Simon Joinson

Simon Joinson

DPReview Administrator
Lives in United States SEATTLE, WA, United States
Works as a Editor, writer, photographer
Has a website at www.dpreview.com
Joined on Jul 9, 2002
About me:

This is my work. My family is my life. Dedicated to keeping my baby girl alive and free from the effects of Cystic Fibrosis as long as I can. http://www.cff.org/

Comments

Total: 837, showing: 461 – 480
« First‹ Previous2223242526Next ›Last »
On article Just Posted: Pentax K-5 II / K-5 IIS Review (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

mark25: sadly, another camera review with horrible sample photos... i'm afraid no one pays attention to the samples anymore here on dpreview.com... back in the day, when most reviews were done by Phil Askey, the samples were so much better in terms of content and composition...

so it's been downhill since 2004, basically.

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2013 at 16:28 UTC
On article New CompactFlash card to allow RAID-style 'mirroring' (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: I've been using digital camera since 2001....not once have I ever had a corrupted memory card...just sayin'.

you obviously never used SmartMedia :)

Link | Posted on May 31, 2013 at 20:52 UTC
On article Sign up for the DPReview newsletter today! (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

guinness2: Is it DPreview newsletter only , or Connect too ?

It's DPR only. Mostly.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2013 at 01:16 UTC
On article Sign up for the DPReview newsletter today! (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

techmine: Seriously,how are newsletters better than constant engagement via twitter, google+, tumblr etc. I follow DPR everywhere so why now a newsletter?

A newsletter we've been running for over a decade and a single PM telling you about a new feature once every 14 years. It's an avalanche alright.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2013 at 16:08 UTC
On article Sign up for the DPReview newsletter today! (39 comments in total)
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: EVERYONE wants to send me a freakin 'newsletter'. Spam by any other name is still spam.

there's some people who spam our news stories with grumpy comments too.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2013 at 16:04 UTC
In reply to:

Sam Carriere: How is this interesting, relevant or important?
DPReview just seems to get hoplesser and hopelesser.
I now consult it once or twice a week just to see how crazy or useless the most recent content is ... which puts you in the same league as Ken Rockwell.

hey george, could you send us the 100 stories? I'd love to see them!

Link | Posted on May 16, 2013 at 16:17 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100S Real-world Samples (205 comments in total)
In reply to:

mas54: Just to vent a bit - why do you guys even bother with on-line samples. Nobody can tell anything from them, unless, of course, they're really awful. The best thing you could do for us is to make some big prints and let us know what the results are. Can we get as good a print as from the a Contax T3 with tri-x?

I'm assuming this is a joke. Because if it isn't.... <walks away shaking head>

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2013 at 23:29 UTC
On article Just Posted: Canon EOS 6D In-depth Review (531 comments in total)
In reply to:

reach0775: dpreview will remain my No.1 source for camera reviews, but I'll really stop taking their conclusions seriously.
The 6D has similar or better IQ than the mighty Mk.III, some VERY serious USPs (GPS, weight...) and it costs a 1.000EUR less!
Hey, that's an awful lot of money! It's a shame they even compare those 2 within the same sentence.
But taking it down because Mr. dpreviewer would have had different ideas where to save money is really outrageous arbitrariness.

nope. we clearly state that we score relative to contemporary competitors in the same category. 'Although no replacement for actually reading the review, the results box is designed to give you an 'at a glance' view of the camera based on our findings, and how it compares to its competitors. Very short bars mean below the average for the category, very long lines mean above average.'

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2013 at 07:05 UTC
On article Just Posted: Canon EOS 6D In-depth Review (531 comments in total)
In reply to:

SiliconVoid: In recent years I have defended DPReview dozens of times across the internet regarding their integrity and analysis, specifically regarding their ability to assess a product on its own merits and across its designed capability range - instead of penalizing a product for what it lacks in a comparison. THEN I read this review.

If you add the D600 to the scoring module on page-25 you can see what is supposedly areas that would allow it to score differently (higher in this case) and it is interesting that the areas showing better performance are simply not substantiated in the pages of the 6D review. Not to mention areas of heated debate and comparison (the 6D's inferior 11-point AF system and Canon's tired old 63 metering zones) where even though DPR hops on the bandwagon to proclaim Canon's failings of the 6D their own testing shows that the 'lowly' 11-point AF and 'zone' metering system out perform the D600.

What the hell is that, does DPR write the reviews before or after testing???

Small, but important correction to a point you make somewhere waaay up there near the start. We do in fact score based on how a product compares to its peers at the time of review. http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4416254604/camera-scores-ratings-explained

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2013 at 07:02 UTC
In reply to:

keeponkeepingon: This article has still not been updated to reflect that dpreview has an affiliation with DXO.

The response given a couple of pages ago is completely inadequate. Publicizing it on a post that has long since vanished from the homepage and not including that relationship in this review of a DXO product is not exactly "transparent".

Original response:
By Amadou Diallo (4 days ago)
We incorporate DxO Mark test data in our lens reviews and smartphone camera reviews. We publicized the announcement on our homepage and include their logo on the relevant review pages. So we're being as transparent as we reasonably can.

We, like many publications, use DXOMark test results as part of our review process (phones and cameras). This data is publicly available at www.dxomark.com. This is the full extend of our 'relationship'. We have no affiliation with DXO Labs (the team behind Optics Pro).

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2013 at 20:32 UTC
On article Just Posted: Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Review (164 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: I think a lot of folks are missing the point.

This review was NOT done at the expense of reviewing any other camera. It's not like this will create any delay in reviewing some DSLR you want to see reviewed.

