Alright Andy, this really does look like bias

I've defended DPR against claims of bias in this forum in the past, but the review of the Nikon 16-35 really has me wondering.

It has record breaking barrel distortion, massive misalignment (and resultant edge softness) at the long end, serious corner softness at the wide end, and serious problems with flare.

Yet it gets an 8.5 for image quality, which is the same rating as the Olympus 9-18 - and it had only one significant optical flaw (CA), which is largely endemic to wide angles anyway, and easily corrected.

What's more, despite being more than twice the price of the 9-18, it gets almost the same rating for value.

We're comparing apples with apples here (two ultrawides), so I really just cannot see how theses discrepancies can be defended.

I have a great respect for your reviews Andy, but you really need to explain this.

just from reading the conclusion in the review you can see why they gave it the mark they did, i personally haven't used either lens so can't comment from a personal view, and if DPR is biased................good for them.
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
every day's a curry day

not to mention corners
what corners!



yikes!



nowhere near as good as the 14-24,
..............and at US$1160 might be better off with a Sigma 15-30 there

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

....even without VR
--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

After reading through the review with its numerous flaggings of the barrel distortion issue at 16mm, and then seeing the high rating, all I can say is I found the review "fair and balanced" in the Fox News tradition.

This jumped out in the conclusion:

"barrel distortion at 16mm on full frame, which is frankly huge. It's by some margin the highest we've measured amongst conventionally-corrected SLR lenses, and indeed higher than that of many Micro Four Thirds lenses, which rely on automated software correction to produce acceptable images. This distortion will be visible in many images, especially if you shoot subjects which naturally include lots of straight lines such as interiors and architecture."

Compare this to the Olympus 9-18 concluding remarks:

"without doubt a very good lens indeed, especially for a relatively inexpensive ultra-wideangle zoom. It's sharp even wide open, has negligible distortion, and shows practically no vignetting. Indeed it's a delight for pixel-peepers looking for high levels of sharpness right across the frame; there's little of the drop in sharpness towards the corners that is often encountered with wideangle zooms."

That these 2 lenses with such different test results received the same rating, even for Value, certainly grabs ones attention. And one begins to wonder, was the 9-18's true flaw not having a price above $1000 and the name "Nikon" on the barrel?
--
Sailin' Steve

1) The 9-18 has rather lower center resolution in line pairs per picture height.
2) Does it matter?
--
Rikke

ljmac said:

ljmac wrote:

I have a great respect for your reviews Andy, but you really need to explain this.

Click to expand...

Not that I'm against an explanation for his opinion , but the conclusion of any review is, of course, an opinion .

So long as the information in the review is accurate and complete (well, as complete as one could reasonably expect), then it's a non-issue, really.

But so long as the pertinent factors are properly measured and given in the review, I'm not sure why the opinion of the reviewer matters. For example, the Sigma 70 / 2.8 macro is a stunning optic, but gets little love. Why not? It's 70mm without HSM or IF. The Sigma 150 / 2.8 macro, gets all the love. Why? Because it's 150mm, and has HSM and IF.

Now, I understand why manufacturers would care -- many people base their purchasing decisions off of the conclusion alone.

sderdiarian said:

That these 2 lenses with such different test results received the same rating, even for Value, certainly grabs ones attention. And one begins to wonder, was the 9-18's true flaw not having a price above $1000 and the name "Nikon" on the barrel?

Click to expand...

Send me $1000 and I will send you a 'Nikon' sticker to put on your lens.

LOL, that (Nikon sticker) would really have my nephew and other Nikon friends scratching their heads! But, sorry, short on cash these days (like who isn't ?).

And apologies if I was blunt, hadn't had my first cup, saw this thread and the two reviews, not the best combination I'm afraid. Fanboy reared his head.

I am concerned, however, when the findings detailed throughout some DPR reviews are not reflected in the scoring. Yes, anyone truly interested in a camera or lens should take advantage of all the good info, but I fear many will just skim scores to narrow down their search.

Onwards, I can smell the bacon and breakfast beckons. Back on track!

--
Sailin' Steve

Indeed dpreview is bias... but it seems to be equally bias towards good ratings.

A simple look at the historical ratings clearly shows this trend. It goes back to the earlier days where ratings were (Below Average, Average and Above Average). Most ratings are Above Average, very few are Average or Below.

See for yourself:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/default.asp?view=rating

Given the historical trend, there should be no surprise that an average product rates well. Most do.

Hello

After reading this post , I decided to read that Nikon review and I have to say that for me the issue is not so much about the so-called dpr bias. as one person stated, dpr tends to give good ratings even if the text does not really justify it. It is because they know that lots of people lack the attention to read the fine line and will draw conclusions from the rating alone. it is sad maybe but that's the way it is..

