How Do DPR reviews affect your buying choice?

How Do DPR reviews affect your buying choice?


  • Total voters
    0
I decide well ahead of time what I'm looking for in a piece of gear so it doesn't take me long to determine if it will work for me.
Same with me but reviews are an integral part of that.

I have to ask, why don't you use reviews? Regardless of sample variations they can still give a huge amount of useful information.
They're just opinion pieces. Along with photography, I had a 25 year career as lead test engineer designing, developing and conducting tests so I only accept what I can actually test for myself.
I fail to see how they're "just" opinion pieces. Along with some opinions, there is a ton of objective data in them.
That data is only specific to the particular piece of gear being reviewed. It doesn't really tell me anything about the piece I have in my hand except in the most general sense.
You mean the gear in your hand is the same as the one being reviewed but you don't trust the review? Or do you mean they're not reviewing what you are interested in buying?
If you can't rely on someone else's tests, are you going to test before you buy?
I try a piece of gear at the shops to see if it might have the potential suit my intended purpose. They know me there so I they let me out of the shop to try on local scenes. If it passes that initial try, I'll buy it and then do further testing. I very rarely have to return a piece.
Works great for you. Many of us don't have local shops.
And unfortunately, even if there are local shops, it seems that a lot of shops are carrying less and less cameras.

The BestBuy across the street from my house is carrying less and less cameras. The Walmart in town has gotten rid of all the cameras. It is an empty shelf in their store.

But . . . a potential solution is to buy used.

When I want to test out a camera system, I have been buying an older model used for cheap. I use the camera to see if it does what I want and whether I want to get into the system down the road.

That is how I got into Nikon. I bought an old used Nikon D70s and played with it for years. Then . . . when my daughter got into indoor sports, I kinda knew what the Nikon system was capable of . . . and when it came time to buy a new camera, I felt more comfortable plopping down the money on a new Nikon camera.

I am really liking the new entry-level Olympus. But rather than going directly to getting it, I would buy a slightly older Olympus to test things out first. If I am comfortable with that, then I would feel more comfortable buying new.

Then again . . . if the used camera does everything I need . . . then bonus! LOL.

Take care & Happy Shooting!
:)
 
It's a problem with all reviews, really, that they rarely reflect what an individual wants from a camera.
+1

That's a good point.
I disagree. I know what I want in a camera. I find a good comprehensive review can tell me if that camera is suitable for my needs. For example, If I'm looking for a camera with good continuous autofocusing on moving subjects a good review can quickly eliminate a camera from my consideration if their testing reveals it falls short in that area. I bought an RX10iv for that very reason. All reviews stated it has excellent Continuous AF tracking combined with an excellent lens that zoomed from 24mm to 600mm equiv. My use has born that out because it has proven to be the best camera I've ever owned for AF-C.
 
For me they amount to little more than opinion pieces. I may read the odd one once in a while for entertainment purposes. Along with photography, I had a 25 year career as a test engineer designing, developing and conducting tests so I only accept what I can actually test for myself.
I have an engineering background myself. Most of DPR's reviews are objective which I find very useful. They do a lot of objective testing that I cannot do myself without owning the camera. The opinion part of the reviews is easily ignored.
Then you should know that any tests are only specific to the particular piece of gear being tested. Repeatability is not guaranteed. There's even differences and even some contradictions in reviews of the same gear in different review sites. That doesn't engender confidence for me.
Sorry, that's hogwash.
rjjr isn't too far off base with his comment. There is process variation and uncertainty in every manufacturing activity. Very little can be determined about repeatability of measurements done on such a small sample used by DPR and many other photography web sites. Basic measurement science dictates that statistical analysis of a sample size is necessary to determine measurement uncertainty.

This is especially true with lenses as many of us have empirically seen that samples vary greatly. We really shouldn't assume that all sensor measurements are consistent as semiconductor processes also have variations. Manufacturers should know the limits of repeatability of their product, but some seem to be tolerant of significant process variation.

While DPR may have some consistency in their measurement technique they don't have enough samples to make definitive statements on performance parameters. One off reviews by individuals have even less validity.
 