The review was largely written by Jeff Kellar. Jeff has always been great at writing quick reviews of P&S cameras. He's got it down to a science. Dpreview has some sort of arrangement with Jeff where they take his basic review, transfer it into their own format and then publish it.

Everyone wins this way.

Dpreview gets to print reviews for cameras they would otherwise not be reviewing, the Dpreview members get to read these reviews, and hopefully... Jeff gets paid something. If Dpreview didn't do this this we would get fewer reviews of P&S cameras, and many of the members here have a strong interest in these cameras.

Jeff will not be writing the review for the Canon 6D. That will most likely be done by Amadou, Richard, Barnaby, Andy or Lars, or maybe a combination of them.

DPR runs on strong coffee

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2013 at 04:42 UTC
On article New image viewing options for forums (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: The image quality is poor for images within posts and the images are embedded permanently in the posts. Deleteing the images from DPR galleries do not delete the image from the post. When I discovered how poor the resolution was when viewing images within the post, I attempted to delete the image without success.

They are deleted, but there's a delay due to caching

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 15:48 UTC
On article New image viewing options for forums (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

xtoph: i have not given anyone permission to 'download original' files of my photographs. dpr's inclusion of a dedicated button for this is bizarre, and suggests that i somehow do give such permission.

i am aware that people can copy my photos, but there's a difference between that being technically possible and it being actively encouraged and tacitly approved.

please change this. and shame on dpr, after facebook's photographer unfriendly changes (including a 'download original' button we have no control over) and the backlash against them, you would think that a photographer-centered site would have handled this differently.

i would also add that as soon as this was raised i suggested what we could re-label it, got agreement and sent an email to the dev team. It was launched late friday, it's now the weekend. It'll change when we're back at work.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 06:45 UTC
On article New image viewing options for forums (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

xtoph: i have not given anyone permission to 'download original' files of my photographs. dpr's inclusion of a dedicated button for this is bizarre, and suggests that i somehow do give such permission.

i am aware that people can copy my photos, but there's a difference between that being technically possible and it being actively encouraged and tacitly approved.

please change this. and shame on dpr, after facebook's photographer unfriendly changes (including a 'download original' button we have no control over) and the backlash against them, you would think that a photographer-centered site would have handled this differently.

When you 'download' it just opens in a browser window. This has been the same here for many years. You decide how big the image you share is. If its visible in a viewer's browser window it's already been "downloaded"

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 00:46 UTC
On article New image viewing options for forums (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

xtoph: i have not given anyone permission to 'download original' files of my photographs. dpr's inclusion of a dedicated button for this is bizarre, and suggests that i somehow do give such permission.

i am aware that people can copy my photos, but there's a difference between that being technically possible and it being actively encouraged and tacitly approved.

please change this. and shame on dpr, after facebook's photographer unfriendly changes (including a 'download original' button we have no control over) and the backlash against them, you would think that a photographer-centered site would have handled this differently.

I'm kind of confused. You uploaded the original image to the forum post and we generally show it scaled down, with the option to the view the full original uploaded image. If it's a DPR gallery image you can disallow downloading of the original, and for all other images this button simply opens the original (unscaled) shared file in a separate window. It's up to you how big the 'original' is.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2013 at 05:37 UTC
On article New image viewing options for forums (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

fad: The problem with the "Download Original" button is that it makes it look as if the viewer is being granted permission to download someone else's work, when that usually is not the photographer's intention.

Would 'view original' be better? It really just means 'view original in a new window', but that's a bit wordy.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2013 at 22:27 UTC
On article New image viewing options for forums (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

ayt: does this improve upon the image resizing / size-reducing algorithms? I've noticed lately that certain downsized images are very poorly processed and at first glance the photos appear to be terrible. only by observing the original that the poster used can I get a glimpse of what was actually presented.

no, but it offers a simpler way to see the untouched image at the original size

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2013 at 02:54 UTC
On article New image viewing options for forums (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

steve_hoge: This is to work only with forum threads and not news stories or reviews?

Please post a link to a forum thread that uses this new system; the images in this news story aren't examples of the new viewer itself, but simply static images of what it should look like.

I'm slightly confused. Yes this new forum image viewer is only for forums. It works in any forum post that has images. Here's the thread i created to make those screenshots http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50595673

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2013 at 01:09 UTC
On article Best Camera of 2012: And the Winner is... (1414 comments in total)
In reply to:

WCguy: New rules have been set in place for the poll to be redone, everyone must use every camera made in 2012 that was rated at 70 or over by Dpreview ,using each camera for a min. of 1 week.Then you will be eligible to vote for what you consider to be the best camera for 2012.
This existing poll that has been put on by Dpreview proves nothing more than fanboyism, voting more for what they own,than what they know. Many cameras brought out at the end of the year haven't been in many hands compared to the earlier year models, so this vote for best camera is just pure fanboy nonsense.

i think you may have misunderstood the thinking behind this *poll*

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2013 at 07:32 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-E1 preview extended (113 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hubertus Bigend: Is it just me, or is my impression correct that since Amazon's acqusition of dpreview even the most popular cameras take longer and longer to get reviewed and more and more reviews only come in trickles? If I still was the "early adopter" of camera tech I kind of used to be for some time, dpreview could not exert much influence on my decisions anymore these days.

We still don't have a 6D we can review, but we're expecting one this week (and will push hard to get something out before christmas)

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2012 at 16:32 UTC
Total: 837, showing: 461 – 480
« First‹ Previous2223242526Next ›Last »