How would you change the Reviews & Info page? (Update: Launched!)

[Jeff Keller]

How would you change our Reviews & Info page (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php)? What columns do you think should be on the big list of cameras? Any search fields missing? Post your suggestions here.

Thanks!

[cdifoto]

Maybe add a swivel/tilt lcd column with the "answer" being swivel/tilt, swivel, tilt, n/a (or no).


PS: Thanks for making quick reply easier. :D

[Nickcanada]

Initial thoughts, instead of or next to the maximum resolution post the mega pixel rating. It's an overused, misunderstood spec, but it's one that is universally recognized.

Another spec that I would like to see is the focal length range in mm not just the "zoom range". When I was recently looking for a P&S it was one of the specs I was most interested in and it's not as easy as it should be to find. IMO.

[cdifoto]

Good points Nick. Megapickels are instantly recognizable and 6x doesn't mean squat (it's a relative penis thing), whereas 35mm-210mm equivalent does mean something.

That's another thing. I'd want to see the FL range in equivalents and not the actual FL...because the sensors vary in size. 35mm equivalent is the only true way to compare, regardless of whether you know what it actually means.

[ILoveTifa]

How about a max ISO/ASA rating option?
Like MP, the HIGH ISO option is being used as a marketing tool by many manufactures, and it is actually quite useful to make social snaps where flash is prohibited (provided that you don't mind 'watercolor' effect) :p

IMO, some people can benefit from this option if they're looking for a camera capable of low light photography.

And while it seems useless, how about a size option?
They can be small (Sony T2, Casio Exilim EX-Z1050), medium (Canon G9, Panasonic TZ-3), big (Canon S5IS, Fuji S9500), and SLR. I know this is how my brother shop for camera (I want a compact 12x optical zoom camera!) :)

Just my thoughts..

[DigitalDarkroom]

Search fields missing: Sensor size (i.e. 1/1.8" or 1/2.5")

Columns missing: How about next to the little boxes for reviews, add little boxes with links to take us to the sample gallery for each camera that has a gallery. Maybe a column for F-full, P-partial, or N-None manual controls.

[TheWengler]

I also agree with a size option, maybe in the drop down menus (ultracompact, compact, slr-like, etc.). This seems to be a major consideration for many people. Also, under some of the menus like the MP and optical zoom maybe instead of selecting a range, a minimum should be selected (i.e. at least 6 MP instead of 6-7MP).

[jlbz]

I agree that size is useful.

I've often also wanted to search on movie characteristics: maximum size/frame rate, and also encoding (mjpeg vs. mp4, for instance).

[Jeff Keller]

That's a really hard one to add a search pulldown for. How does one define what size a camera is?

[piedownjoe]

Two things I would like to see: a "Date released" column, and ascending/descending sorting of columns.

[SnapStan]

That's a really hard one to add a search pulldown for. How does one define what size a camera is?

You often show volume in your reviews (LxHxD). Would only be a guide (and would not account for those big handgrips that stop one sliding some digicams into a pocket) but is takes the subjectivity out of it...

[SnapStan]

there's some great ideas here: Megapixel rating (which could replace the current maximum resolution column); FL in 35mm equiv; and size (volume?) get my backing too.

I'd like to suggest two new columns:
- Optical Viewfinder (Yes/No)
- App. and/or Shutter Priority (Yes/No)

[ladislavh]

Hello,

I myself have these ideas:
-When searching for a camera I cannot say "more than 6x optical zoom", I have only ranges as possible search criteria
-I cannot search for the camera size and cannot see the camera size in any way
-I don't think the battery type and AF-assist lamp has to have separate columns. Especially in case of the former one I don't think I will decide against a perfect camera just because I do not like its batteries or for a bad camera just because it uses my favorite batteries
-Concerning zoom I am (but it might be just me) not at all interested in digital zoom. I do not actually accept its existence. Maybe it would be interesting to specify the zoom range (in 35 mm equivalent) instead of "4x zoom", etc...
-Maybe it is not necessary so list all accepted card formats (SD, SDHC, usw) but just list which "basic type" the camera accepts, i.e. CF/SD/xD/MS. But now I am not sure if I like the idea myself
-In Feature Search I would leave the "RAW/TIFF" option out. I know that all SLRs have the possibility and I do not search for it on compact cameras.

Just a few ideas, thanks for listening,
Ladislav

[Beowulff]

My suggestions relate mainly to the choices of search criteria as they stand, as I think the current setup is pretty good.

Resolution choices should be more representative of current (and imminent future) standards:
5MP
6+MP
9+MP
12+MP
15+MP

As LCDs are now generally limited to 2"+ or 3"+ pixel count may be a more definitive criteria?
115K nominal
150K nominal
230K nominal
300K+

Possibly add sensor size as a new search criteria?
1/2.5"-
1/1.8"
1/1.6"
2/3"
4/3"+

My only other suggestion would be to delete the "Lowest Price" column altogether, as camera prices change as often as I change my undies, and also they're in US dollars - which doesn't mean much to the other 99% of the world's population LOL.

Thanks for taking the time to look this over Jeff - much appreciated.

Cheers :)

[viztyger]

Interesting question:..

Quite often I use this list to navigate to the reviews that interest me.

I think that reducing the number of features that appear across the top would make it clearer.

You can delve into details like whether a camera has an AF-assist lamp in the review and/or specifications. I would also just list the number of megapixels, to keep the table consistent with the pull down menu under resolution. It’s also quicker to establish the number of pixels on a sensor: you don’t have to do the multiplication and cameras are marketed by the number of megapixels anyway.

I would also remove the amount of digital zoom: that way there’s no danger of confusing the optical zoom with the (virtually useless) digital zoom. Furthermore; I might add the widest and the longest (35mm equivalent) focal length. There’s quite a difference whether a 4x zoom range starts at 25mm or 35mm.

[cdifoto]

Thumbnail showing the camera would be good too.

[mountaineer]

The most important of all would be the picture quality, say on a scale of 1 to 10, according to Jeff's opinion (you seem to have the same taste as me, Jeff, as regarding not too much sharpening, or effects of too much noise reduction, or too vivid color).
Of course, you may just want to stay with the technical specs as such.
(For example - a part of picture quality is of course exposure accuracy - I have one camera that has NEVER! exposed incorrectly, and I have another that does it quite a lot. There was of course unfortunately no way to find this out before I bought the camera).

A viewfinder is also a must for me, so that would be useful.
And I'm only interested in cameras with the high compression mpeg4 video or similar, so that would also be my selection.

