Reading mode: Light Dark

DPR Nex Review Exaggerations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to last post
Barney Britton said:
Sweep panorama is described as 'flawless' (I would disagree, based on the shooting that I did, where I was getting ugly joins all over the place),
Click to expand...
I wonder if technique makes a difference. Once the cameras are out and users use them we will find out a lot more if it's user error or software error.

The reviewers don't get everything right. For example, some reviewers were claiming that 2-shot HDR on A550/Hx5v aren't that useful and they don't see huge improvement (example, cameralab reviewer).

Someone then explained to him that the second shot is always slower, so he should meter for the highlights, recompose, then shoot the HDR.

He was getting results like this with HDR with hx5v



and after he was told the right technique, he got this



the reviewers are not infallible and they don't always have a clue what they are doing. I am not saying you are wrong about panorama (you maybe 100% right), but it's still open debate. All I am going to say now is that it's still disputed and open debate till users, especially on forum like this, reach a consensus.
 
Barney Britton said:
andrewrocks said:
Barney Britton said:
The fact that other review sites agree with us that the NEX cameras are marred by bafflingly poor ergonomics would seem to suggest that........ it's true....?

Maybe? I mean, just a suggestion.

--
Technical Writer
http://www.dpreview.com
Click to expand...
you know Barney, alot of people used to think the world was flat...
Click to expand...
This is great. Funniest thing I've seen on the forums this morning.

--
Technical Writer
http://www.dpreview.com
Click to expand...
i know it is hilarious that a so called professional website uses logical fallacies to "back up" their arguments! hahahaha

oh, and by the way Barney, thanks for proving my point about DPR
 
zepzr said:
Barney Britton said:
Sweep panorama is described as 'flawless' (I would disagree, based on the shooting that I did, where I was getting ugly joins all over the place),
Click to expand...
I wonder if technique makes a difference. Once the cameras are out and users use them we will find out a lot more if it's user error or software error.

The reviewers don't get everything right. For example, some reviewers were claiming that 2-shot HDR on A550/Hx5v aren't that useful and they don't see huge improvement (example, cameralab reviewer).

Someone then explained to him that the second shot is always slower, so he should meter for the highlights, recompose, then shoot the HDR.

He was getting results like this with HDR with hx5v



and after he was told the right technique, he got this



the reviewers are not infallible and they don't always have a clue what they are doing. I am not saying you are wrong about panorama (you maybe 100% right), but it's still open debate. All I am going to say now is that it's still disputed and open debate till users, especially on forum like this, reach a consensus.
Click to expand...
Sweep panorama with the NEX cameras works very well for some subjects, not all that well for some, and really badly for others. Technique is one issue here, but choice of subject and focal length is a factor too. We found Sweep Panorama works really well when shooting distant landscapes, but scene elements which are closer to the camera can be rendered rather badly. My issue was in the blanklet statement that the feature was 'flawless' which although it can give excellent results, it (literally) sometimes isn't.

There's more information here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyNex5Nex3/page11.asp

The example you posted of the church interior is interesting, but the framing is very different, which means that the distribution of dark/light areas is completely dissimilar. There are issues with presenting these images as 'before' and 'after' demonstrations, especially when the function you're talking about is designed to adjust tonal distribution.

bb

--
Technical Writer
http://www.dpreview.com
 
andrewrocks said:
Barney Britton said:
andrewrocks said:
Barney Britton said:
The fact that other review sites agree with us that the NEX cameras are marred by bafflingly poor ergonomics would seem to suggest that........ it's true....?

Maybe? I mean, just a suggestion.

--
Technical Writer
http://www.dpreview.com
Click to expand...
you know Barney, alot of people used to think the world was flat...
Click to expand...
This is great. Funniest thing I've seen on the forums this morning.

--
Technical Writer
http://www.dpreview.com
Click to expand...
i know it is hilarious that a so called professional website uses logical fallacies to "back up" their arguments! hahahaha

oh, and by the way Barney, thanks for proving my point about DPR
Click to expand...
You win - I now have honestly no idea what you're talking about.
--
Technical Writer
http://www.dpreview.com
 
Barney Britton said:
The example you posted of the church interior is interesting, but the framing is very different, which means that the distribution of dark/light areas is completely dissimilar. There are issues with presenting these images as 'before' and 'after' demonstrations, especially when the function you're talking about is designed to adjust tonal distribution.
Click to expand...
they were not shot the same day. he revised the review after someone explained to him how two-shot hdr on a550/hx5v works (i.e meter for highlights since the second shot is always slower -- the camera will meter for shadows in the second shot).
 
first i suggest u a good specialist...i think u have some serious problem with this obsession...

second: oluympus contrary to the gadget company named sony as released at least five firmware addressing many problems and improving a lot the speed of the camerra. my ep1 was rteally slow at the beginning now it's not a monster but it's as fast as i expected.
danjojo said:
It's crazy how the Olympus E-P series are dogs in shot-to-shot speed but it is the NEX which gets tagged for poor shot-to-shot performance.