Then you should know that any tests are only specific to the particular piece of gear being tested. Repeatability is not guaranteed. There's even differences and even some contradictions in reviews of the same gear in different review sites. That doesn't engender confidence for me.
Actually I have found that what reviewers find is almost always born out with my own experience and it's why I trust the reviews. Because of that I totally reject what you are saying because it's based on assumptions on your part, not on reading a review,
Since you say you have engineering experience I'm surprised you aren't familiar with tolerance stack-up and the fact that there is a range of criteria for acceptance.
buying the camera and then using and testing to see if the review actually agrees with real world use.
Could be there is a bit of confirmation bias or prejudice engendered for or against a piece based on reviews.
Maybe in your prior experience you found a lot of sample to sample variation in what you were testing but in general cameras are not like that. They either perform as expected or, in rare instances, simply are faulty in which case you exchange for another of the same model. I have never had to make such an exchange.
As I said, I've never felt the need to return a camera. It's more the lenses that exhibit idiosyncratic variation.

OK, really gotta go.
 
Last edited:
Then you should know that any tests are only specific to the gear being tested. Repeatability is not guaranteed. There's even differences and contradictions in reviews of the same gear in different review sites. That doesn't engender confidence for me.
That doesn't matter. My knowledge of camera equipment in general is quite extensive because I've been at it for over 50 years.
I've been involved with photography since 1962. I still work at it.
Because of that I can garner very useful information despite any shortcomings you or I find in the review process (and yes there are shortcomings). All that means is reading reviews should never be the only thing in deciding on a camera purchase, only a tool in the decision making. Reading as many reviews as possible is useful to see if there is a consensus.
Couldn't care less about a consensus. it's the how the specific piece in my hands performs that I'm interested in.
 
It's a problem with all reviews, really, that they rarely reflect what an individual wants from a camera.
+1

That's a good point.
I disagree. I know what I want in a camera. I find a good comprehensive review can tell me if that camera is suitable for my needs. For example, If I'm looking for a camera with good continuous autofocusing on moving subjects a good review can quickly eliminate a camera from my consideration if their testing reveals it falls short in that area. I bought an RX10iv for that very reason. All reviews stated it has excellent Continuous AF tracking combined with an excellent lens that zoomed from 24mm to 600mm equiv. My use has born that out because it has proven to be the best camera I've ever owned for AF-C.
 
For me they amount to little more than opinion pieces. I may read the odd one once in a while for entertainment purposes. Along with photography, I had a 25 year career as a test engineer designing, developing and conducting tests so I only accept what I can actually test for myself.
I have an engineering background myself. Most of DPR's reviews are objective which I find very useful. They do a lot of objective testing that I cannot do myself without owning the camera. The opinion part of the reviews is easily ignored.
Then you should know that any tests are only specific to the particular piece of gear being tested. Repeatability is not guaranteed. There's even differences and even some contradictions in reviews of the same gear in different review sites. That doesn't engender confidence for me.
Sorry, that's hogwash.
LOL. No, it's a fact.
So when they say "this button does this or that", you're going to say, "it only works that way on yours, when I get mine, it may not work that way. Therefore I need to test it for myself". That is the logical extension of what your'e saying. You're mixing concepts I think.
Like it or not, there is always a range in the criteria for acceptance or rejection of a production piece. Where the specific piece in my hand at the shop falls within that range is essentially a crapshoot.
You're mixing two different concepts. Testing for variance is one thing. But a general spec doesn't vary. You're talking about variance and quality testing. Reviews are giving us general specs - X amount of DR, X performance in low light, etc. etc. Those don't change significantly from body to body unless one is defective.

I too have an engineering background and your statement "I only accept what I can test for myself" makes no sense for an engineer. As an engineer, you certainly know that you have to accept what other people test because you can never test everything yourself. That is why we feel comfortable ordering various pieces of lab gear based on spec. It may not perform to spect in which case we send it back. But we certainly aren't going to be able to test every devices before buying.
 
It's a problem with all reviews, really, that they rarely reflect what an individual wants from a camera.
+1

That's a good point.
I disagree. I know what I want in a camera. I find a good comprehensive review can tell me if that camera is suitable for my needs. For example, If I'm looking for a camera with good continuous autofocusing on moving subjects a good review can quickly eliminate a camera from my consideration if their testing reveals it falls short in that area. I bought an RX10iv for that very reason. All reviews stated it has excellent Continuous AF tracking combined with an excellent lens that zoomed from 24mm to 600mm equiv. My use has born that out because it has proven to be the best camera I've ever owned for AF-C.
+1

Everyone is different.