[etmoem]

Possibility to choose more than one item. Ex.: CompactFlash + SDHC
Resolution: include 8-9 / 10-11 / 12+
Image ratio (4:3/3:2)
Sensor type (CCD/CMOS/Super CCD/Foveon)
Crop factor (1.5/1.6/2.0 etc.)
Focal length 35mm equiv. (wide/tele)
Aperture range
Shutter speed range
Continuous drive (fps)
Movie resolution/speed
LCD pixels

[bascom]

I don't understand what people are saying about Megapixel rating versus max resolution. What is the difference? I agree with Beowulff that the Max resolution values just need to be updated to fit the current market. Likewise, the optical zoom values could be updated.

When you click a camera, the optical IS field just says Yes or No. But some cameras have sensor shift IS and it says Yes for the "optical IS" value. I think the field should be changed to say "Image Stabilization" with three possible values: Optical, Sensor shift, or None.

Overall, I think R & I is great the way it is.

[WestCoast]

The most important of all would be the picture quality, say on a scale of 1 to 10, according to Jeff's opinion

And add "features", "build quality", "performance", "ergonomics", etc. to that.

I like the way that dpreview assigns numerical values in their ratings, in addition to the Pros/Cons section. It makes it a little easier to compare cameras. Of course, that would mean that Jeff would have to go back and assign these values to everything he reviewed over the past two years, which might not be worth the trouble. Anyway, that just my $0.02.

[WD-40]

How would you change our Reviews & Info page (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php)? What columns do you think should be on the big list of cameras? Any search fields missing? Post your suggestions here.

Thanks!


Jeff-
For almost two years, I've been asking for a "None" selection under the "Optical Zoom" search category.
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18645

You replied:

I could probably do this at some point...
... back in 2006.


The Sigma DP1 is getting huge amounts of attention. Can we please get this selection added to the search criteria?

- David

[Brock]

Add a yellow heading: "How quick?" Then tell how quickly it is ready to shoot from start up, and how fast it is from shot to shot. Speed is important to many of us, and an easily found reference in a review is something I would appreciate.

[dotbalm]

Thanks for asking, Jeff. I'll give feedback mostly on the list, less so regarding search criteria. My comments echo some of the ones posted, but I've added some.

1 - sortable columns (ascending/desc.)
2 - DCRP review column: hyperlink using MM/YY of review, rather than "R." I take review date to be a good enough proxy for release date (...emphasize, good enough, if I want to know more, I'll check release date, but at least I can sort the most recent reviews this way with more info in the other columns. I realize there is a brief chronological list on the home page, but it's only by make/model.)
3 - I think max res. takes up too much space. Maybe just MP, and honestly, these days, I don't even want to know unless it's too much in too compact a sensor.
4 - Zoom - definitely by 35mm equiv for the wide to tele end for optical only. Omit digital zoom.
5 - Battery type - delete.
6 - I.S. - Specify method O/S/I for Optical, sensor, high ISO (Fuji).
7 - AF Assist - delete
8 - LCD - keep size, add whether it's fixed/tilt/swivel & this may be a good place to state if and what kind of viewfinder - None/Optical/Digital - N/O/D
9 - Storage media - delete, though might be useful for search criteria
10 - Low price - keep

And please consider adding:

11 - P/A/S/M. Trick here is Fuji's F30 has M mode, but it's not "traditional" M mode; nevertheless, w/o A/S/M mode that is a deal-killer for a compact for me or one I recommend to friends and family. Even though I use a dslr, I don't always want to lug it around. In fact, I often don't want to lug it around, especially for going to my kid's daycare Halloween party, etc.
12 - Raw/Tiff mode - R/T - I'm on the fence with this as a column, I think I'd keep it as a search criteria, but do bring it up. It's a secondary consideration given that most (all?) dslrs will do raw and most compacts won't.
13 - I'm disappointed Canon has been removing Sports mode from some of their smaller compacts (e.g., SD800IS). They don't have a Shutter Priority mode and they've put in a kids and pets mode. Problem is you can't really achieve high enough shutter speeds to freeze action with infants, toddlers, birthdays, soccer, dancing, etc, w/o the camera auto-boosting ISO, and thus you get noisy shots. I'd like to lock shutter and ISO. Kid snapshots/candids require high shutter speed, so if I see the camera has no P, S or M mode, I'll at least look for a Sports mode when researching a camera for wife/friends/family.
14 - widest Aperture at wide and full zoom. e.g., 3.5-5.6
15 - red-eye - I'd like to see one more test where red-eye production is tested with flash and the red-eye strobe disabled. The Sony DSC-P150 was good at this. Red-eye strobes can ruin a candid w/a child who doesn't know or cannot wait for the main flash. And it's better and faster if you can do without the strobe for people shots anyway. I'd like to see the results in the columns, because it would indicate my satisfaction with the camera or how much work I'd have to do on a volume of shots, IOW, I translate this to quality of images captured and how much time I, or someone to whom I recommend the camera, will have to spend correcting red-eye.
16 - flash sync speed - I'm always interested in a flash sync faster than 1/60 for flash shots of kids.

Some things that are more subjective but useful include image quality and high ISO performance, but this could be a can of worms.

Thank you.

[bjboogie]

I agree with previous respondents, replace the Maximum Resolution column with a Megapixels count. Saves everybody the trouble of doing 4 digit by 4 digit multiplication approximations to determine the Megapixel count. If consumers want to know image HxW ratio they can look it up in the review.

You might also consider a little finer breakdown of the Camera Type drop down, search categories - maybe super-compact, compact, compact super zoom, prosumer, DSLR.

And maybe add a column with the date of the camera's introduction.

Thanks for asking for some specific feedback. It's always a key component of incremental improvement of any site or process. Keep up the good work. :)

[Jaykumarr]

Jeff,
The reviews pages is cool, very compact, provides a lot of information. The color, look & feel are personal likes.

0)I would say you can substitute sensor information in lieu of battery type. It would be nice to see which is SuperCCD 1/1.7 or 1/2.5 rather than wondering if FinePix A100 is superCCD.

So I have a few suggestions for reviews:


1) Have slightly different and efficient display in page
(either anchor points, or 'windows folder' tree like headings that display review parts/paragraph after clicking in same page, ie. page should be small initially, but clicking headers make it grow in page length by opening the paragraph. A month after reading a review if i want to see night shot of specific camera, i will just click that header without breaking down others)

2) do slight comparison with similar camera ( you already do it implicitly, I agree), but a little more like : Lumix FZ5 is mostly a better camera than FZ20 unless you are not going to Manual focus or need one step faster lens in extreme end..or alike..

