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

kyjy said:

kyjy 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?

Click to expand...

Yes, the 'freaking out' is amusing - I'm not sure what that has to do with my post.

kyjy said:

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.

Click to expand...

The K-x kit is $500, the 500D kit is $750 - that's a 50% price markup. I see that as a considerable price difference. The 550D price you list is body only. Even if the 550D kit drops to $800 like you suggest, that is still a lot for an entry-level camera. As the other poster suggested, my price estimates might be off by $50 or so, hardly a big deal. The bottom line is that the K-x remains a solid value in regards to the competition, including the new Rebel.

--
http://www.pixelstatic.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelstatic/

Uluru said:

By that same token, why don't you, or I, drive Porsche Panamera instead of some other, 'lesser' car? Isn't a lesser car supposed to drive me from A to B using more noise, less cylinders and all in all providing a less comfortable drive?

Click to expand...

"Lesser" car will bring you from A to be cheaper and even perhaps more comfortable then Porsche. No-one even trying to say that Porsche is value for money. But for some it is pleasure to drive (not my type though) and if someone have enough dough to please himself why not? The same to photography - if one do not earn money by doing photography, but rather simply enjoy it and he more enjoy technological marvel then "bang for bucks" and he have got little bit extra to please himself, then why not? Obviously not for everyone, but indeed extrapolating "not for everyone" to "not for anyone" would be a bit of stretch.

Cheers

With the Porsche Panamera you're looking at a $74,000 luxury four door saloon (lowest spec, base model). It's immediate competitors are the Maserati Quattroporte (no price found), the Aston Martin Rapide ($200,000), the Mercedes-Benz CLS-Class (goes as low as $65,000), the Bentley Continental Flying Spur (expensive and exclusive enough, that they don't list a price at all), Audi A7 (not yet introduced) and the Lamborghini Estoque (not yet introduced).

Interestingly enough, the car you picked, is at the bottom of the price rung for luxury four door saloons.

But you could pitch it against something like the BMW 3-series. Granted, the Panamera has more power, but you'd be expecting that for a car that costs twice as much and isn't in the same class of car.

That's the really neat thing about a show like Top Gear. They aren't afraid of comparing an F1-driver's performance to those of regular people - though they do get a different board. And the slowest F1-driver (in the dry) is only 0.4 seconds faster than the faster regular person

They also aren't afraid of pitting a $45,000 Ariel Atom against a $500,000 Porsche Carrera GT and being ecstatic when the Atom won ...

Yes you were, even by what you say in this message alone, so I'll be easy on you for the other garbage that came out from your derriere.

Even if DXO becomes as, ahem , highly professional and knowledgeable as you are about rating sensors and added an undue 4th category for resolution at base ISO as a factor in overall score, who are you to make us believe it'll give it a weight so that it "would be a clear winner"? Are you employed by DXO? Otherwise, you're no better at speculating DXO scores than we're at disputing DPR scores.

Oh, and it is before adjusting the "old" DXO score to erase the due advantage that a higher resolution already gives.

If it's not schooled, I don't know what is. I'll leave it to the other readers to judge the degree of schooling you've earned.

KingDon said:

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.

Click to expand...

wy2lam said:

Even if DXO becomes as, ahem , highly professional and knowledgeable as you are about rating sensors and added an undue 4th category for resolution at base ISO as a factor in overall score, who are you to make us believe it'll give it a weight so that it "would be a clear winner"? Are you employed by DXO? Otherwise, you're no better at speculating DXO scores than we're at disputing DPR scores.

Click to expand...

huh? It will be clear winner because it's 18 MP vs 12 MP for Kx. Look at the resolution chart part of the review for 7D vs 12 MP cameras (too bad 550D review doesn't have that section). Look at photos. Even Gordon admitted in the other thread that 550D resolves more than 12 MP cameras. Dxomark doesn't have MTF section. The score is based on low-light, dynamic range, and color depth. Yes 18 MP file gains more in these categories when reduced to 8 MP (or when printed equal size) (compared to 12 MP), as Gordon also pointed out, but that's not what I was talking about. There is no category on dxomark where cameras get points for MTF score. See 7D review where 7D is clearly ahead of 12 MP d300s

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page29.asp

wy2lam said:

If it's not schooled, I don't know what is. I'll leave it to the other readers to judge the degree of schooling you've earned.

