_.html

[2] http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/675617-REG/Canon_4462B001_Canon_EOS_Rebel_T2i.html

[3] Unless you're one of the 14% of Americans who live in New York state and have to pay sales tax when buying from B&H.

Personally I don't care if Canon scores better than Pentax. I'm used to reading reviews where the product reviewed scores lower than than other products, because the reviewer doesn't just test it against products that are cheaper and/or a lower grade. They throw in higher grade and more expensive products, to emphasize what you're getting - less performance for less money (hopefully).

That's my biggest issue. The 550D has been pegged as a Mid Range DSLR accoring to the summary score. But it's priced as a semi-professional DSLR (compare D90 or K7). But then again it's the same price as the Alpha 550, which is also rated as a Mid Range camera.

That's why I dislike the way they're picking their comparisons. As a buyer, I'm not really thinking "I want an entry/midrange/semi pro/pro camera". I'm thinking "I want a camera. What can I get for this much money?".

Thus you really need to compare it to cameras in that price range. But that's not what's happening. The A550 was compared to the 500D and K7. So if you can compare ONE camera in that price range to a Semi-Pro, why not another? If the A550 is a competitor to the 500D, surely it'd also be a competitor to the 550D? If it isn't, because the 550D is more expensive and thus better, then surely that'd be a reason to compare it to the semi-pro offerings in the same price range.

It's the same issue at the higher end. A 7D is a Semi-Pro APSC, so why not show us what it can do compared to a Semi-pro FF like the 5DII. That'll tell us what we're missing out on, and the price flexibility isn't that much different. The K7 is 700 dollars cheaper than the 7D and was in the comparison, so why not 700 dollars the other way to the 5DMkII? For one thing you can use the exact same lens to rule that out as an error. Or if 700 dollars the other way is too much, how about 200 and compare it to the Alpha 850? But then again, if it's okay to compare a $1,250 camera to an $1,800 camera (K7, D300S, prices in the K-7 review), then surely the 700 dollars extra are okay. And as we saw with the Alpha550 it is obviously okay to compare a penta mirror midrange camera to aa penta prism semi-pro.

I don't care that the 550D is a midrange camera, that the D90 is a semi-pro camera or that the Olympus E-30 is midrange 4/3rds. I do care that I have to pay 900 dollars for one and I would like to know what else I can get in that price range. Ignoring that (even if you don't assign it a value) is just plain ignorance.

You don't do that in any other situation. If you are looking for a new car, and you can afford a Mini Cooper, you'd be a fool not to at least compare it to another car in the same price range, just because they aren't the same class of vehicle.

And considering that here we're looking at a supposedly better class of camera (semi-pro vs mid-range) for the same money, why aren't the reviewer comparing them?

I just want reviews that doesn't look like they're stacked in the favour of certain parties.

And before it's assumed, I don't even own any Pentax gear. I don't have any money invested or personal pride at stake. My current camera is broke, and I'm looking to buy a DSLR. And as it happens, about a thousand dollars plus the same in glass is roughly my price range.

Part of your argument makes sense, but not comparing a cropped camera to a FF.

1. Only Pentax fans get upset at the rating other brands of cameras get. If Pentax got a better rating than Canon, Canon users wouldn't give a fig. People here need to grow up and stop looking over the fence all the time. (Inferiority complex, much?)

2. The dpreview rating system is broken and stupid if if anyone stops to think about it for a moment it's obvious that trying to quantify a camera in a consistent and time-independent manner is impossible. Let it go, people, just let it go. Criticisms of the review proper are valid, but getting worked up over 5 points on a percentile score is retarded... more retarded even than implementing the percentile score system originally.

3. Does Canon get a free pass at dpreview? Yes and no. Canon know a thing or two about marketing. 18MP. Eight-frickin-teen megapixels. 1080 video. Wow. Impressive. Most people think that way, and dpreview takes care to reflect popular thinking in its judgement, even as the caveats are duly presented in the text of the review. dSLRs are (still) megapixel driven, and video is the single most important additional specification after megapixels that most people look for. High ISO placing third. So the ratings are fair in my book given the expectations of the general readership.

4. Of course in actual use as a camera for photography none of that matters as much as such humdrum things as viewfinder coverage and magnification, external control layout, actually using a decent lens, and hey ... skill and patience. Any dSLR from the last 5 years can produce excellent and indeed largely comparable results in general use scenarios. THAT however makes for boring reviews, no sponsorship, and no readers either, so it's self-evident why dpreview doesn't go down that path.