For me personally, I have a lot of great cameras.

If I add another camera, I am kinda getting a little picky in the details.

For instance . . . on paper and in reviews, the Olympus E-PL9 seems to be my ideal vacation camera.

But . . . specs and reviews don't really cover things in detail like the user interface.

And reading the manual only gets you so far.

That is why I am considering getting an older Olympus E-PLx series camera to get a feel for how the user interface works and how the camera works in general.

For me, it's cheaper than going straight to the latest and greatest.

And it gives me a chance to find out what the specs and reviews don't have the time to tell me.

Take care & Happy Shooting!
:)
 
I decide well ahead of time what I'm looking for in a piece of gear so it doesn't take me long to determine if it will work for me.
Same with me but reviews are an integral part of that.

I have to ask, why don't you use reviews? Regardless of sample variations they can still give a huge amount of useful information.
They're just opinion pieces. Along with photography, I had a 25 year career as lead test engineer designing, developing and conducting tests so I only accept what I can actually test for myself.
I fail to see how they're "just" opinion pieces. Along with some opinions, there is a ton of objective data in them.
That data is only specific to the particular piece of gear being reviewed. It doesn't really tell me anything about the piece I have in my hand except in the most general sense.
You mean the gear in your hand is the same as the one being reviewed but you don't trust the review? Or do you mean they're not reviewing what you are interested in buying?
If you can't rely on someone else's tests, are you going to test before you buy?
I try a piece of gear at the shops to see if it might have the potential suit my intended purpose. They know me there so I they let me out of the shop to try on local scenes. If it passes that initial try, I'll buy it and then do further testing. I very rarely have to return a piece.
Works great for you. Many of us don't have local shops.
And unfortunately, even if there are local shops, it seems that a lot of shops are carrying less and less cameras.

The BestBuy across the street from my house is carrying less and less cameras. The Walmart in town has gotten rid of all the cameras. It is an empty shelf in their store.

But . . . a potential solution is to buy used.

When I want to test out a camera system, I have been buying an older model used for cheap. I use the camera to see if it does what I want and whether I want to get into the system down the road.

That is how I got into Nikon. I bought an old used Nikon D70s and played with it for years. Then . . . when my daughter got into indoor sports, I kinda knew what the Nikon system was capable of . . . and when it came time to buy a new camera, I felt more comfortable plopping down the money on a new Nikon camera.

I am really liking the new entry-level Olympus. But rather than going directly to getting it, I would buy a slightly older Olympus to test things out first. If I am comfortable with that, then I would feel more comfortable buying new.

Then again . . . if the used camera does everything I need . . . then bonus! LOL.
And camera bodies may tend to drop in value significantly anyhow making used an especially good value.
 
rjjr isn't too far off base with his comment. There is process variation and uncertainty in every manufacturing activity. Very little can be determined about repeatability of measurements done on such a small sample used by DPR and many other photography web sites. Basic measurement science dictates that statistical analysis of a sample size is necessary to determine measurement uncertainty.
While true for many things the variations in camera manufacturing don't have much of an effect on camera performance in any significant way.
 
For me they amount to little more than opinion pieces. I may read the odd one once in a while for entertainment purposes. Along with photography, I had a 25 year career as a test engineer designing, developing and conducting tests so I only accept what I can actually test for myself.
I have an engineering background myself. Most of DPR's reviews are objective which I find very useful. They do a lot of objective testing that I cannot do myself without owning the camera. The opinion part of the reviews is easily ignored.
Then you should know that any tests are only specific to the particular piece of gear being tested. Repeatability is not guaranteed. There's even differences and even some contradictions in reviews of the same gear in different review sites. That doesn't engender confidence for me.
Sorry, that's hogwash.
rjjr isn't too far off base with his comment. There is process variation and uncertainty in every manufacturing activity. Very little can be determined about repeatability of measurements done on such a small sample used by DPR and many other photography web sites. Basic measurement science dictates that statistical analysis of a sample size is necessary to determine measurement uncertainty.
But he is far off. He's mixing product variation with general product specs. Reviews, like those here on DPR, are doing more than testing performance, they're showing you function and general performance. They also relate to you and I how a product works - what the buttons do, how the menus work. These are all part of our buying decision. And performance doesn't vary enough between samples to render these reviews valid.
This is especially true with lenses as many of us have empirically seen that samples vary greatly. We really shouldn't assume that all sensor measurements are consistent as semiconductor processes also have variations.
Actually, not very much. The foundry process ensures very consistent results.
Manufacturers should know the limits of repeatability of their product, but some seem to be tolerant of significant process variation.
There really isn't that much between bodies. Some lenses - yes. Sony 35 1.4 is an example that has had problems in the past. Cameras not as much.
While DPR may have some consistency in their measurement technique they don't have enough samples to make definitive statements on performance parameters. One off reviews by individuals have even less validity.
Again, mixing several things. Sample variation speaks to performance - dynamic range, frame rate, etc. But if the manufacturer makes claims and the review verifies those claims, where is the problem? I'm sure if there was significant deviatioon, we would hear about it.