Click to expand...

I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about, so let Gordon respond to the post, who, unlike you, is at least far more civil.

jamesm007 said:

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.

Click to expand...

You must be new here.

Each forum (and subforum) has a distinct character, just as each brand (and even subset) has it's own slightly different user base. Some forums are pretty much just "hey look at my photos!!!" or "should I upgrade??" while others are much more technical. The level of humor and good-naturedness also varies.

Obviously a harsh review will generate a lot of discussion in the respective forum, but it's only here that I've consistently seen frustration and anger over how the home team gets treated in reviews for other brands. It's embarrassing.

By way of contrast the 550D review only generated a couple of current threads over at the Canon forum, both pretty civilized. They are having the same discussion about rating points and the K-x, but it all comes across as much more broadminded and amiable.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1031&thread=34952575

It seems Pentax is just a bit behind in the technology "race" but regardless,
one can only afford what they can afford.

Canon 1000D
Sony A230
Nikon D3000
Pentax K-x

User reviews look most positive for the Pentax and the Canon.

Regards,
--
Lipo

KingDon said:

wy2lam said:

Even if DXO becomes as, ahem , highly professional and knowledgeable as you are about rating sensors and added an undue 4th category for resolution at base ISO as a factor in overall score, who are you to make us believe it'll give it a weight so that it "would be a clear winner"? Are you employed by DXO? Otherwise, you're no better at speculating DXO scores than we're at disputing DPR scores.

Click to expand...

huh? It will be clear winner because it's 18 MP vs 12 MP for Kx. Look at the resolution chart part of the review for 7D vs 12 MP cameras (too bad 550D review doesn't have that section). Look at photos. Even Gordon admitted in the other thread that 550D resolves more than 12 MP cameras. Dxomark doesn't have MTF section. The score is based on low-light, dynamic range, and color depth. Yes 18 MP file gains more in these categories when reduced to 8 MP (or when printed equal size) (compared to 12 MP), as Gordon also pointed out, but that's not what I was talking about. There is no category on dxomark where cameras get points for MTF score. See 7D review where 7D is clearly ahead of 12 MP d300s

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page29.asp

Click to expand...

What you're claiming is, an arbitrary score, DXO does not put as much weight on resolution as another arbitrary score, DPR, therefore its score is less complete than than DPR.

The flaw of your reasoning is, MP is only part of detail resolution. A low MP count just as well as a low S/N ratio can destroy detail resolution. That's why when DXO normalises the scores by giving more to higher resolution sensors, its job is done. The "higher MTF" is already accounted for, as a part of what make up the detail resolution.

Therefore, an extra category to account for MTF scores is undue, unless they also start to pixel-peep to obtain their S/N scores, which will undoubtedly lower the colour depth, high ISO and DR scores. It is necessary to prevent the higher MP from being counted more than once.

With this adjustment, whether the 550D sensor will come out on top is therefore still a toss-up.

KingDon said:

KingDon said:

If it's not schooled, I don't know what is. I'll leave it to the other readers to judge the degree of schooling you've earned.

Click to expand...

I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about, so let Gordon respond to the post, who, unlike you, is at least far more civil.

Click to expand...

I carefully match the degree of courtesy to the messages I respond to and this is no exception. Inflammatory messages beget inflammatory responses.

By the way, I don't think you have a clue either but I'm not one to judge you - I'll leave this task to the rest of the forum.

KingDon said:

huh? It will be clear winner because it's 18 MP vs 12 MP for Kx.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt the higher resolution, but at some point we all have to decide how much of it do we really need, and how much are we willing to pay for it. The full resolution will likely be invisible when used with the majority of lenses anyway, least of all the kit lens. And even then we still have to consider the print size. The conclusion text was quite clear about that. Unfortunately the ratings get all the attention.

"The unavoidable fact is that to get the most out of the 550D's sensor you really need to pair it with Canon's better lenses, which is a considerable investment. Arguably, this is academic for most enthusiast photographers, since most of the time digital images are either admired onscreen or in small (sub-A4) prints. Of course if this is how you primarily view your images (and if we're honest, for most of us it is), it could be argued that packing 18 million pixels is somewhat unnecessary in the first place."

wy2lam said:

A low MP count just as well as a low S/N ratio can destroy detail resolution.

