Every DSLR except Olympus's gets a 'Highly Recommended'

[OzRay]

Not making assertions, but stating fact. There is no point in producing extensive tables and charts that show what 'I' think is meant by the pros and cons, as I would only be interpreting things (quite differently to what Phil).

You are making your own interpretation of Phil's pros and cons. How do you know what he really means by these and what he places the greatest emphasis on?

This is all quite academic, as Phil is unlikely to make any adjustments to suit what many are now commenting as being a significant flaw in his final assessment and so there's no point in continuing to go around the bouy.

Cheers

Ray

See if you can make heads or tails
out of the Pros and Cons that lead to Phil's final recommendation
and why he did so.

Do the exercise. Create a chart. Map the Pros and Cons. Do whatever
needs to be done. Come up with a result and then come back.

You're making the assertion, I believe it's your job to do this
work and present it to us. But just for your sake, I have the 20D,
7D and E300 conclusions pulled up. Looking at the Cons, comparing
the number of image quality bugaboos between the cameras, the 20D
has 1 (AWB performance), 7D has 3 (color clipping, slight
underexposure, AWB) , but E300 has 7. As every camera will have
unique features, it is likely these cons that most determine his
final conclusion, and image quality being king, I'd say that is
weighted the most. And in this case, the E300 definitely loses out.

Dan

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

Photography is like a good book, you become absorbed by the image, not the syntax and sentence structure - me (unless someone said this first as well).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

 

[OzRay]

The only way you're going to get such a comparison is if you are
comparing the same camera, with maybe different colors. Phil goes
through pages and pages of the same meticulous comparisons for
every camera he tests. What more do you want?

How do you think car magazines report on vehicles? They compare different makes (often at the same time) or simply one make, but they use a standard set of criteria against which they test and provide an evaluative report of performance against each of those criteria.

The same applies to many other product evaluations. Phil deigns not to do so and this is what is being questioned.

Cheers

Ray

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

Photography is like a good book, you become absorbed by the image, not the syntax and sentence structure - me (unless someone said this first as well).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

 

[OzRay]

I still wouldn't base an outcome on that. It needs to be
quantifiable, consistent, repeatable and comparable.

Cheers

Ray

hi Ray,
maybe like this one eh
http://www.megapixel.net/reviews/oly-e1/e1-results.html

is that what you mean?
cheers
Radix

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

Photography is like a good book, you become absorbed by the image, not the syntax and sentence structure - me (unless someone said this first as well).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

 

[OzRay]

...that Phil seems to do this with his very extensive tests, raising the potential for this type of outcome, but it never sees the light of day in the conclusion.

Chers

Ray

I still wouldn't base an outcome on that. It needs to be
quantifiable, consistent, repeatable and comparable.

Cheers

Ray

hi Ray,
maybe like this one eh
http://www.megapixel.net/reviews/oly-e1/e1-results.html

is that what you mean?
cheers
Radix

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said
it first).

Photography is like a good book, you become absorbed by the image,
not the syntax and sentence structure - me (unless someone said
this first as well).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

Photography is like a good book, you become absorbed by the image, not the syntax and sentence structure - me (unless someone said this first as well).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

 

[daimesu]

I'm not an Oly user, just stumbled upon this post on the front page, but I'm not a troll either. I like Oly cameras, but perhaps the fact that 4/3 sensors haven't matured yet may be a big reason why the Oly dslrs do not have "highly recommended" ratings.

my 2 c

E-1 and E-300 both got a 'Recommended' on dpreview,every other DSLR
got 'Highly Recommended'.What a pity.I have an E-1 and I really
like it.The lens,the body,is at least as good as the competitors,if
not more.And I saw many many excellent photos made by E-1 and E-300.

--
http://amagawa.deviantart.com/

c . .
(o o)

 

[Barry Stewart]

for some time...

I did a search for all cameras they have ever rated above 9 on both sides. According to them, the Fuji S2 Pro is the best ever, with a 9.6 on the functionality and a full 10 on the photo side.

Who's next? The Nikon D70 (9.6 x 2) and D100 (9.3 func' and 9.8 photo.) They are pretty high on the Oly C700 (9.0 and 9.4)

Unless Phil owns the company, they also generally find Oly a tad off the top — but what's this... not ONE Canon DSLR in the top zone (over 9 out 10 in both categories)? They don't seem to test a lot of them. DREB is the only one I see in 2004.

I guess it's true that you can't take just one review (or review site) as gospel...