But there are other things that are not going to change between samples - how the menus and controls work, location of the controls. Etc. etc. These have nothing to do with sample variation but they have everything to do with me being able to evaluate a camera.
 
Then you should know that any tests are only specific to the gear being tested. Repeatability is not guaranteed. There's even differences and contradictions in reviews of the same gear in different review sites. That doesn't engender confidence for me.
That doesn't matter. My knowledge of camera equipment in general is quite extensive because I've been at it for over 50 years.
I've been involved with photography since 1962. I still work at it.
Because of that I can garner very useful information despite any shortcomings you or I find in the review process (and yes there are shortcomings). All that means is reading reviews should never be the only thing in deciding on a camera purchase, only a tool in the decision making. Reading as many reviews as possible is useful to see if there is a consensus.
Couldn't care less about a consensus. it's the how the specific piece in my hands performs that I'm interested in.
Sorry, I call hogwash again. You're mixing several aspects up into one straw man here.
 
rjjr isn't too far off base with his comment. There is process variation and uncertainty in every manufacturing activity. Very little can be determined about repeatability of measurements done on such a small sample used by DPR and many other photography web sites. Basic measurement science dictates that statistical analysis of a sample size is necessary to determine measurement uncertainty.
While true for many things the variations in camera manufacturing don't have much of an effect on camera performance in any significant way.
There has been more than one report of a returned lens because of the inferior performance due to sample variation. This impacts many in a significant way.

We don't see camera body variations as much, but sometimes when a one off occurrence is seen folks assume it means the camera is a bad design. There is no way to tell on a small sample if the camera is poorly designed or whether it's just the odd one that falls outside of the norm. For example some lockups and overheating issues could easily be bad devices that fell outside normal performance parameters. Semiconductors have process variations as well. To keep costs down camera manufacturers rely on consistency of the parts they use. We have no idea how much margin is built into the process from supply chain through manufacturing of the final camera gear.
--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
 
For me they amount to little more than opinion pieces. I may read the odd one once in a while for entertainment purposes. Along with photography, I had a 25 year career as a test engineer designing, developing and conducting tests so I only accept what I can actually test for myself.
I have an engineering background myself. Most of DPR's reviews are objective which I find very useful. They do a lot of objective testing that I cannot do myself without owning the camera. The opinion part of the reviews is easily ignored.
Then you should know that any tests are only specific to the particular piece of gear being tested. Repeatability is not guaranteed. There's even differences and even some contradictions in reviews of the same gear in different review sites. That doesn't engender confidence for me.
Sorry, that's hogwash.
rjjr isn't too far off base with his comment. There is process variation and uncertainty in every manufacturing activity. Very little can be determined about repeatability of measurements done on such a small sample used by DPR and many other photography web sites. Basic measurement science dictates that statistical analysis of a sample size is necessary to determine measurement uncertainty.
But he is far off. He's mixing product variation with general product specs. Reviews, like those here on DPR, are doing more than testing performance, they're showing you function and general performance. They also relate to you and I how a product works - what the buttons do, how the menus work. These are all part of our buying decision. And performance doesn't vary enough between samples to render these reviews valid.
This is especially true with lenses as many of us have empirically seen that samples vary greatly. We really shouldn't assume that all sensor measurements are consistent as semiconductor processes also have variations.
Actually, not very much. The foundry process ensures very consistent results.
Semiconductor processes have significant process variation. That's why parts are graded for performance. A good example is processor speed specs or with analog type devices there are noise and other specs where parts are offered in different grades. Semiconductor fabrication varies, though manufacturers tend to bin the parts and have to be thorough about this. However, when push comes to shove and production targets must be met some marginal parts are likely to be pushed through.
Manufacturers should know the limits of repeatability of their product, but some seem to be tolerant of significant process variation.
There really isn't that much between bodies. Some lenses - yes. Sony 35 1.4 is an example that has had problems in the past. Cameras not as much.
While DPR may have some consistency in their measurement technique they don't have enough samples to make definitive statements on performance parameters. One off reviews by individuals have even less validity.
Again, mixing several things. Sample variation speaks to performance - dynamic range, frame rate, etc. But if the manufacturer makes claims and the review verifies those claims, where is the problem? I'm sure if there was significant deviatioon, we would hear about it.

