PDA

View Full Version : Magazine reviews ... your opinions



Bluedog
05-26-2005, 12:29 PM
I picked up the June issue of Popular Photography today and they did their review of the 350D/XT. What I found to be quite the opposite is where they claim the ISO 1600 results being "unacceptable". So where do they come up with this conclusion? I've taken some very good quality ISO 1600 shots even using a mediocre lens. From what I've seen the results are fairly in line with the 20D.

There are actually people that will use this type of info in their buying decision ... :rolleyes:

Rhys
05-26-2005, 12:45 PM
I picked up the June issue of Popular Photography today and they did their review of the 350D/XT. What I found to be quite the opposite is where they claim the ISO 1600 results being "unacceptable". So where do they come up with this conclusion? I've taken some very good quality ISO 1600 shots even using a mediocre lens. From what I've seen the results are fairly in line with the 20D.

There are actually people that will use this type of info in their buying decision ... :rolleyes:

I gave up buying magazines because their reviews were very largely written with the camera remaining sight unseen. I also found that the technical accuracy of the articles was not without question as was the style of debatable taste. This is what's happened with British magazines anyway. And as far as I can see, they all stopped living up to their cover price about 10 years ago.

TheObiJuan
05-26-2005, 12:59 PM
what I like is their 2-3 page article and 75 pages of advertisements! :rolleyes:

What a freakin' rip off.

Bluedog
05-26-2005, 01:36 PM
what I like is their 2-3 page article and 75 pages of advertisements! :rolleyes:

What a freakin' rip off.

True dat ... I only got it for reading on the airplane this Saturday.

D70FAN
05-26-2005, 01:48 PM
I picked up the June issue of Popular Photography today and they did their review of the 350D/XT. What I found to be quite the opposite is where they claim the ISO 1600 results being "unacceptable". So where do they come up with this conclusion? I've taken some very good quality ISO 1600 shots even using a mediocre lens. From what I've seen the results are fairly in line with the 20D.

There are actually people that will use this type of info in their buying decision ... :rolleyes:

Let's see. The last time I read PopPhoto was...uh...geez that long ago? I have to agree with Juan on the add-saturation as well. Plus it does seem that they are still yearning for the film days.

Rex914
05-26-2005, 02:09 PM
Is this a free magazine or a pay one? A lot of print publications are struggling to profit because it's sadly so much cheaper to go to production online than it is to print. I know this from first hand experience...

sarcazmo
05-27-2005, 11:29 PM
I bought the magazine and read the 350 article.

What I found funny is how they compared it to the 20D. They basically said it was an alright camera, but people would be better off spending the extra dough on the 20D...

Bluedog
05-28-2005, 04:17 AM
I bought the magazine and read the 350 article.

What I found funny is how they compared it to the 20D. ...

Maybe they think us 350D/XT should stick to buying Coloring Books instead their bogus writing ... :D

Warin
05-28-2005, 10:13 AM
What I find amusing is that 350D owners would likely be crowing about how great their camera is if the reveiw had been glowingly positive :) Every reveiwer has some sort of bias, and it will come through in their reviews, and online review sites are no less prone to this (sample photos with a top of the line Canon lens instead of the kit lens?)

I do agree that the print media is starting to be marginalized, at least as far as magazines go. I still like having a magazine that I can pack around and read where online reviews are not practical... but i buy very few magazines anymore.

Rhys
05-28-2005, 10:21 AM
What I find amusing is that 350D owners would likely be crowing about how great their camera is if the reveiw had been glowingly positive :) Every reveiwer has some sort of bias, and it will come through in their reviews, and online review sites are no less prone to this (sample photos with a top of the line Canon lens instead of the kit lens?)

I do agree that the print media is starting to be marginalized, at least as far as magazines go. I still like having a magazine that I can pack around and read where online reviews are not practical... but i buy very few magazines anymore.

If I buy a magazine or a newspaper to read while travelling, I prefer to get the "handbag" size edition. The women's magazines came out with that size a while ago. Now other publications are taking it up. It's pretty much a half-sized magazine. Some photos are reduced in size but mostly it's just spread over a few more pages.

Norm in Fujino
05-29-2005, 08:25 AM
There are actually people that will use this type of info in their buying decision ... :rolleyes:

Well, there you go. Just like people will take the common appraisal of high-ISO performance to be end-all criterion for the Oly E-300. It all depends on what you're looking for. Different strokes . . .

jeisner
05-29-2005, 05:35 PM
(sample photos with a top of the line Canon lens instead of the kit lens?)