Me
--
Equipment: (Spelled out > so it won't cause bad
searches...) Oly E-Ten, Oly E-One HundredRS, Oly Flash40, Oly
Fifty60, EyeMak computer

 

[OzRay]

Barry

I wouldn't take their reviews as gospel either, but I do like the way they present their outcomes (and with the E1 example given, I wonder why Lens Quality wasn't rated?). Not sure about rating these sorts of cameras according to MP as a class, you couldn't thus compare the 6MP DSLRs with the 8MP DSLRs (kind of silly).

However, reviews presented in this way are also good for letting people assess what is right for them and perhaps better choose the correct camera. For example, the 300D got a pretty good score for image quality, but fell down on a couple of features in functionality; therefore, it comes out as a fairly good camera for many who don't care about these minor functionality shortfalls.

Cheers

Ray

for some time...

I did a search for all cameras they have ever rated above 9 on both
sides. According to them, the Fuji S2 Pro is the best ever, with a
9.6 on the functionality and a full 10 on the photo side.

Who's next? The Nikon D70 (9.6 x 2) and D100 (9.3 func' and 9.8
photo.) They are pretty high on the Oly C700 (9.0 and 9.4)

Unless Phil owns the company, they also generally find Oly a tad
off the top — but what's this... not ONE Canon DSLR in the top zone
(over 9 out 10 in both categories)? They don't seem to test a lot
of them. DREB is the only one I see in 2004.

I guess it's true that you can't take just one review (or review
site) as gospel...

Me
--
Equipment: (Spelled out > so it won't cause bad
searches...) Oly E-Ten, Oly E-One HundredRS, Oly Flash40, Oly
Fifty60, EyeMak computer

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

Photography is like a good book, you become absorbed by the image, not the syntax and sentence structure - me (unless someone said this first as well).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

 

[rayk]

the fact that 4/3 sensors haven't matured yet may be a big reason
why the Oly dslrs do not have "highly recommended" ratings.

What exactly does that mean? Should we put our E-1 and E-300 cameras down in the cellar for a few years? Or should we leave it out in the sun to dry? Can we tell it is matured when it is covered in a nice layer of vintage dust, or when it gets a nice, white rind, and the odour of a good camembert?

Perhaps we should just let them rest, get bigger and grow up gracefully into middle age.

I hope you DON'T mean that because it hasn't been around long enough, we can't judge it properly. That might mean that any innovation should be judged poorly.

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan

 

[daimesu]

Who ever railed against innovation? If you can effectively argue that CURRENTLY, 4/3 sensors produce better pictures at a large range of sensitivities than APS-c or larger sensors, then perhaps my argument can be refuted.

DID I EVER SUGGEST THAT OLY SHOULD NOT CONTINUE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 4/3 STANDARD? I suggested the complete opposite. And who is to say that "we can't judge it properly"? Phil's opinion is only that-an opinion, one that does not necessarily reflect the majority. What incentive does he have to bash Oly?

In the end, these are cameras; either they do their job or they don't, a job that is different from person to person. Please stop making it seem like you are defending the purchase of a holy grail of sorts.

the fact that 4/3 sensors haven't matured yet may be a big reason
why the Oly dslrs do not have "highly recommended" ratings.

What exactly does that mean? Should we put our E-1 and E-300
cameras down in the cellar for a few years? Or should we leave it
out in the sun to dry? Can we tell it is matured when it is covered
in a nice layer of vintage dust, or when it gets a nice, white
rind, and the odour of a good camembert?

Perhaps we should just let them rest, get bigger and grow up
gracefully into middle age.

I hope you DON'T mean that because it hasn't been around long
enough, we can't judge it properly. That might mean that any
innovation should be judged poorly.

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan

--
http://amagawa.deviantart.com/

c . .
(o o)

 

[danmurrelljr]

Not making assertions, but stating fact. There is no point in
producing extensive tables and charts that show what 'I' think is
meant by the pros and cons, as I would only be interpreting things
(quite differently to what Phil).

Then why did you tell me to go off and do this work if it's pointless and you won't do it yourself?

This is all quite academic, as Phil is unlikely to make any
adjustments to suit what many are now commenting as being a
significant flaw in his final assessment and so there's no point in
continuing to go around the bouy.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing about you. Your mind is made up, and despite the fact that Phil puts out 20+ pages of the same comparisons for all these cameras, and then one page listing pros and cons and his interpretations of those, you think his reviews are flawed. What you mean to say is it doesn't always conform to what you think the camera should rate. The only people you see grumbling about his assessment are those whose camera has just been insulted in their minds.

Keep searching around, eventually maybe you'll find a reviewer willing to look past the flaws in the E300 and give it a 9.9 rating, or whatever it is you think the camera deserves.

 

[danmurrelljr]

The only way you're going to get such a comparison is if you are
comparing the same camera, with maybe different colors. Phil goes
through pages and pages of the same meticulous comparisons for
every camera he tests. What more do you want?