Click to expand...

Despite being 18 MP, 550D (and 7D) have excellent S/N ratio, better than older low-MP canons.

wy2lam said:

That's why when DXO normalises the scores by giving more to higher resolution sensors, its job is done. The "higher MTF" is already accounted for, as a part of what make up the detail resolution.

Click to expand...

It's not fully counted for. Sure more MP helps more when reduced to equal 8 MP size, but the full credit for resolving power isn't given to these cameras. The score is still based only on low-light ISO, color depth, and dynamic range.

jackbw said:

KingDon said:

huh? It will be clear winner because it's 18 MP vs 12 MP for Kx.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt the higher resolution, but at some point we all have to decide how much of it do we really need, and how much are we willing to pay for it. The full resolution will likely be invisible when used with the majority of lenses anyway, least of all the kit lens. And even then we still have to consider the print size. The conclusion text was quite clear about that. Unfortunately the ratings get all the attention.

Click to expand...

there are cheap 50mm primes. There are cheap third-party macro primes. They are cheap, sharp, and will shine on 18 MP sensor.

and makes diffraction more problematic at higher apertures, limiting useable f stops for maximum depth of field

If you think it's not fully counted for, please let us know a quantified method to account for exactly, objectively, what it is additionally worth.

All I know is, mathematically, it's done. An MTF score and a higher normalized score is just two way of looking at exactly the same thing. If you want to add in an MTF score, the other scores have to be adjusted lower. Period.

But I guess at this point we'll have to agree to disagree and you can continue to believe what you want to believe. Any more reply from me would be a waste of time.

KingDon said:

wy2lam said:

A low MP count just as well as a low S/N ratio can destroy detail resolution.

Click to expand...

Despite being 18 MP, 550D (and 7D) have excellent S/N ratio, better than older low-MP canons.

KingDon said:

That's why when DXO normalises the scores by giving more to higher resolution sensors, its job is done. The "higher MTF" is already accounted for, as a part of what make up the detail resolution.

Click to expand...

It's not fully counted for. Sure more MP helps more when reduced to equal 8 MP size, but the full credit for resolving power isn't given to these cameras. The score is still based only on low-light ISO, color depth, and dynamic range.

Click to expand...

KingDon said:

there are cheap 50mm primes. There are cheap third-party macro primes. They are cheap, sharp, and will shine on 18 MP sensor.

Click to expand...

True. If I shot landscape and printed large that would be a good option. The camera is a welcome addition for offering a high(er) resolution alternative to those who need it. However, as the review pointed out not everyone needs it. At that price, the mid-level is quite stacked with options; some would choose build quality & controls over resolution, others would find the price savings more visible than the extra megapixels. In the end it depends on what we want from the camera. Most of the people I know are no longer starved for megapixels; they are mostly starved for light, so the higher ISO, brighter lenses and external flash are more useful.

I find it a shame that, even though it appears very obvious to us consumers, no camera review site or magazine has yet pointed out the assuredly non "entry level" price for a camera that is being rated against other "entry level" cameras which are 30-50% cheaper, yet it is being rated as highly for "value" as some of them....

"Why such reticence to point out the conspicuous price inflation?" I ask myself.

Rhetorically of course.

Which would also apply to the question...

"Why are there so many Canon fanboys on the Pentax forum?"
--
Steve

Any fool can take a picture OF something. Its much harder to take a picture ABOUT something.

*isteve said:

"Why are there so many Canon fanboys on the Pentax forum?"

Click to expand...

I was just over perusing the Canon forum, and there were a couple of threads debating the merits of the new Canon vs. the K-x. They were generally pretty balanced and civil, much as they are here until the instigators chime in.

I'm guessing they get bored with rational discussion and come here to stir up some fun. Standard internet stuff, really, but aggravating nonetheless.

---------------
Driftwood floats after years of erosion
Incoming tide touches roots to expose them
Quicksand steals my shoe
Clouds bring the f-stop blues

--Jack Johnson

jeiked said:

*isteve said:

"Why are there so many Canon fanboys on the Pentax forum?"

Click to expand...