But there are other things that are not going to change between samples - how the menus and controls work, location of the controls. Etc. etc. These have nothing to do with sample variation but they have everything to do with me being able to evaluate a camera.
 
rjjr isn't too far off base with his comment. There is process variation and uncertainty in every manufacturing activity. Very little can be determined about repeatability of measurements done on such a small sample used by DPR and many other photography web sites. Basic measurement science dictates that statistical analysis of a sample size is necessary to determine measurement uncertainty.
While true for many things the variations in camera manufacturing don't have much of an effect on camera performance in any significant way.
There has been more than one report of a returned lens because of the inferior performance due to sample variation. This impacts many in a significant way.

We don't see camera body variations as much, but sometimes when a one off occurrence is seen folks assume it means the camera is a bad design. There is no way to tell on a small sample if the camera is poorly designed or whether it's just the odd one that falls outside of the norm. For example some lockups and overheating issues could easily be bad devices that fell outside normal performance parameters. Semiconductors have process variations as well. To keep costs down camera manufacturers rely on consistency of the parts they use. We have no idea how much margin is built into the process from supply chain through manufacturing of the final camera gear.
But this doesn't affect a review. rjjr introduced this concept but it's not very relevant to reviews. You're talking about sample variation and quality control. That's certainly a subject for reviews and if sample variation is high, it would certainly make us re-think a potential decision.

And camera makers publish performance specs and if the review confirms they are accurate, what's the issue? We know what to expect and if our sample falls outside that window, we know we should return the item.

However, that has nothing to do with the bulk of what's in a review - how things work, button placement, menu options, features like focus bracketing. How you activate functions and features, size of display, brightness of display, display lag etc. etc. None of those belong in the previous category of "quality control". And the reviewer's description of how those things work is exactly what we want to see in a review so we don't have to touch the camera ourselves before buying.

So no, arguing that reviews are irrelevant because there is sample variation is ludicrous.
 
For me they amount to little more than opinion pieces. I may read the odd one once in a while for entertainment purposes. Along with photography, I had a 25 year career as a test engineer designing, developing and conducting tests so I only accept what I can actually test for myself.
I have an engineering background myself. Most of DPR's reviews are objective which I find very useful. They do a lot of objective testing that I cannot do myself without owning the camera. The opinion part of the reviews is easily ignored.
Then you should know that any tests are only specific to the particular piece of gear being tested. Repeatability is not guaranteed. There's even differences and even some contradictions in reviews of the same gear in different review sites. That doesn't engender confidence for me.
Sorry, that's hogwash.
rjjr isn't too far off base with his comment. There is process variation and uncertainty in every manufacturing activity. Very little can be determined about repeatability of measurements done on such a small sample used by DPR and many other photography web sites. Basic measurement science dictates that statistical analysis of a sample size is necessary to determine measurement uncertainty.
But he is far off. He's mixing product variation with general product specs. Reviews, like those here on DPR, are doing more than testing performance, they're showing you function and general performance. They also relate to you and I how a product works - what the buttons do, how the menus work. These are all part of our buying decision. And performance doesn't vary enough between samples to render these reviews valid.
This is especially true with lenses as many of us have empirically seen that samples vary greatly. We really shouldn't assume that all sensor measurements are consistent as semiconductor processes also have variations.
Actually, not very much. The foundry process ensures very consistent results.
Semiconductor processes have significant process variation. That's why parts are graded for performance. A good example is processor speed specs or with analog type devices there are noise and other specs where parts are offered in different grades. Semiconductor fabrication varies, though manufacturers tend to bin the parts and have to be thorough about this. However, when push comes to shove and production targets must be met some marginal parts are likely to be pushed through.
What you're describing is exactly what I'm talking about. What is released to the public or even to Nikon's or Canon's manufacturing / assembly division is graded and falls well within Nikon's or Canon's required spec. So no, not only is there not all that much variation in large scale silicon fabrication, the stuff that does fall outside spec is culled before release. And in the case of camera assembly, I think the amount of variation is very small.