"Hey, new Canon camera came out today, takes pretty much the same pictures as the one that came out last year, and the one that came out the year before that too! We recommend you buy a used 450D." Would not go down well, agreed?

Why can't you do a comparison of a semi-pro APS-C and a semi-pro FF camera? We've already established it can't be because of price.

Sensor size? I give you the The Leica X1. $2,000 compact fixed lens camera with an APS-C sensor. That was compared to:

• D300S: semi-pro APSC DSLR, $2,060
• Panasonic DMC-GF1: Midrange µ4/3rds EVIL, $899
• Canon G11: Compact fixed lens camera, 7.6 x 5.7 mm sensor, $500

So obviously you can make comparisons of cameras that not only differ in type, but also sensor size.

Even the EOS-1D MKIV was compared to a camera with a different sensor size. The MKIV has a 23.4x15.6 mm (365,04mm^2) sensor vs the D3S' FF. For comparison the D300S has a 372,88 mm^2 sensor. Clearly sensor size doesn't make a difference.

That only leaves market differentiation, and the price difference from the top end APS-C 7D to the low end FF A850 is tiny compared to the other price differences in the reviews of the 7D and D300S. If I'm willing to pay 1,600 dollars for a body only, I'm probably willing to cut 400 dollars from my lens budget to get a higher end camera.

I simply do not understand why there is this discreprancy in the reviews.

Perfect perspective on the real issue about these reviews. The K-X is a very good camera and at current prices you just about get 2 of them for the price of the 550 and the upgraded glass required so your images don't look sub-par. Right now the K-X is an entry level camera, well suited for budget minded people who don't care so much about video, who won't need to do a lot of post process because the jpegs are almost as good as the raw.

I'm certain the 550 is a very fine camera for what it is, but a real entry level camera it ain't.

Martin Schou said:

That's my biggest issue. The 550D has been pegged as a Mid Range DSLR accoring to the summary score. But it's priced as a semi-professional DSLR (compare D90 or K7). But then again it's the same price as the Alpha 550, which is also rated as a Mid Range camera.

That's why I dislike the way they're picking their comparisons. As a buyer, I'm not really thinking "I want an entry/midrange/semi pro/pro camera". I'm thinking "I want a camera. What can I get for this much money?".

Click to expand...

I disagree. Prices change a lot over time. Feature set is constant. Even if your budget is limited, you should be shopping by first looking at what you need the camera to do, then restricting by what you can afford.

Spending $900 on a camera just because you decided you want to spend $900 on a camera seems kinda weird to me. Getting the cheapest camera that you feel gives you the flexibility and features you want makes more sense... saving as much money as possible to buy lenses, natch.

geezer52 said:

I'm certain the 550 is a very fine camera for what it is, but a real entry level camera it ain't.

Click to expand...

Actually it's a rather poor camera, just like all the rebels. Poor build quality, poor ergonomics, and frustrating as heck to use. It is a an entry-level camera, but with a pixel count and movie recording bandwidth above the bell curve - and a early adopter price to match.

I told you (nt) (no text) but dpr made me say something

Amen. But it is easier to push the buttons at is forum than any other. The core group here sets themselves up for the ASA-5s. They will never, never get it.

At present prices, the K-x is a much better value.

1. The 18mp seems nice in theory, but the sensor out-resolves the kit glass. If you're not gonna buy good glass, 18 mp won't help you much.

2. The inbody IS is a huge advantage because fast, high quality, primes are image stabilized. The K-x offers a fairly compact, low-light camera for well under a $1,000 when combined with a fast AF prime. You could do it for under $600 with an older manual focus prime.

Yes, prices change over time. At the time of the Leica X1 review, the D300s was over 2k, at the time of the 7D review it was 1800 dollars. Both prices taken from the reviews.

Obviously DPReview is able to dig out the current prices at the time of the review. So why is it so much more difficult to spend an additional 10 minutes at a place like B&H or Amazon to fgure out what other cameras you can buy in that price range? Even if the 550D drops 30% in prices and the K7 doesn't, that still doesn't invalidate the comparison, because at the time of the review you would be paying the same amount of money for the cameras. That is my point. When DPR reviewed the 50D, they compared it to the K20D, even though it had dropped from $1,200 to $800.

As for why I'm budgeting about a thousand dollars on a camera and another thousand on the lenses instead of spending as little as possible? Well, for one thing I live in a place where it's really cold half of the year, and generally raining constantly. And I like(d) to take landscape pictures. Annoying to do with an old, crappy Sony Cybershot P&S, but at least that one is easy to stow away when it starts raining at a moment's notice. I can always buy lenses later, but they do tend to be expensive if you want good quality.