I was just over perusing the Canon forum, and there were a couple of threads debating the merits of the new Canon vs. the K-x. They were generally pretty balanced and civil, much as they are here until the instigators chime in.

I'm guessing they get bored with rational discussion and come here to stir up some fun. Standard internet stuff, really, but aggravating nonetheless.

Click to expand...

i saw no "canon fanboys" in this thread. Most of the posters, if not all, appears to have posted to this forum for months. Most Canon fanboys probably care nothing about Pentax. Nikon is their closet competitor. Pentax is not.

zepzr said:

jeiked said:

*isteve said:

"Why are there so many Canon fanboys on the Pentax forum?"

Click to expand...

I was just over perusing the Canon forum, and there were a couple of threads debating the merits of the new Canon vs. the K-x. They were generally pretty balanced and civil, much as they are here until the instigators chime in.

I'm guessing they get bored with rational discussion and come here to stir up some fun. Standard internet stuff, really, but aggravating nonetheless.

Click to expand...

i saw no "canon fanboys" in this thread. Most of the posters, if not all, appears to have posted to this forum for months. Most Canon fanboys probably care nothing about Pentax. Nikon is their closet competitor. Pentax is not.

Click to expand...

I was referring to some our regular residents who seem to need to defend Canon to the death at every possible opportunity. Odd, since Canon have a big enough marketing department after all.

--
Steve

Any fool can take a picture OF something. Its much harder to take a picture ABOUT something.

Only the ones who use both Canon and Pentax, so I don't think it has anything with being a fanboy, If I only used Canon I for sure wouldn't be posting in here but as someone stated there are a few threads in the Canon forum on pentax and it is more down to earth discussion.

*isteve said:

"Why are there so many Canon fanboys on the Pentax forum?"
--
Steve

Any fool can take a picture OF something. Its much harder to take a picture ABOUT something.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/spartanwarrior

coleviolin said:

It seems Pentax is just a bit behind in the technology "race" but regardless,
one can only afford what they can afford.

Canon 1000D
Sony A230
Nikon D3000
Pentax K-x

Click to expand...

--Hard to believe anyone reading the review could objectively come up this such as conclusion? Pentax is a bit behind??? Maybe it should have been the other way around!

In the first place the Kx is rightly placed in the intermediate level not entry level and even there it is the head of its class in almost every respect outside of LCD screen size and resolution and extra features. The Kx even bests its more expensive semi pro K7 bother in many respects especially IQ at high ISOs. The only reason Kx is being considered by some to be entry level is solely because of its excellent bargain low price unmatched by others and the others don't want you to know the real facts. No, higher MP isn't necessarily better as very evident in this DPR test.

DPRs placing the high priced D550 in same grouping to its low cost 1000D entry model for the sake of rating is inexcusable and deliberate misrepresentation. The only thing shared is its entry body build but adding a best resolution rear screen and many features. Very obvious from both D550 price and features it is a mid range model and in that group the Kx wins hands down in my opinion. Unless you are blind you cannot objectively look at DPRs comparison meter and not see at any high ISO the Kx is way ahead of the competition by more than 2 stops. If one looks at the RAW noise charts one can readily see why as the Canon sensor is much noisier hence much greater noise reduction is applied destroying detail.

Clearly there appears to be more than a little bias favoring Canon this report coauthored by Simon as his interjected comments especially in the summary and conclusion don't seem to match what is objectively shown in the review? In my opinion there is no basis to claim that the 550D is at the head of its "real" intermediate class based on the data presented? It is this type of subjective comments and evaluation that helps keep Canon in their very dominent sales position (really they don't need any additional help) and unfairly hurts competitors like Pentax and others inspite of their advances when comparisons are slanted in this way just by the comparison choices made?

I suspect many just go to the back recommendation of a review and accept that as fact and form their opinion accordingly while if they bothered to go thru the review to decide for themselves they might come up with quite a different conclusion!

I own & use Panasonic, Minolta, Nikon, and Pentax products ( K10 and Kx).
Just my biased opinion.

In fairness I have to say I do value the DPR reviews and what they bring and the new format for evaluation is much better than the old "highly satisfactory" but just keep the comparisons on an equal footing. Please bring back the resolution numbers for a basis for comparisons.