I thank you for, your reviews are making much more sense than other review sites that which dissect the camera and doing research on individual pieces but finally giving same conclusion as you do.

thanks for reading,
out of focus

[bascom]

5 - Battery type - delete.
7 - AF Assist - delete
9 - Storage media - delete, though might be useful for search criteria

Whoa. Those are 3 things I like to see. But I agree with some of your other points.

[Bruce McL]

I like the Camera Reviews & Info page and I think it works very well. I use it a lot.

Two categories I don't think I will ever use for searching are Resolution and AF-assist lamp. One quality I would like to search for is LCD tilt/flip.

As far a columns go, I'd like to see the Zoom Optical / Digital column replaced by 35mm equivalent of optical zoom, such as 28-280. I wouldn't miss the lack of digital zoom info. I'd also rather see the resolution in MP rather the max resolution in pixel x pixel form. But that's not a big deal.

Again, I think the current tool is very useful, thanks for that and keep up the good work.

-Bruce.

[Grapedog]

I know you can only review a handful of cameras each month, at best. Some camera makers are overstocking the shelves with near identical camera that have different model numbers. Especially now that the Canon's of the camera world are shelf stocking to get several models with nearly identical specs, do we really need a review for all of them?


Just to ensure democracy, I'd like to see more reviews that aren't Canon. How about a Casio, HP, or GE? How about a Nikon that ISNT a DSLR?

How about having an online poll for readers to select which camera you choose?




Look, if you review the others and they don't hold a candle to King C, then it will reinforce his dominion.

[Grapedog]

Do you realize that your camera hall of fame implies that the Oly E500 is the BEST DSLR of all time. It is the only DSLR on the list.

[rigelstuff]

1. ascending/descending filter
2. FL range in 35mm equiv
3. LCD resolution
4. max resolution in Mp instead of NNNN x nnnn
5. retain the battery type
6. add check box beside each model so "compare cameras" can be launched from the info table

Keep up the great work!

[Andy Baird]

I agree that it would be more useful to express resolution in megapixels. We're looking for quick information here, not details, and it's a lot easier to compare "8" with "10" than "3264 x 2448" with "3648 x 2736."

On the other hand, I'd like to see optical zoom expressed in 35mm-equivalent focal lengths as well as zoom ratio, thus: "35 - 140mm (4x)". We need the zoom ratio for quick comparisons, but it's also very useful to know how wide and how long the lens will go. I'd suggest dropping the current digital zoom number altogether. It's meaningless at best and misleading at worst--a waste of space.

With regard to sensor size, I'd like very much to see it shown... but PLEASE don't follow the idiotic and confusing industry practice of representing it as fractions with decimal denominators (1/2.3"). Give us millimeters (11mm, in the example just given). That will make comparisons easy, and readers will be much better served.

A "camera size" column would be useful, but I agree with Jeff that this would be very difficult to do in a small space if expressed as H x W x D, and labels like "compact" are too vague to be useful. As an alternative, how about weight? Larger cameras almost always weigh more, so the weight in grams or ounces would give a fairly good feeling for a camera's size as well as its heft.

I would appreciate a yes/no column for tilting/swiveling LCD.

With regard to a "max ISO" column, my feeling is that this number isn't very meaningful. Many cameras can go up to ISO 1,600 or higher nowadays, but the picture quality at higher ISO ratings is completely unacceptable. A manufacturer can claim high ISO ratings, but that doesn't mean they're actually usable. In short--too arbitrary; not worth including.

Andy Baird
http://www.andybaird.com/travels/

[PH81]

I only had a skim through the previous pages - hope I'm not repeating something. Anyway... I've found that with the resoultion search - you're stuck with the groups in the drop-down menu: ie 2-3 MP, 4-5 MP, 6-7 MP etc. What if you're not TOO fussy... and say, want anything from 4 MP and up - eg 4-12MP? Would be good if you could work around that so you could have more options. Hope this made sense :)

[Jeff Keller]

I appreciate your feedback! keep it coming!!

Jeff

[Phill D]

Jeff I just spent 20 minutes typing my thoughts & suggestions in here only for the site to crash as I hit the reply button. I've noticed it several times now recently it just seems to go very slow & die usually between 7:30 & 8:30 in the morning here in the UK. I suspect it is something local here but it's very odd that other sites are always fine at the time it happens. Anyway I've got to run now so will try to recreate my thoughts later they were all positive by the way.

[gwcrum13]

Reviews and info is not bad, as-is. I would like to see a shortcut to the photo gallery for each camera. If there is one, I missed it.

This is one of my most often visited photography sites and nothing sticks out as really annoying or difficult.

Jerry

[stickwolf]

Maybe add a swivel/tilt lcd column with the "answer" being swivel/tilt, swivel, tilt, n/a (or no).


Another emphatic vote for some rotating LCD column! But I think with the limited number of cameras that support this, it really should just be YES or NO. Anybody who cares about this feature should then be comfortable looking at each camera's details to see exactly how the adjustable LCD works.

Overall, too many of the suggestions here basically want all the important details of a review to be in the info list. Let's keep it simple, but being able to eliminate non-movable LCD cameras in a search would be majorly useful and appropriate to the way this page works.

-Aaron

[Andy Baird]

I agree with Aaron that the Reviews & Info table needs to stay simple: a minimalist summary of the most important points, rather than a comprehensive listing of features. I also agree that "yes/no" would be fine in the proposed LCD column. Call it "Movable LCD" and just use a bullet to indicate that it's hinged in some way.

There's one more column I'd very much like to see: manual features. Now, this could potentially get complicated, since there are so many parameters that can be controlled manually. After all, even point-and-shoot cameras generally allow manual control of exposure compensation and (usually) white balance. But when a serious photographer thinks about manual controls, s/he usually is thinking mainly of shutter speed, aperture and focus. In my experience, those three items are the ones that separate point-and-shoots from fully featured cameras. Generally, either you have all three, or you don't have any of them.

So how about a yes/no column for manual aperture/shutter/focus? That would give those of us who crave full control the information we need to narrow down our choices. In a pinch, I'd be willing to dispense with focus, if it turns out that some cameras with manual aperture and shutter controls lack manual focus.

Again, just one bullet would do the job... unless perhaps you wanted to call the column "Manual" and then show the information for each camera in the form "ASFW"--in other words, a camera with manual white balance would get a "W"; whereas a camera with manual shutter speed and aperture controls would get "ASW", or if it also had manual focus, "ASWF".

This scheme would give a little more detailed information. But personally, I'd be quite happy with just a single yes/no for manual aperture/shutter/focus combined. The presence or absence of those controls--especially the first two--is a key issue in my choice of a camera.