So ... looking around, the K-7 seems to fit that bill quite well, since it's weather resistant and its kit-lenses are as well. That sets the price range including the 18-50 lens ($1,020 at B&H)). It's expensive for my wallet (I'd prefer to stay under $900), but it's doable. But what else can I get in that price range? Well, I could go down a bit and get second hand K10D, K200D. That'd get me even more glass at the cost of modern features like video as well as faster AF and lower pixel count.

So, I'm really looking for something that comes with a kit-lens and costs 1,020 or less. That sort of brings the A550 into the picture at 1,050. If I really stretch my budget, I might be able to get the D90 or 50D kits, but realistically I need to go cheaper. A380, 550D, D5000, 550D, 500D and E30 fit those prices. If I go lower, I'm ending up with way too many to list, but just listing the dual kits:

• A230 or A330, 18-55 & 55-200
• E-620, 14-42 & 40-150
• K-x, 18-55 & 50 - 200
• A330, 18-55 & 75-300
• K-x, 18-55 & 55 - 300
• D5000, 18-55 & 50-200
• A380, 18-55 & 50-200

The dual kits are interesting, because I'd be getting more lenses, but I'm losing features.

Now, Canon has chosen to place their 550D at a price that is very close to that of a contemporary K-7 and maybe a D90. But for some reason that DPR aren't disclosing, they don't feel that these three cameras would be interesting to the same buyers. But for some reason the 150 dollar step up from the 550D to K-7 prices (at the time of the review) isn't possible, while the 170 dollar step up from the K-x to the 500D is (again, prices listed in the review).

The Sony A380 ($950 kit) was compared to the K-7 ($1,500 kit) and 500D ($895 kit) back in December 2009. Five months later the $979 550D is compared to the D5000 ($800 kit) and D500 ($800 kit) and the K-x (unlisted price, currently $521).

For some reason the A380 is no longer comparable to a more Canon 500D's newer and better brother, but the much cheaper K-x is. This makes even less sense, because the price difference between the A380 and the K-7 has decreased by about 70% in the mean time (120 dollars more than the 550D vs 550 dollars than the A380).

It doesn't even look like Nikon is getting that kind of preferential treatment. The only thing there is their semi-pros getting compared to the K-7, but that sort of makes sense, as that's the highest end Pentax.

It also seems to be a fairly new thing. The K-x was the cheapest camera in the entire "compared to" list. The K-7 is compared to the E-30 and Alpha700, but only in the list, not in the actual comparison. The K2000/Km is compared to cheaper cameras only (1000D, A200, E-420). The K200D is a mix ($600 to $700). Same with the K20D (range of $800 450D to $1,500 E3).

So why is it all of a sudden such a bad thing to cross these lines? It's not like that 1,000 dollar mark is magical. If it was okay to have a range of + - $400 in June 2008 (K20D review, $1,200 kit), why is it all of a sudden a very bad thing to compare the similarly priced $1,250 K-7 to the $900 EOS 500D a year later?

It does make perfect sense that given the climate you live in weather sealing would rate above other factors especially if those factors are really negligible.

Richard Murdey said:

1. Only Pentax fans get upset at the rating other brands of cameras get. If Pentax got a better rating than Canon, Canon users wouldn't give a fig. People here need to grow up and stop looking over the fence all the time. (Inferiority complex, much?)

2. The dpreview rating system is broken and stupid if if anyone stops to think about it for a moment it's obvious that trying to quantify a camera in a consistent and time-independent manner is impossible. Let it go, people, just let it go. Criticisms of the review proper are valid, but getting worked up over 5 points on a percentile score is retarded... more retarded even than implementing the percentile score system originally.

3. Does Canon get a free pass at dpreview? Yes and no. Canon know a thing or two about marketing. 18MP. Eight-frickin-teen megapixels. 1080 video. Wow. Impressive. Most people think that way, and dpreview takes care to reflect popular thinking in its judgement, even as the caveats are duly presented in the text of the review. dSLRs are (still) megapixel driven, and video is the single most important additional specification after megapixels that most people look for. High ISO placing third. So the ratings are fair in my book given the expectations of the general readership.

4. Of course in actual use as a camera for photography none of that matters as much as such humdrum things as viewfinder coverage and magnification, external control layout, actually using a decent lens, and hey ... skill and patience. Any dSLR from the last 5 years can produce excellent and indeed largely comparable results in general use scenarios. THAT however makes for boring reviews, no sponsorship, and no readers either, so it's self-evident why dpreview doesn't go down that path.