This is becoming the norm I think for a few review sites (edit: that is using the kit lens for other manufacturers review samples but not for canon).... It is sad as most novice photographers (first time DSLR owners) start off with the kit lens and will not see the same results, and often may not notice the bait and switch tactic. :(

Rhys
05-29-2005, 07:24 PM
Personally, I'm wondering whether the "kit" lens isn't the same as putting a tiny packet of washing powder with a washing machine and saying "comes supplied with a full packet of washing powder". From the photos I've seen taken with the kit lens and photos taken with better lenses, I don't see much point in buying any of the kit lenses. For those unable to afford Canon L glass, independent manufacturers supply a better alternative than the cheapo Canon lenses (which seem marginally better than taking a photo through the bottom of a coke bottle) that doesn't quite match the quality of the L glass. As far as I've seen, Nikon follows the same route which is why, having amassed very high-quality and expensive Nikkor lenses, I am extremely annoyed that they are not supported by the D50/70/100 but are by the D1, D2 etc. If it's not possible to support them for the same reason that the EOS system can't support FD lenses then fair enough. Not to support them in an attempt to squeeze more money out of photographers that bought into the high-quality MF system in order to force them to buy the D1/D2 is, in my opinion, despicable practice by Nikon. For the money I'd spend on a D1/D2, I can buy two XTs and several lenses and I'd still be ahead of the D1/D2.

I'm more in favour of buying cameras and lenses absolutely separately.

TheObiJuan
05-29-2005, 10:19 PM
The kit lens ain't too bad. It is about as good as most consumer lenses, exluding the xr di tamron's, and EX sigma's. And even then, some ex sigma's aren't great. I have seen some excellent images out of the kit lens, but they don't pop or yell, wow, out of the camera, they need post processing to bring it up. Oh well, its not a big deal really, unless you can't edit your photos.

D70FAN
05-30-2005, 09:08 AM
The kit lens ain't too bad. It is about as good as most consumer lenses, exluding the xr di tamron's, and EX sigma's. And even then, some ex sigma's aren't great. I have seen some excellent images out of the kit lens, but they don't pop or yell, wow, out of the camera, they need post processing to bring it up. Oh well, its not a big deal really, unless you can't edit your photos.

Juan, I think the point was that reviewers seem to be side-stepping the kit lens and using L glass in their reviews. I can't remember any other "kit"lens being panned for poor performance to the point of reveiwers actually using a different lens for review purposes.

Nuff said.

Warin
05-30-2005, 12:40 PM
No one seems to slag the AFS 18-70DX that comes with the D70. And the difference in lenses accounts for virtually all of the price difference between the Rebel XT kit and the D70s kit.

I think it is a matter of being crystal clear when swapping lenses within a review. And if you are going to use the L lens from Canon, other reviews should be accompanied by sample images taken with an equivalently priced lens from other manufactures. It is ok to have personal bias, but when reviewing I think it is imperative that as little bias as possible leaks into the reviews. I think this is a problem across the board, so I am not pointing fingers at anyone in particular.

TheObiJuan
05-30-2005, 02:10 PM
Juan, I think the point was that reviewers seem to be side-stepping the kit lens and using L glass in their reviews. I can't remember any other "kit"lens being panned for poor performance to the point of reveiwers actually using a different lens for review purposes.

Nuff said.

This is silly. Canon sends the lenses they want, Nikon or other manufacturers could do it too. They choose not to, that is their fault. The canon dslr reviews state which lens is used with which pictures, so why is there any confussion? There is no bait and switch, unless you are susceptible to the trickery of lens labeling and lens declaration. :rolleyes:

Jeff also utilizes his own lenses when he can, its not his fault he has an L lens. :cool:

What gets me is that people complain about the lens issue when really there are many problems visible about certain sensors (!) that just get shrugged off. :confused:

When buying a digital camera the review is testing the camera and the sensor, not the OPTIONAL lens. The lens is optional for those that have lenses already or want to maximize their sensor's potential!

TheObiJuan
05-30-2005, 02:12 PM
No one seems to slag the AFS 18-70DX that comes with the D70. And the difference in lenses accounts for virtually all of the price difference between the Rebel XT kit and the D70s kit.

I think it is a matter of being crystal clear when swapping lenses within a review. And if you are going to use the L lens from Canon, other reviews should be accompanied by sample images taken with an equivalently priced lens from other manufactures. It is ok to have personal bias, but when reviewing I think it is imperative that as little bias as possible leaks into the reviews. I think this is a problem across the board, so I am not pointing fingers at anyone in particular.


Yeah, the 300 dollar kit lens. Who would complain? :rolleyes:

Pair the XT with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for the same total and you get a superior camera with a far superior lens.

Once again it is not personal bias to use what is given to you by the manufacturer or what you have and are comfortable using. The images are labeled with what lenses are used, so there is no trickery.

Rex914
05-30-2005, 03:56 PM
Nikon [...] chose not to, that is their fault.

They actually gave Jeff what is IMO an L quality lens. It was some wide, f/2.8 zoom lens. Is that not fair? Bsed on the price of that lens ($1000), I'm certain that it is at least on par with the standard L lenses.

TheObiJuan
05-30-2005, 11:19 PM
I looked at the D70, D100, and searched for the d1h, d1x, d2h, and etc, but the only lens I saw that was other than the kit lens was the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5G lens.

I dunno.

D70FAN
05-31-2005, 05:55 AM
Like I said...

Nuff said.

Next...