Larry wrote:
> You shouldn't use DP reviews commentary as a deciding factor in buying.
>
I certainly agree.
> Phil Askey puts huge inconsistencies in his testing & opinions despite all
> the technical scientific sounding results. Some cameras are tested at
> defaults, some at his decided "optimum" settings, and the 2 are compared (as
> if even 2 cameras at default settings are comparable).
>
I sort of agree. I think part of the problem is that they are changing,
possibly improving, their test procedures as they go along. Generally a
good thing, except it means some tests aren't directly comparable,
sometimes quite frustrating.
> Resolution tests using lenses with varying fields of curvature, and other
> properties, - some the worst of their type, some the best, etc.
>
I haven't noticed that. In the standardized studio shots, he has, when
I've paid attention, which is often, used top level lenses. Also, he
shoots at many apertures and uses the best results for any particular
camera/lens combo, so that should tend to even things out.
> That along with time spent with the camera, or lack of it; understanding the
> operation of features and their intended use varying per camera with his
> familiarity
Obviously an important factor. In the case of the subject that started
this thread, he spent months with the camera and liked it a lot in spite
of its flaws. I assume you refer primarily to Pentaxes he has tested. I
don't remember the details, except that I came away impressed with the
K10D based on his review.
> - and then the final gospel "conclusion" makes the whole nice and complete
> looking thing very misleading.
>
Here again, I generally agree, with a caveat. He has prejudices that
aren't mine, and grades some cameras differently than I would on that
basis. On the other hand, I've read enough of his and Simon's reviews by
now that I can tell a lot from the points in their good/bad lists that
someone new to them wouldn't see.
> Judge by your own hands on + testing.
>
Sort of, for me. I find dp's standardized shots of their studio target
and several other standardized things they do to be quite useful in
evaluating relative IQ performance. There is a lot of blather in the
text, which may sometimes miss the point, but the images are invaluable.
Case in point; I've been trying to find the perfect P&S for me. The F30
is it except for lack of enough zoom range and IS. The A710 IS has more
zoom and IS, but my own use shows exactly what the studio test images
from dpreview showed before I bought the A710. Within it's zoom range,
the F10 is simply sharper and at all isos, it has better noise, only a
little at iso 100, quite a bit at 200 and spectacularly so above that.
Overall imaging performance of the A170 has turned out to be just what I
expected based on their review. Similar direct comparisons, overlaying
the test images and flipping between them, have been great in keeping me
from making a couple of mistakes, too. I just decided not to buy a
camera inspite of its siren call. I"m starting to know pretty well how
the studio shots correlate with my experience in use, and this one
wasn't up to snuff for my purpose.
As to hands-on testing, I bought the F10, F30 and 5D without ever
holding one in my hands, and have been very pleased with them. Others' MMV.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|