How do you think car magazines report on vehicles? They compare
different makes (often at the same time) or simply one make, but
they use a standard set of criteria against which they test and
provide an evaluative report of performance against each of those
criteria.

Ok then, standardize the DSLRs. Only the E-1 and E-300 have the dust removing sensor, but those aren't standard, so toss those out completely. Ok, all these cameras support Raw, let's compare those modes. Canon has the best of the bunch, supporting compression in the files, and it's 8MP files come in at an average 7.5M. 7D's aren't much bigger, but are for 6MP files at nearly 9M. Then you have Oly's Raw files-- obviously uncompressed and at a whopping 13.5M for an 8MP file. That's nearly twice what the 20D averages, for the same image size. And this on the camera with image quality issues forcing people to recommend only using Raw at this time if you care about image quality.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't help your argument here.

 

[OzRay]

Would you for one moment slowly re-read what I have written. Ponder it as if one of your mates had written it and reconsider what I have said. I have never said that I disagree with Phil's outcomes. I have said I do not understand how he arrives at his outcomes and that he should have a more consistent way of presenting his conclusions.

Then why did you tell me to go off and do this work if it's
pointless and you won't do it yourself?

I suggested that you have a look at what I was referring to so that you can determine for yourself that to try and interpret Phil's results is to second guess how he was rating cameras. If I did that for you, you'd jump down my throat and accuse me of interpreting this in my way.

Have a look at the megapixel.net example that was quoted. This is what I am referring to as a good and consistent way to present a conclusion. I'm not saying it's perfect, but at least you can compare relevant criteria consistently form one review to the next.

Yes, I was thinking the same thing about you. Your mind is made
up, and despite the fact that Phil puts out 20+ pages of the same
comparisons for all these cameras, and then one page listing pros
and cons and his interpretations of those, you think his reviews
are flawed. What you mean to say is it doesn't always conform to
what you think the camera should rate. The only people you see
grumbling about his assessment are those whose camera has just been
insulted in their minds.

Keep searching around, eventually maybe you'll find a reviewer
willing to look past the flaws in the E300 and give it a 9.9
rating, or whatever it is you think the camera deserves.

I'm not the least interested in the E300, or what results it gets from any reviewer and would never consider buying it. In fact as I have said in other posts, I read Phil's reviews and those of a number of other reviewers before I make up my mind ragarding the worth of a camera.

Thanks for the discussion, but let's end it here, as my forehead is beginning to bleed and hurt.

Cheers

Ray

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

Photography is like a good book, you become absorbed by the image, not the syntax and sentence structure - me (unless someone said this first as well).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

 

[OzRay]

Dan

Stuff the brand names for one moment will you!

Megapixel.net lists a standard set of criteria for various camera features. Every camera has a standard set of features that are common to any camera and can be consistently evaluated.

If unique or innovative features crop up, then these can be placed in some other category - call them 'Unique/Innovative Features'. AS for KM, Sensor cleaner for Oly, IS for Canon, VR for Nikon etc. Is it that too difficult?

I tend to have the patience of a corpse, but I just can't compete with a corpse. No more please.

Cheers

Ray

The only way you're going to get such a comparison is if you are
comparing the same camera, with maybe different colors. Phil goes
through pages and pages of the same meticulous comparisons for
every camera he tests. What more do you want?

How do you think car magazines report on vehicles? They compare
different makes (often at the same time) or simply one make, but
they use a standard set of criteria against which they test and
provide an evaluative report of performance against each of those
criteria.

Ok then, standardize the DSLRs. Only the E-1 and E-300 have the
dust removing sensor, but those aren't standard, so toss those out
completely. Ok, all these cameras support Raw, let's compare those
modes. Canon has the best of the bunch, supporting compression in
the files, and it's 8MP files come in at an average 7.5M. 7D's
aren't much bigger, but are for 6MP files at nearly 9M. Then you
have Oly's Raw files-- obviously uncompressed and at a whopping
13.5M for an 8MP file. That's nearly twice what the 20D averages,
for the same image size. And this on the camera with image quality
issues forcing people to recommend only using Raw at this time if
you care about image quality.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't help your argument here.

--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

Photography is like a good book, you become absorbed by the image, not the syntax and sentence structure - me (unless someone said this first as well).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/

 

[danmurrelljr]

Dan

Stuff the brand names for one moment will you!

Megapixel.net lists a standard set of criteria for various camera
features. Every camera has a standard set of features that are
common to any camera and can be consistently evaluated.

If unique or innovative features crop up, then these can be placed
in some other category - call them 'Unique/Innovative Features'. AS
for KM, Sensor cleaner for Oly, IS for Canon, VR for Nikon etc. Is
it that too difficult?