Andy Baird
http://www.andybaird.com/travels/

[Andy Baird]

I want to second Jerry's comment that "This is one of my most often visited photography sites and nothing sticks out as really annoying or difficult." Although I no longer participate in the discussions here (except this one!) due to other commitments, I constantly refer to DCRP's "Review & Info" table, because it's the best summary of what's on the market that I've found anywhere.

No other site presents the key information in such a clear, well-organized form. And to Jeff's credit, this site offers not only its own reviews, but links to other sites' reviews, so the reader can get a second opinion. I don't see other sites doing that, but it makes DCRP that much more valuable as the "go-to" place for information about cameras.

As a web designer and moderator of a Yahoo RVing discussion group, I have some idea of the constant, and sometimes intensive, labor that goes into keeping all this running. My hat is off to Jeff for the outstanding job he's done year after year. This is indeed one of the best organized and most useful sites on the web!

Andy Baird
http://www.andybaird.com/travels/

[hsnafshar]

As you know there are some features on DSLR are meaningless about nonDSLR camera such as Live view, focal length conversion ratio , battery grip, etc.
So I suggest two different table for each type in a single page .
Now my fields I suggest for DSLRs table:


Resolution (in megapixel e.g 10mp)
Image Stabilization
LCD Size & Resolution & if flip out
Live view
battery grip availability
Info LCD
Price

Also some details are not necessary to mention in DSLR table, for instance AF Lamp which all DSLR have it, or zoom.

For nonDSLR camera the current column is just good the only claim which others express is "Resolution " field .It should be better if values mark in MP (6mp for example).

Enough jabbering:confused:, at the end I have just one suggestion about this page? How would you think if the titles of the columns was movable as scrolling the page? It should be nice!:rolleyes:

Thanks

[Phill D]

Now it’s evening so I can try again. Basically many of my suggestions have been covered before but repetition at least serves to reinforce them.
The things I’d like to see in the list are;
Resolution in megapixels, zoom range (in 35mm equivalent), viewfinder (optical or electronic), weight (inc batteries), auto or manual settings, aperture range (min to max with focal length), shutter speed range, iso range, sensor size, lcd size (& if flip out), battery type, memory type, live view or not, link to review, price conversion to local currency (i.e. £ for me), image stabilisation Y/N, date of introduction (& date discontinued), a link to the gallery for each camera would be good too.

It would be nice if the column titles could be chosen to customise the list and also if each entry had a check box to tick to select cameras for user specific comparison. In that way people could compare older cameras directly to the new ones they are looking to buy. If such a customised comparison list could include sample gallery shots side by side from each camera as well that would be ideal. Something like the comparometer on another well know website but with less clicks required to make the comparisons.

I’m sure I typed more before but can’t think of anything else for now. Changing a good thing is always difficult but whatever you change Jeff please keep it simple to use.

[Jeff Keller]

Jeff I just spent 20 minutes typing my thoughts & suggestions in here only for the site to crash as I hit the reply button. I've noticed it several times now recently it just seems to go very slow & die usually between 7:30 & 8:30 in the morning here in the UK. I suspect it is something local here but it's very odd that other sites are always fine at the time it happens. Anyway I've got to run now so will try to recreate my thoughts later they were all positive by the way.
Yes, I know about that slowdown and nobody's been able to figure out what's going on. I'm going to start hassling my web host again to see if we can figure it out.

[anothersmurf]

Add columns for sensor size and viewfinder (optical/electronic/none). Sensor sizes being kind of confusing, a link to an image showing the relative sizes of the various sensor sizes would be very useful.

I agree with others that zoom range should be given in 35mm-equivalents (35-105 rather than very ambiguous 3x).

Battery type can go I think, if you'd like to save some space.

[photog]

A column for articulating LCD!

I note that this has been mentioned before but I submit the request again to reinforce how many photographers want this info listed. An articulating LCD (yes vs no) column would be very helpful. No other website has this feature to my knowledge. More details such as flip, swivel, etc are interesting but not as important as the # of cameras with this feature is incredibly small. I guess there isn't much demand for one? In my work, it is essential to have this feature.

thanks

[Jeff Keller]

Thanks all for the continuing feedback. While I don't plan on adding a rotating LCD column, I will be adding it as a field in the database, so you'll be able to search for it.

Also, a question. When using the camera search feature, would you want something like "4X or greater zoom", or "4X-6X zoom". Same goes for Megapixels... "5MP or greater" vs "5-6 MP"

Thanks!

[AlexMonro]

I think being able to search for a user defined range, or at least greater than a minimum, is a lot more useful than just preset ranges. If I'm looking for a camera with at least 5x zoom, I don't want to faff about doing multiple searches for 5-6x, 6-7x, 7-8x, 8-10x, 10-12x,... 18-20x etc.

[Beowulff]

Megapixels I'd prefer to see as (say):

5MP
6+MP
9+MP
12+MP
15+MP

And for zoom:

3x
4x—6x
7x—10x
12x — 15x
18x

I also agree with your choice not to add a "rotating LCD" column to the table Jeff, as there's really only two possibilities - yes or no - and for most people it won't be a dealbreaker anyway IMHO.

Whereas both resolution and zoom are prime considerations for anyone's choice of camera.

And thanks again for involving us, the forum members, in these decisions, as it can only improve what's already (in my opinion) the best camera review site out there.


Cheers :)

[bascom]

The DPreview specs have some items not found on the DCresource R & I, like the LCD resolution, and all the possible MP resolution values of a camera (600 x 1200, 2048 x 1536, and so on). Would it be possible to add those to R & I? I'm more interested in LCD resolution. The MP resolutions may be too much clutter and work. Expressing MP values (2mp, 3mp, etc.) instead of resolutions may be better. Also, a numerical or qualitative rating of each camera reviewed may be nice like DPreview has.


Also, a question. When using the camera search feature, would you want something like "4X or greater zoom", or "4X-6X zoom". Same goes for Megapixels... "5MP or greater" vs "5-6 MP"

Both search methods have their advantage. Would it be possible to make a search where the user could choose both the Start and End values of the range (min and max values)? That is, one user wants a list of cameras between 5mp and 8mp. Now list the cameras between 4x and 6x zoom. Meanwhile, another user could say list the cameras between 6 and 7mp. Now list the cameras between 6x and 12x zoom. If this isn't possible then I'd vote for a static range something like this:

3 MP or less
4-5 MP
6-8 MP
9-11 MP
12 MP or more

And for zoom:
0x--2x
3x--4x
5x—7x
8x—12x
13x or more

[Jeff Keller]

The DPreview specs have some items not found on the DCresource R & I, like the LCD resolution, and all the possible MP resolution values of a camera (600 x 1200, 2048 x 1536, and so on). Would it be possible to add those to R & I? I'm more interested in LCD resolution. The MP resolutions may be too much clutter and work. Expressing MP values (2mp, 3mp, etc.) instead of resolutions may be better. Also, a numerical or qualitative rating of each camera reviewed may be nice like DPreview has.