Here is another one showing how slow the E-PL1 is...I believe from a guy who posts on these forums. You see the Panasonic GF1 right after it which is very similar in AF speed and shot-to-shot times with the NEX.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UPzhidedFU
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/jon1976
 
R Butler said:
zepzr said:
Barney Britton said:
zepzr said:
Barney Britton said:
The fact that other review sites agree with us that the NEX cameras are marred by bafflingly poor ergonomics would seem to suggest that........ it's true....?
Click to expand...
Disputed. Not every review agrees with that statement

http://media.thedigitalstory.com/tds100608.mp3
Click to expand...
I didn't say that they did. But almost all of the ones that I've seen do.
Click to expand...
yes, but now I found one that doesn't, so now i can say "disputed" ;)
Click to expand...
You're welcome to say it but, since Barney pointed out that "other review sites agree with us," then as long as there is more than one other review site that criticise the UI, then his statement becomes indisputable. Only if he'd said that all sites agreed would your statement be correct.

But, realistically, all the reviews I've read so far have discussed the UI at length and many have stressed that it is, at the very least, unusual. The differences between the reviews are how much weight that's given/how willing to overlook it they are. We honestly believe it'll be a problem both for users wanting to point-and-shoot and for those wanting to take control, hence the review.

Richard - dpreview.com
Click to expand...
Richard:
Since when you have put so much weight on UI? Can you give me a weight?
--
Mark K
 
Mark K said:
R Butler said:
zepzr said:
Barney Britton said:
zepzr said:
Barney Britton said:
The fact that other review sites agree with us that the NEX cameras are marred by bafflingly poor ergonomics would seem to suggest that........ it's true....?
Click to expand...
Disputed. Not every review agrees with that statement

http://media.thedigitalstory.com/tds100608.mp3
Click to expand...
I didn't say that they did. But almost all of the ones that I've seen do.
Click to expand...
yes, but now I found one that doesn't, so now i can say "disputed" ;)
Click to expand...
You're welcome to say it but, since Barney pointed out that "other review sites agree with us," then as long as there is more than one other review site that criticise the UI, then his statement becomes indisputable. Only if he'd said that all sites agreed would your statement be correct.

But, realistically, all the reviews I've read so far have discussed the UI at length and many have stressed that it is, at the very least, unusual. The differences between the reviews are how much weight that's given/how willing to overlook it they are. We honestly believe it'll be a problem both for users wanting to point-and-shoot and for those wanting to take control, hence the review.

Richard - dpreview.com
Click to expand...
Richard:
Since when you have put so much weight on UI? Can you give me a weight?
--
Mark K
Click to expand...
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Guides/dpreview_scores_and_ratings_01.htm
--
Simon Joinson, dpreview.com
 
I believe in Murphy's Law and Occam's Razor rather than X Files conspiracy theories, but the DPR staff's reactions to the NEX review furor are beginning to worry me. Here and there in the threads there have been assertions of fact and claims of inconsistent review criteria that need to be refuted if untrue or explained. Perhaps you could start with the first post in this thread.

The OP asserted (I haven't found anything in your review that clearly contradicts him) that the T1i's highest ISO setting in Auto Mode is 1600. The review does criticize the amount chroma noise and list it as a con, but criticism of the apparent limits on Auto ISO is nowhere to be found or at least nowhere I looked in the review or Cons. The NEX review, on the other hand, prominently mentioned the NEX's limit and it became the very first Con. It's this kind of inconsistencyor apparent inconsistency that needs to be explained and remedied if warranted.

If it matters, I am the satisified owner of an a900 and two a700's although I know that none of them can be used to make an episode of "House" or even "America's Funniest Video's".
--
Ken Daves
 
novak977 said:
Truly unbelievable.

Thanks for catching this up - the anti-Sony spirit is everywhere in their reviews, even when the good thing is mentioned, there will be "but" and they will spice it up with some negative comments.
Click to expand...
To me, no matter it's good or not, the more points the reviewer brings out is helping me to understand more about the camera. I can accept the "but" after any good thing, overall it's his judgement.
novak977 said:
So it really hurts my feelings when some truly innovative and cool features are not recognized and awarded enough while some perhaps questionable moves are blown out of proportions.
Click to expand...
I think the reviewer did recognize the features of the camera. But the wording made the cons feel like very terrible. For example, "Screw-on flash awkward to attach"... I would put "inconvenience" instead of "awkward".

One thing that really bothers me after I read the review is "we'd strongly advise waiting for the next generation of products.". Maybe I misunderstand the sentence, but for some reason it expresses to me that the reviewer is telling people not to buy this camera.

I always believe that a good review is to show the customers a valid data or report about the product and let the buyers to decide what to do. Suggestion for different level of users can be included, but to advise buy or not buying somewhat I think is inappropriate.

Anyway, the review is very helpful. I like the design and the overall performance of it. And after looking at some photos, videos and even reviews from the users, I will get this camera when it hits the store, but I will not expect it works like my 7D.

Just my 2 cents, go easy on me. Cheers. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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