But reading this review , it strikes me on this could be such a good example for a cse AGAINST zooms. I am not sure how many photogs really need to spend that kind of money for a FOV less than 21mm under 35mm but the test clearly shows that for anyone who would mostly use FOV between 21 and 35mm , he or she would be much better off in terms of IQ and MONEY AND weight with two single focal lenses

I honestly don't think that most people need that far reach on a zoom but at least with the 9-18mm , you can argue that sizewise and budget wise it is not that different from a prime

maybe if oly release that 12mm it would be clearer for some why a single focal lens is amost always a better choice especially for wide angle lenses

Harold

--
http://www.harold-glit.com
http://www.modelmayhem.com/haroldglit

sderdiarian said:

That these 2 lenses with such different test results received the same rating, even for Value, certainly grabs ones attention. And one begins to wonder, was the 9-18's true flaw not having a price above $1000 and the name "Nikon" on the barrel?
--
Sailin' Steve

Click to expand...

the most important and relevant part of the reviews is that the Nikon lens and mark is relevant only to the Nikon FX and DX systems, and the Olympus review and mark is only relevant to the Olympus and 4/3rds system and thus the final marks are completely irrelevant against each other, so there is no bias at all.
--
http://illy.smugmug.com
every day's a curry day

Am I alone in thinking that most reviews are of little use, the DPR ones are if anything at least better than some of the all things to all men reviews that magazines print. Better than any review IMO, is recomendation, experience and examples from people who take the same pictures that I want to take. Even then you have to watch out for the Canikon fans who know, it's called faith I think, there's is the best and they would only buy Canon/Nikon.

There have been some recent criticism of the Sunday posting threads but to me these are better than any review. See a picture that you think is fantastic, and see what kit was used. What better recommendation?

.--



Oly e-fivetwenty, seventy-threehundred, eFZed50, Oly TeeCON17, RaynoxDCR150 DCR250
My Galleries are at
http://picasaweb.google.com/trevorfcarpenter

bbrault said:

Indeed dpreview is bias... but it seems to be equally bias towards good ratings.

Click to expand...

Shhh... that's why the E30 got a 'highly recommended'

Claus.

--

... when the photograph annihilates itself as medium to be no longer a sign but the thing itself...

Trevor Carpenter said:

Am I alone in thinking that most reviews are of little use, the DPR ones are if anything at least better than some of the all things to all men reviews that magazines print.

Click to expand...

'Fitness for purpose' is the jargon. Reviews serve two purposes:

1. To provide information which informs purchasing decisions.
2. To let fanboys know that their product choice was best.

In the first case, any sensible purchaser would try to analyse the test data themselves and relate it to there own usage, since photography is a highly individual thing and there's no point following the opinions of a reviewer if that reviewer is looking for very different things to you.

It is in the second case that reviewers opinions come into play, since the fanboy is not looking to analyse data which might show his brand to perform less well against the competition some parameter or other, so are much better served by predigested opinions. What they like best is a single number or score which says theirs is best, but that is quite dangerous for the reviewer, since if their favourite's score falls short of some other product, some of the fanboys will be offended. A cleverer strategy is for the reviewer to give his (and it usually is a he) expert opinion, using his words sufficiently cleverly that every brand's fanboys can find phrases which convince them that they're the best.

DPR has got it brilliantly right. They publish a score, which the fanboys like, but they give everything (except brands with few fanboys) more or less the same score, which means few of the fanboys are disappointed. Then they publish opinions in nice simple pro's and con's so each product more or less balances out but by prioritising the pro's for their brand and the con's for others fanboys can convince themselves that the reviewer unequivocally said theirs was best. Then, best of all - and the real genius, is to have brand forums so that the fanboys can argue about it, earning DPR revenue all the time.
You have to take your hat off to them.

Well said.

Ditto
--
Uncle LJ, just a guy taking pictures

--

I understand that Olympus is the official camera of FOX News.

sderdiarian said:

After reading through the review with its numerous flaggings of the barrel distortion issue at 16mm, and then seeing the high rating, all I can say is I found the review "fair and balanced" in the Fox News tradition.

This jumped out in the conclusion:

"barrel distortion at 16mm on full frame, which is frankly huge. It's by some margin the highest we've measured amongst conventionally-corrected SLR lenses, and indeed higher than that of many Micro Four Thirds lenses, which rely on automated software correction to produce acceptable images. This distortion will be visible in many images, especially if you shoot subjects which naturally include lots of straight lines such as interiors and architecture."

Compare this to the Olympus 9-18 concluding remarks:

"without doubt a very good lens indeed, especially for a relatively inexpensive ultra-wideangle zoom. It's sharp even wide open, has negligible distortion, and shows practically no vignetting. Indeed it's a delight for pixel-peepers looking for high levels of sharpness right across the frame; there's little of the drop in sharpness towards the corners that is often encountered with wideangle zooms."

That these 2 lenses with such different test results received the same rating, even for Value, certainly grabs ones attention. And one begins to wonder, was the 9-18's true flaw not having a price above $1000 and the name "Nikon" on the barrel?
--
Sailin' Steve

Click to expand...