Last night I added a number of new fields to the R&I database, though most won't notice them yet. They include LCD resolution, LCD position (e.g. fixed, rotating, tilting), and battery life.

[Hajojunge]

A column containing the minimum focal length would be helpful. Some or many people prefer cameras with wide angle lenses, for example 28 mm (35 mm equiv.), and the max. tele isn't too important. Most compact cameras cannot use conversion lenses (except Canon Powershot A-Series) to make wide angle shots.
-- I'm waiting impatiently for a test of the Panasonic DMC-TZ5! In Germany it will be available end of March (I hope so).
Greetings from Berlin (+12°C, cloudy), Hajo

[Hajojunge]

...something went terribly wrong. The first time I tried to reply, your system told me that I'm not allowed to make a post, although I was logged in. So I made some changes and tried it once again. Now you find two posts from me. Sorry, that wasn't my intend.
Best regards Hajo:rolleyes:

[WD-40]

Would it be possible to make a search where the user could choose both the Start and End values of the range (min and max values)? That is, one user wants a list of cameras between 5mp and 8mp. Now list the cameras between 4x and 6x zoom. Meanwhile, another user could say list the cameras between 6 and 7mp. Now list the cameras between 6x and 12x zoom.

I would agree - this sounds like the best approach. Consumers are already used to this sort of interface- Ebay uses it for many fields, as do many other shopping sites with ranges to filter.

Also, if the min and max columns both contained "0" or "None" as options, it would finally be able to search for cameras with prime lenses. :)

[Marco Ricca]

As DSRL became more popular I think lenses reviews and comparations are very important. Peraps you could add a new column for the news lenses and comparation with old but still usable ones.
Marco Ricca

[Jeff Keller]

Hello all,

Here is a beta version of the new Reviews & Info table. There's no search yet, but I'll add that soon.

What do you think?

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/reviews2.php

Thanks,
Jeff

[cdifoto]

Looks good to me. I like how it takes more of the page too.

[WD-40]

Jeff-
It looks good, and importantly - still looks simple.


A few questions:

1) Does the 'Focal Range' section include Digital Zoom? I noticed that the Ricoh GR Digital II is listed as just '28mm', but the Sigma DP1 is listed as '28 - 140 mm'...

2) For the 'Image Stabilization' section, instead of 'Yes/No', could this section say 'Optical/Electronic/None'?

3) Next to the 'LCD Size', could there be an extra designation, perhaps '-T' or something simple like that, to designate cameras with a tilt/swivel?


Keep up the good work.
- David

[Jeff Keller]

1) is an error. no, digital zoom shouldn't be there

2) i don't consider electronic IS "real IS", so it doesn't go into the database at all. those cameras will say "none"

3) I don't see that happeneing, though you will be able to search for it.


Jeff-
It looks good, and importantly - still looks simple.


A few questions:

1) Does the 'Focal Range' section include Digital Zoom? I noticed that the Ricoh GR Digital II is listed as just '28mm', but the Sigma DP1 is listed as '28 - 140 mm'...

2) For the 'Image Stabilization' section, instead of 'Yes/No', could this section say 'Optical/Electronic/None'?

3) Next to the 'LCD Size', could there be an extra designation, perhaps '-T' or something simple like that, to designate cameras with a tilt/swivel?


Keep up the good work.
- David

[rawpaw18]

It looks good Jeff, great info right on the page to help in camera selection.

[bascom]

I know some people feel just the opposite of me, but most of the changes on the beta version look bad to me. I prefer it with zoom expressed as an X factor rather than focal range. And does that mean we won't be able to search by zoom anymore? That seems like a terrible move. Also, the battery type and AF lamp are important to me so I'm disappointed you removed then. VF type is nice but I wonder if it's needed. The camera name seemed fine with a wrap-around column like it was before instead of a big long column. Or you could make the column shorter by just listing the make and model instead of the full name, ie, Canon SD950 instead of "Canon powershot SD950 IS digital Elph".

I like the max resolution as an MP value, and the removal of digital zoom. Overall, the current R & I is better than the new beta. Perhaps I am in the minority but that's my opinion.

[Andy Baird]

The new version looks very good. Only a couple of minor suggestions:

1. I think it's really helpful to see both the focal lengths and the zoom ratio. If you're concerned about table width (though the new version is actually narrower than the current version), how about reformatting slightly? Instead of

38 - 114 mm

...try

38-114 (3x)

No wider, but much more informative. This way readers get the vital information both ways at a glance, instead of having to do math in their heads to see whether a given lens is a 3x or 4x zoom. If you want to be elegant, use an en dash (–) in the focal length range.

2. For yes/no columns like image stabilization, I'd suggest instead using blank for "no" and a bullet for "yes." It's much easier to see at a glance which lines have bullets than to read each "yes" or "no" individually. From a user-interface standpoint, it's always best to make binary choices as visually distinct as possible. (This would also reduce that column's width.)

One more thought: it might make the table a little easier to scan if there were a horizontal rule between manufacturer sections. Not a big deal, but I think it would improve readability a bit.

Finally, I think the electronic-vs.-optical viewfinder column is a big plus! Because people feel strongly about this issue, that information is very helpful.

Thanks for working to make a great resource even better!

Andy Baird
http://www.andybaird.com/travels/

[anothersmurf]

The changes in your beta version look very good.

[Jeff Keller]

Okay everyone, I've updated the beta version yet again... let me know your feedback!

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/reviews2.php

[Andy Baird]

Looks like a winner to me! :-)

Andy Baird
http://www.andybaird.com/travels/

[Beowulff]

Looking pretty good Jeff.

My only (very personal) concern is that the Media Storage column seems a bit "overloaded".

In my humble opinion, the storage format is a relatively minor consideration in the purchase of a camera. If I'm gonna be spending $500 on a new camera, I don't mind spending an extra $20 for a new SD card if I've only got an XD card (for example).

I do understand that we've gotta reach a consensus on the data table though, so I'm gonna say that I'm quite happy with your latest incarnation. Otherwise, we could be debating this until the cows come home. :p

Cheers, and thanks again.

[hombregrande10]

I would like to see you give the focal lengths in the exif data on test shots in 35mm equivalents.

[guywithagmailaddress]

Some things I'd love to see:

Sorting by any column (name, megapixel count, LCD size, price, etc.)
The use of multiple-selection drop-down boxes that will allow you to choose more than one option at a time. For example, the Price drop-down box should allow you to pick "Under $200" and "$200-$400" simultaneously, for a combined range of $0-$400.