"Hey, new Canon camera came out today, takes pretty much the same pictures as the one that came out last year, and the one that came out the year before that too! We recommend you buy a used 450D." Would not go down well, agreed?

Click to expand...

You didn't do a bit or research into the forums did you? Canon fans where crying with the 50D review and plenty more; they think DPR is biased toward Nikon. Seems its easy to sit behind your computer and talk big, but do some research into the forums. I don't know if you realize but your upset at what people think about cameras. If you don't like it why are you here? All the forums are the same.

Fact the k-x get high praise from DPR and all the trolls from Canon seem to be here

--
jamesm007,
http://s195.photobucket.com/albums/z77/jamesm700/
WSSA member 266PX

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Perfect. Sounds like somebody is schooled.

GordonBGood said:

KingDon said:

zxaar said:

KingDon said:

dxomark doesn't consider resolution in giving overall score. If they did, 550D would utterly crush Kx.

Click to expand...

what do you mean by that, do they cut out the sensor to remove its resolution in their tests or they punish sensors with higher resolution after tests are done.

Click to expand...

The overall score is based on color depth, dynamic range, low-light ISO. The sensor doesn't get extra points for resolution. If it did, 550D overall score would have been much higher since the 18 MP sensor in 550D resolves more than 12 MP sensor in Kx, as I showed in the image from IR.

Click to expand...

Looks like there are parallel threads running here. As I posted in the other thread at: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&message=34965104 , where I said "DxOMark doesn't have a score based on resolution only but all of the above numbers have been scaled down to 8 MP equivalence by the square root relationship as SQRT(MP divided by 8). Thus a high MP camera such as the Canon 550D gets a boost in all scores as compared to per pixel values of about 1.5 times where as the K-x (and D90) is only boosted by about 1.22."

Regards, GordonBGood

Click to expand...

If it doesn't live up to its MP count in resolving power. It eats up my hard drive, make each of my card hold less pictures, takes my RAW converter longer to convert.

In fact, one thing I don't like about my K-7's RAW file is that it's 14MP, instead of 12 or 10.

dave2 said:

At present prices, the K-x is a much better value.

1. The 18mp seems nice in theory, but the sensor out-resolves the kit glass. If you're not gonna buy good glass, 18 mp won't help you much.

2. The inbody IS is a huge advantage because fast, high quality, primes are image stabilized. The K-x offers a fairly compact, low-light camera for well under a $1,000 when combined with a fast AF prime. You could do it for under $600 with an older manual focus prime.

Click to expand...

Well, the weather sealing is definitely a big plus, but it's not a must at the right price.

Case in point - someone was selling their brand new D550 kit at 60% of the purchase price. Included receipt and everything. I'd jump at that in a heart beat, but at that point (3 hours after posting the ad) the seller was pretty annoyed, whenever the phone rang about it.

At the moment I mostly have my heart set on the K7-kit. Still saving up for it (tight budget). And the temptation is constantly heading towards something like the K-x, or A380 dual kit. And while it does sound like I'm only looking at those brands, fact is I can get more reach for less money with those on my budget.

And while a used K10D or K200D are tempting, I get that nagging voice in the back of my mind going " what if it breaks? ", and with the ones I've seen, I'd still need to buy the WR lenses seperately, which instantly adds 150 - 380 dollars to the price.

But if money wasn't a concern, I'd probably be calling every camera company and tell them that I want to take outdoor pictures in Bergen, all year round - what kind of equipment will they recommend, considering that it rains an average of 9.6 mm for 235 days a year. And are they willing to back that recommendation up with a warenty that covers weather damages. I mean - if I'm paying 5k+ dollars just for the body and then another 1,700 just to cover the basic ranges, I don't want a camera that I have to treat as if it's made of rice paper. Sure, you can get covers for them, but I'd feel the same way if I bought a convertible that couldn't handle getting a wet interior.

wy2lam said:

Perfect. Sounds like somebody is schooled.

Click to expand...

No, i was not schooled. Yes all photos are normalized to 8 MP, and 18 MP will gain more than 12 MP when you do that (SNR wise), but that's not what I was talking about. The resolution at original size is not a factor in giving overall dxomark score. The score is still based on low-light ISO, color depth, and dynamic range. If dxomark add a fourth category for resolution at base ISO (say MTF) a a factor in overall score, 550D would be a clear winner.