I challenge anyone to find a test where there was significant variation in any modern DSLR or MILC (Sony, Fuji etc.). Is there some? I'm sure there is, but not outside of published performance specs. But do you really think there are D850s out there with 5 fps frame rate instead of 7? Do you really think the DR of some D810s is only 9 instead of 11.63? And even if they were, you could easily send them back because Nikon has published specs.

So this whole thread about "sample variation rendering reviews useless" is just...useless. It's a rabbit trail that has no relevance to the discussion.
 
Last edited:
But . . . how does it handle? How a camera handles isn't necessarily something you can enter into the specifications. IMHO it's a bit more abstract than that. And . . . that is where these reviews come in handy. Stepping outside the specs, these reviews touch on many of the things that can't find its way onto the spec sheets.
Probably camera handling is the last thing I consider. I have only tried 2 cameras in my 50 years of photography that I didn't like the handling of. The first was a Sony NEX-5 which I didn't buy because of the way it handled. The other was the RX100 which I bought anyway because at the time it was the only camera that offered acceptable to me IQ in an ultra small format. I wanted that super small portability so I could overlook the things I didn't like about it. I did buy a stick on grip that improved things quite a bit but no camera that small will ever offer what I consider good handling.
"How does it handle" can mean different things to different people I guess.

I use it to mean a wide variety of things such as placement of buttons (or availability of buttons to start with) to how the menu is laid out, availability of custom menus or customization of buttons. A lot of the things that are beyond what can be encompassed by a list of specs.

But, for me, since I already have a lot of great cameras that let me get the shots. I've kinda started thinking about . . . ok, if I get a new camera, yes it would be great if it let me get more types of shots than I get now, but . . . also . . . why would I put myself through having to put up with a difficult user interface experience? If I start throwing money at a camera / system now, I want to enjoy myself as well. :)

Take care & Happy Shooting!
:)
 
It's a problem with all reviews, really, that they rarely reflect what an individual wants from a camera.
+1

That's a good point.
I disagree. I know what I want in a camera. I find a good comprehensive review can tell me if that camera is suitable for my needs.
Understand what one needs/wants, read or watch reviews (or test if possible) to see how those wants are met by the gear that possesses the desired features.

It is a pretty simple, and reasonable formula.
 
While true for many things the variations in camera manufacturing don't have much of an effect on camera performance in any significant way.
There has been more than one report of a returned lens because of the inferior performance due to sample variation. This impacts many in a significant way.
I was under the assumption we were talking about camera bodies not lenses. It's well known that there is sample to sample variation between lenses. Also Lens reviews are far less common that camera reviews.
We don't see camera body variations as much, but sometimes when a one off occurrence is seen folks assume it means the camera is a bad design.
In the reviews I rely on, DPR and IR, if they get what appears to be a faulty sample they will test another camera sample.
There is no way to tell on a small sample if the camera is poorly designed or whether it's just the odd one that falls outside of the norm. For example some lockups and overheating issues could easily be bad devices that fell outside normal performance parameters. Semiconductors have process variations as well. To keep costs down camera manufacturers rely on consistency of the parts they use. We have no idea how much margin is built into the process from supply chain through manufacturing of the final camera gear.
Semiconductor variations are not significant enough to affect camera performance in a meaningful way. Sure one sample may have slightly different DR or high ISO noise but it wouldn't be enough to affect your results. You're grasping at straws just to prove a point. We're not talking about machine parts where a fraction of a millimeter can make or break a part. None of the points you are trying to make in any way makes reviews irrelevant. It still is a good reflection of what you should expect from a particular camera.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top