This would be easier than having to redo the search over and over with just one changed parameter each time.
A better price list. If Pricegrabber doesn't have something, there's always Froogle, Amazon, or even the MSRP.
Release date should be included in the chart.
Burst speed / max # of bursts should be in the chart.
As newer, fancier camera features come out, they should be included either in the "Features" checkbox group or in a separate "notes" field that's visible from the main search results page.

Specifically, I'd like to be able to search for cameras that have:

Tilting LCD screens
Live View LCDs
Ruggedized/waterproof bodies
Non-standard aspect ratios (like 16:9 widescreen)
Full frame sensors
Dust reduction systems


For example, it is currently quite difficult to find a good list of cameras that have tilting LCD screens. Google results give the usual junk, and other camera sites force you to basically look through every review and search for these features manually. DCRP is in a almost unique position to be able to provide this capability; all the information is in the reviews already and somebody just has to go through them and tag the appropriate features in the database.

[Jeff Keller]

Okay people, have a look at this:

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/reviews3.php

The ability to search has returned, with some new fields. I'm hoping that some of you can help me nail down any cameras with tilting/rotating LCDs that I may have missed. If you notice one, post here or e-mail me!

Thanks,

[WD-40]

Now we're talking!

One comment- The selection for battery type is either "AA" or "Proprietary"... but what about cameras that take AAA batteries? Could the selection say "AA or AAA", to include these as well?

- David

[pas49ras]

Now we're talking!

One comment- The selection for battery type is either "AA" or "Proprietary"... but what about cameras that take AAA batteries? Could the selection say "AA or AAA", to include these as well?

- David

I don't think there are any cameras on the market that use AAA batteries, I could be wrong.

[Jeff Keller]

I don't think there are any cameras on the market that use AAA batteries, I could be wrong.

The Ricoh GR Digital can use them as an emergency backup, but that's about it these days.

[Jeff Keller]

I want to thank everyone who participated in this thread for their suggestions. I hope everyone finds the reviews R&I page more useful.

If you have further suggestions or bug reports, please post them here!

Thanks,
Jeff

[guywithagmailaddress]

Thanks for the update, Jeff :) It's lookin' good.

Forgive me for being too lazy to browse through all 7 past pages, but did you ever get a chance to consider other suggestions like sorting, release dates, etc.? Maybe I missed discussions about them earlier?

[Jeff Keller]

Thanks for the update, Jeff :) It's lookin' good.

Forgive me for being too lazy to browse through all 7 past pages, but did you ever get a chance to consider other suggestions like sorting, release dates, etc.? Maybe I missed discussions about them earlier?

I saw the suggestions... sorting may come at some point in the future. I don't really have room for more columns, and release date isn't one that I think most people would want there.

[Phill D]

Yes much better Jeff. I can wait for more sorting & filtering options.
One point the 8-10 megapixel filter seems to miss the Sony 10MP cameras out & the 11 & up filter seems to include 10MP cameras. It might be better to have an 8-11 option & include all those just over 10 in that list such as the XTi etc and also have the other option to be 10MP & over. A slight overlap but it seems it would provide better comparative lists. Actiually looking again I think the 11 & over does include the 10MP cameras so I guess that is what you were trying to do.

[1001noisycameras]

Nice table! I like the one-line-per-camera compact design!

One suggestion is perhaps to add some more of the current cameras in the Popular page. I know there is the complete table as well, but cameras such as the Nikon D200, Canon 30D, Sony A100, may not be the latest models, but they are still available at the major retailers, and their falling prices make them "bang for the buck" candidates, and thus of interest to some readers and potential buyers.

I also agree with some of the other posters on sensor-size. Perhaps blending the megapixel number with the sensor size? eg 10mp 1/2.33". Assuming the sensor size format does not create logistical/technical issues on the computer-end.

The removal of digital zoom was great :-)

The extra search features are also nice.

On Image Stabilizer, perhaps the distinction between optical (lens), mechanical (sensor-shift), and ... marketing (adjusting ISO, shutter speed or other "electronic' approaches) :-)

[Jeff Keller]

Yes much better Jeff. I can wait for more sorting & filtering options.
One point the 8-10 megapixel filter seems to miss the Sony 10MP cameras out & the 11 & up filter seems to include 10MP cameras. It might be better to have an 8-11 option & include all those just over 10 in that list such as the XTi etc and also have the other option to be 10MP & over. A slight overlap but it seems it would provide better comparative lists. Actiually looking again I think the 11 & over does include the 10MP cameras so I guess that is what you were trying to do.
Ugh, this was a problem I didn't expect. I've made things a bit better, but there are still some cameras (with usual sensor sizes) that are messing things up. Not sure what I can do about that :(

[Phill D]

Seems Ok to me Jeff, with a quick try I obviously didn't notice the odd ones. The XT & XTi are still excluded from the 8-10 Mp range where they would be a natural comparison but then strictly at 10.1 Mp they should be excluded so I'm sure we can live with that.

[djdylan2000]

CCD/CMOS size would be useful. Bigger the sensor, usually less noise and better DR. Wouldn't like a 8MP with 1/2.5" sensor.
Also custom White balance would be good.
And maybe even Face Detection, shutter lag, etc.

[Jeff Keller]

Seems Ok to me Jeff, with a quick try I obviously didn't notice the odd ones. The XT & XTi are still excluded from the 8-10 Mp range where they would be a natural comparison but then strictly at 10.1 Mp they should be excluded so I'm sure we can live with that.

I'm going to keep pounding away on this one... there may be a better way.

Also, what columns are people most interested in sorting? And why? :o

[guywithagmailaddress]

Also, what columns are people most interested in sorting? And why? :o
Well, zoom/focal range would be two obvious choices (for finding the longest telephotos or the widest lenses). Price would be another big one, especially if we can get a better list*. Resolution (megapixel count) might be a third, but I think sensor sizes -- if they're ever implemented -- would be more useful.

*If Pricegrabber doesn't have the price for a certain model, could we maybe see the prices from Froogle or perhaps just the MSRP (included in the reviews already)?

[guywithagmailaddress]

I saw the suggestions... sorting may come at some point in the future. I don't really have room for more columns, and release date isn't one that I think most people would want there.
That's understandable (about lacking room for more columns). What about just having more searchable features that don't generate additional columns, the way "AF-assist lamp" and "External Flash" are currently implemented? I still think it'd be great to be able to find cameras with certain difficult-to-search for features like LiveView, high-quality/long-duration movie recording, full frame sensors, etc. -- or, especially, a specific combination of them.