I tend to have the patience of a corpse, but I just can't compete
with a corpse. No more please.

I'm not going to let you talk to me this way and then end it here when you decide it should be ended. I don't care if it does make your forehead bleed to continue on.

If you have such a problem with Phil's style and are so simpleminded that you have to have a review boiled down into 6 or 8 categories with a 1 line explanation and a numerical score, then by all means get your reviews from Megapixel.net and nowhere else from now on.

 

[danmurrelljr]

Would you for one moment slowly re-read what I have written. Ponder
it as if one of your mates had written it and reconsider what I
have said. I have never said that I disagree with Phil's outcomes.
I have said I do not understand how he arrives at his outcomes and
that he should have a more consistent way of presenting his
conclusions.

Every one of his reviews going back 5+ years conclude the same way, with a Pros and Cons and interpretations. You can't be more consistent than that. If you cannot stand anything less than a numerical score on a handful of categories, limit your browsing to the few sites that work that way.

Thanks for the discussion, but let's end it here, as my forehead is
beginning to bleed and hurt.

Better go to the hospital, wouldn't want you to become a corpse.

 

[rayk]

If you knew it would happen, then perhaps you should have been a little more thoughtful before you posted.

I didn't accuse you of 'railing against innovation'. I certainly didn't accuse you of suggesting that Oly should not continue development. And for the life of me I don't know where you got that idea from. And you were the one who suggested we can't judge it properly until the sensor 'matures' (whatever that means).

I sarcastically questioned as to why we should wait for 'the sensor to mature' (whatever that means) before we can judge the quality of the camera. The cameras are NOW. Just judge them for the job they do NOW. We are using them NOW. And we are getting very satisfactory results out of them NOW. The sensor in my E-1 is mature (whatever that means) enough for me NOW.

And let me ask you a question. Why do the Olympus cameras have to take BETTER pictures (your suggestion) than Canon, or Nikon, to be worth anything?

I for one don't care what kind of pictures other makes or models of cameras take.

Ray Kinnane
Saga-shi, Japan

 

[rovingtim]

If all cameras were special, none of them would be (loved that film).

When I was on the final approach to buying an E1 I re-read Phil's review carefully, not because of his conclusions but because he talks about all the different aspects of the camera in such a way that I can make my own conclusions. Those complaining that Phil's reviews don't tell them which to do are right ... and perhaps another site or magazine might serve them better.

There are a few nit picks I could unearth against Phil if I wanted, but he is not going to customise his reviews for me, or you. If he did them perfectly for me, then they wouldn't be perfect for you.

On the KM forum he got slammed even though he gave the 7D a highly recommended. He also gives us this forum where we can slam him if we want and he will sometimes wade in. I think that shows tremendous cahones.

This is the Oly forum. I assume most people here love their Oly's. We are the best selling point for these cameras, but threads like these make us look like a bunch of whining children. I largely bought my E1 because of the great things the users here were saying. This evangelical rubbish will hurt us more than Phil's recommended.

Perhaps we could show everyone how good the camera is by taking great shots, insead of telling them what they SHOULD think.

What do you say?

E-1 and E-300 both got a 'Recommended' on dpreview,every other DSLR
got 'Highly Recommended'.What a pity.I have an E-1 and I really
like it.The lens,the body,is at least as good as the competitors,if
not more.And I saw many many excellent photos made by E-1 and E-300.

 

[Rayweb]

what? you mean people who don't like olympus products aren't satan worshippers that carry weapons of mass destruction??

Perhaps we could show everyone how good the camera is by taking
great shots, insead of telling them what they SHOULD think.

 

[Scott Greiff]

"Recommended" rating. Looking back in time, he aslo gave the Sony D700 a "Recommended". At one point in time I've owned them all. I must be on a roll here... I guess it's a good thing that Phil doesn't have a rating lower than "Recommended"... If he does, I've never seen it applied.

• Scott

E-1 and E-300 both got a 'Recommended' on dpreview,every other DSLR
got 'Highly Recommended'.What a pity.I have an E-1 and I really
like it.The lens,the body,is at least as good as the competitors,if
not more.And I saw many many excellent photos made by E-1 and E-300.

--
http://www.greiff.org/scottag
http://www.pbase.com/scottag

 

[Barry Stewart]

Scott Greiff wrote:
I guess it's a good thing that Phil

doesn't have a rating lower than "Recommended"... If he does, I've
never seen it applied.

Check reviews and view "by rating." There are quite a few below recommended — and all the major players have at least a few in there. (No DSLRs, though. Who would bother making a DSLR that couldn't be taken seriously?)

Barry