Other sites like DPReview and CNet have similar search functions right now, but none of them go far enough. Short of extensive Googling or asking a human expert at a forum, I don't think there's currently a good way (and certainly not an easy way) to search for cameras that match a certain set of detailed criteria. I know I've had several "if only!" moments when browsing through the DCRP database when I wanted to find a new camera, but maybe I'm the only one? I could just be exceptionally picky :)

[Jeff Keller]

*If Pricegrabber doesn't have the price for a certain model, could we maybe see the prices from Froogle or perhaps just the MSRP (included in the reviews already)?

Don't think my contract with PG would permit linking to anyone else for pricing info...

[Jeff Keller]

Pleased to report that the resolution search now works properly. I'm also rounding the Megapixel column to whole numbers, so there won't be any "6 Megapixel" cameras showing up as 5.9 MP in the table.

[Phill D]

Yep it seems to work fine now well done Jeff.

[bascom]

It looks nice but may take a while to get used to the change. I like having both a search able X zoom factor and the 35mm values.

[IEBA]

I agree with jlbz "I've often also wanted to search on movie characteristics: maximum size/frame rate, and also encoding (mjpeg vs. mp4, for instance)." because there are many times I don't want to take two cameras on short trips, but want to shoot a little video of fish swimming, the baby walking, etc. I've used my Canon S2 IS as my only camera because of the stereo sound, 30 fps, 640x480 image, and finished trips with more than 8 gigs of data recorded (stills & video).

Now that _some_ cameras can do 720p HD, and maybe some may start offering 1080p24 HD, I'd love to be able to look for a new point-n-shoot with decent video capability. Or... narrow the search to a few models and then read their reviews to find out how they did with stills, look at the movie quality, etc.

So definitely movie capability, record format/length of high-quality movie. Some are limited to a certain time, others will fill the card. That's an important distinction.

And I still would like to search for cameras that can have an internal intervalometer. My Canon S2 IS has this, and I use this to capture clouds passing, home construction projects, etc.... BUT (and it's a big BUT) it's limited to 90 minutes. After 90 minutes, it just stops taking pictures. So every hour or so I have to go out, turn the camera off, turn it back on, restart the intervalometer, and somehow not shift the image an inch, or change the exposure. GOOD LUCK!

Far more useful would be one that just kept taking pictures until the battery died. The Canon turns itself off between images so that could be several days, if the Canon could do that.

[IEBA]

Another note, someone else noted the "media" section is a bit cumbersome. I agree.
For instance, "SD, SDHC, MMC+, MMC"
So I ask, how many SDHC slots aren't SD?
How many MMC+ aren't MMC?

My premise being the higher standard includes (and is backward compatible with) the earlier standard. So there's really no reason to list both except for those who don't have a clue- and those can be taken care of with a little "MEDIA(1)" at the bottom of the page that explains how SDHC includes SD.

Also, maybe it's just me, but I've never seen a MMC. I know SD and MMC are not the same exact thing, but I've never walked into an electronics store and seen a rack of MMC cards, but SD cards are everywhere, even the corner pharmacy store. Do we need to keep including MMC if MMC and SD are supposed to be cross compatible and it's very hard to even find a MMC?

Anthony Burokas
http://TechThoughts.org

[IEBA]

Other comments:
"I agree with others that zoom range should be given in 35mm-equivalents (35-105 rather than very ambiguous 3x)."

OTOH, when I last looked for a new camera, zoom range was critical to me. We both has 3x and it was pointless to try and take wildlife photography with a 3x. I absolutely needed 10x or greater. I got the Canon S2 IS which has been phenomenal. The 35mm numbers only matter to me if I was searching for the "widest" lens, but it's the zoom range that counts after that. So maybe widest (in 35mm terms) and then range... so 30mm/12x.

"I also agree with your choice not to add a "rotating LCD" column to the table Jeff, as there's really only two possibilities - yes or no - and for most people it won't be a dealbreaker anyway IMHO."

Most, maybe, but that was critical feature #2 when I picked my Canon S2 IS. Overhead shots, low from the ground, camera against the far wall, see myself while posing in a self-timed shot, and more. The rotating LCD is absolutely a dealbreaker and I would not buy another "good" camera without it. Also, tilt AND swivel is vastly different than the LCDs on the back of some DSLRs that tilts a few degrees up and down. IMHO, those don't even count.

I do have a slim point-n-shoot that lacks a tilt & swivel LCD- but that has one critical feature not found elsewhere- the ability to shoot underwater. So, in that case, the Olympus' 3x zoom, and fixed LCD were accepted because the waterproof, shockproof capabilities were needed more- for _that_ camera.

Otherwise, tilt/swivel is an absolute requirement. I fear that I will be forced to replace the S2 IS- and when I do, it will be because I wore out the tilt-swivel mechanism.

Lastly, Battery type... picking an AA-based camera has saved me twice, in Hawaii and Germany. The charged batteries ran dry in Hawaii and Alkalines finished the day, In Germany, I found I brought the wrong charger adapter. Till we could get out and buy the right one, AA's kept the camera snapping.

Anthony Burokas
http://TechThoughts.org

[bascom]

I'm amazed at the number of newbies with 20 or fewer total posts who are chiming in on this. If digicams and R & I are that important to you, why haven't you been participating in the forums more?

[Jeff Keller]

I'm amazed at the number of newbies with 20 or fewer total posts who are chiming in on this. If digicams and R & I are that important to you, why haven't you been participating in the forums more?

I don't have any issue with first timers coming in. That's part of the reason why I had the link on the homepage to this thread -- to get the opinions of people who aren't the "frequent visitor" type.

[AlexMonro]

Other comments:
"I agree with others that zoom range should be given in 35mm-equivalents (35-105 rather than very ambiguous 3x)."

OTOH, when I last looked for a new camera, zoom range was critical to me. We both has 3x and it was pointless to try and take wildlife photography with a 3x. I absolutely needed 10x or greater. I got the Canon S2 IS which has been phenomenal. The 35mm numbers only matter to me if I was searching for the "widest" lens, but it's the zoom range that counts after that. So maybe widest (in 35mm terms) and then range... so 30mm/12x.
http://TechThoughts.org

But that's just making it more confusing - mixing terminology. What's wrong with the complete, accurate, and informative "30-360mm (35mm equiv.)"?

With your suggestion, if I was interested in the telephoto end, e.g. for wildlife, I'd have to multiply the 30mm by 12 in my head to get the tele focal length.

So which is longer (without using a calculator) 32mm/6x or 28mm/7x?

[bauerman]

I'm amazed at the number of newbies with 20 or fewer total posts who are chiming in on this. If digicams and R & I are that important to you, why haven't you been participating in the forums more?

Post count means zilch when it comes to usable feedback on any number of issues with regards to this site or any other.

The best and most helpful members of this (or any other forum for that matter) probably have not even joined it yet.

[Beowulff]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here?


I'm amazed at the number of newbies with 20 or fewer total posts who are chiming in on this. If digicams and R & I are that important to you, why haven't you been participating in the forums more?

Does one have to post some arbitrarily set number of posts before one is "allowed" to voice an opinion about the site? Why 20 posts? Why any posts at all?

Or is this some sort of thinly veiled snobbery — only those in "The Clique" are permitted an opinion? Not really relevant bascom — sorry.

Cheers :)

[bascom]

"Does one have to post some arbitrarily set number of posts before one is "allowed" to voice an opinion about the site? Why 20 posts?"

No that's not what I was getting at all. I meant just what I said and nothing more. I'm surprised at the big response on this from people with so few posts. If R & I and digicams mean that much to them, I'm surprised they don't participate in the other forums more. Yes they had some good points and their opinions would be useful in the other forums, too.

Likewise, I was surprised at how few of the regular posters participated in this discussion. I would have expected they would have had a lot of opinions on R & I.

I see no snobbery in either of these statements. I'm just making casual observations.

[bauerman]

R&I and/or other digicam info can mean a lot to someone that neither has the time nor the inclination to spend large amounts of time on an internet-based photography forum (and to be honest they are probably the better for it).

It's not that they don't care about this part or other parts of the forum/hobby - they just choose to spend their time elsewhere. Probably shooting with their equipment rather than talking about their equipment. Something that we all should probably do more of...

[Margus]

The changed Reviews & Info page is clearly better than the previous version. But there seems to be a bug in the zoom range filter - users will miss the cameras with optical zoom falling between available ranges. E.g. you cannot see Fuji Finepix S100fs with 14.3x zoom in the list of cameras of range 10-14x neither is it present in the range 15x and above.

[tim11]

I have a suggestion on REVIEW & INFO page.
Whenever I'd like to check some older cameras and click on Please click here (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php?listall=1&start=0) (on You are currently viewing the most popular cameras on the site. Please click here to see all the cameras in our database (more than 1200)), it will take forever to get to the desired cameras. Can links be made to AGFA, CANON, PANASONIC; FUJI; etc, so there is no need to click 10 or 20 pages? Or at least make it A - Z, so to find FUJI you only have to click F and cut down browsing time. Thanks.

[Margus]

I have a suggestion on REVIEW & INFO page.
Whenever I'd like to check some older cameras and click on Please click here (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php?listall=1&start=0) (on You are currently viewing the most popular cameras on the site. Please click here to see all the cameras in our database (more than 1200)), it will take forever to get to the desired cameras. Can links be made to AGFA, CANON, PANASONIC; FUJI; etc, so there is no need to click 10 or 20 pages? Or at least make it A - Z, so to find FUJI you only have to click F and cut down browsing time. Thanks.

Tim,
It seems to me that selecting the desired manufacturer and checking the option "Show discontinued models" will do the job. Hope the answer helped :)

[tim11]

Tim,
It seems to me that selecting the desired manufacturer and checking the option "Show discontinued models" will do the job. Hope the answer helped :)
Hmm......... okay Jeff. Forget what I typed above then.
Thanks Margus.

[IEBA]

J. Keller wrote: "That's part of the reason why I had the link on the homepage to this thread -- to get the opinions of people who aren't the "frequent visitor" type."

Actually, I am a fairly frequent visitor. I don't buy still cameras every month, so I peruse the site from time to time to keep up on new technology (like facial detection) and then I really use the site hard when I have to replace a camera. Usually every year or two.

I had previously e-mailed asking for the capability to search via movie mode, and intervalometer capability. When the opportunity was provided to publish it in a forum, I did.


AlexMonroe: "So which is longer (without using a calculator) 32mm/6x or 28mm/7x?"

3x6=18. 2x7=14. So, after 3 seconds of mental calculations, I'll guess the former. But your question has a critical flaw.
Nobody who really needs a long zoom is going to be choosing between a 6x or a 7x camera. They'll be looking at certain models and need to know if it's 3x, 4x, or 12x. Those who want a camera for taking family pictures in the house, at parties, etc, need the wide lens, so the X isn't as important as the widest angle- given in 35mm terms.

I suspect that nobody will be looking at the stats thinking that camera X only goes to 136mm and not 142mm so I'm not going to buy it. Nobody searches by the second mm figure (in the zoom range) alone. There's a few cameras with big reach, big zooms. Otherwise, the big differentiating factor is how wide it can get. So my two cameras would be listed as:
38mm/3x
36mm/12x
Without using a calculator, you can see which one is wider, and which one is longer.


Bascom: "I'm amazed at the number of newbies with 20 or fewer total posts who are chiming in on this. If digicams and R & I are that important to you, why haven't you been participating in the forums more?"

As a senior member, I feel your question deserves an answer.

I don't participate in photography forums because I'm a professional videographer (http://IEBA.com). I have a video production blog (http://techthoughts.org/) I write and manage. I write for EventDV magazine (http://www.eventdv.net/Search/Default.aspx?Query=burokas), DV magazine (http://www.dv.com/index.php), and elsewhere. I'm actively involved in television production (http://flavorsofamerica.com/) so my forte is not digital cameras or photography.

However, when the opportunity came up to request features that matter to me (and two are video-related, by the way) that's when I chose to post. I'd love to be able to add more "video" points of view with a few comparatively inexpensive digital still cameras. I love condensing time with time lapse photography (have you seen Planet Earth? I love that stuff.) So I asked the camera review site I respect most to help make it easier for me to find cameras with the features I am currently looking for. Given how consumer electronics in general is integrating more features into one item, I'm sure I'm not alone.

And, with respect to HD video- more and more digital still cameras are adding it, so to continue to omit it from searchable specifications is missing a growing trend.

Lastly, when I look at my own posts, I see I am a junior member because of the few posts I have made. But you have to wonder the actual count when, in this thread alone, post #85, post #86, and post #87 are each mine, and on each of them, it says I have made three posts.

Anthony Burokas
http://IEBA.com

[Beowulff]

Lastly, when I look at my own posts, I see I am a junior member because of the few posts I have made. But you have to wonder the actual count when, in this thread alone, post #85, post #86, and post #87 are each mine, and on each of them, it says I have made three posts.

Easy answer Anthony.....

That's because you've only made three posts (until this one which is your fourth). The post count is a progressive aggregate, and changes each time you make a new post, so posts #85, #86 and #87 would show the same count.

Cheers :)