Camera review standards for photo.net -- opinions solicited

I'm trying to make sure that a whole new crop of people can be

involved in writing camera reviews for photo.net. At the same time

we want a reasonable degree of consistency among these reviews. To

that end, I've drafted <a

href="http://www.photo.net/editorial/camera-review-

standards">http://www.photo.net/editorial/camera-review-standards</a>

 

What do you guys think? Please respond in this thread.

 

Thanks.

Good idea, a bit like the comments on photographyreview.com but better implemented. Will make it easy to redirect questions of the type "Eos-5" or "Eos-30" (sorry, I'm in Europe). It may be of use to know which function of a camera is not only available but also easily accessed. I think it's not only important to know which functions in a camera are available, but also how many hands/fingers/brain cells you need to use them. Seems like a good idea to share knowledge between photo.net users. Together we know, well maybe not everything but at least a lot.

Philip - this looks very sensible. If I wanted to do a review, would I 'reserve' that with you, then deliver a couple of weeks later (rather than just start writing and risk someone else duplicating this work)? Do you require writers to supply their own photographs, or do you prefer straight text?

I agree, this is a good idea. And perhaps a more matured equipment opinions forum would be a possibility for a location for this sort of thing. As it is now, the equipment opinions will collect some possibly accurate reponses to a generally effective product (duds aside), but will eventually switch over to why this body sucks and the next brands is better. I noticed this on the Elan 7e, where it becomes an argument over whether the N80 is better.

 

I am curious as to how exactly this system will work. Will people offer to produce a review and you will tell them "go ahead?" Or perhaps, its first come first serve, and new reviews get added to it, as an addendum? It would take a lot of work, but a few moderators could take existing and new reviews and take all the parts and fit them together, attributing them to the authors. I doubt that's really a likely or logical solution, but I am curious as to how you propose to choose which review goes up? Do we send them in, and based on your criteria, the existing one may get replaced?

 

Well, I think this is a great idea, a good start for getting a good facility going and allowing real user opinions on possibly a wider array of equipment.

This is just a thought: this is a popular enough web site that manufacturers might be willing to lend new releases to photo.net for review purposes. Of course, there would be some work involved in investigating this, but it might help broaden the review base (and maybe get reviews of new products up early).

 

PS: Re SLR model naming conventions: "North American names" should be "USA names"... here in Canada, and I imagine Mexico too, we have the ever-dreaded "gray market" cameras

How about daily unachieved announcements for a couple weeks before the archived thread on a product.

 

I don't know how complex it is but you could connect a ratings system to the posts.

Andrew: yes we do want the reviewers to submit photos (large high quality scans, PhotoCD or JPEG) along with the reviews. Otherwise it will be hard for a reader to judge the authority of the reviewer.

 

Carl: we won't be replacing old reviews with new, putatively better ones. That's what the comment server is for! Besides, there are plenty of new cameras out. We prefer to focus our limited energy on becoming more comprehensive rather than the ultimate review of the Nikon F2 or whatever.

 

Patrick: yes, it is true that photo.net is popular enough that manufacturers are willing to loan us equipment (most of our new reviews are done with manufacturer loaners). But first we need to ask! Instead of having all of the cameras come through Cambridge we want to delegate to brand editors and finally writers the authority to request a camera and have it shipped directly from, say, Nikon USA to their house and then back.

In an admittedly quick read, I didn't see anything about lenses. Will they be reviewed, or only bodies ;-)

<p>Duh, that should read "daily <i>un-archived</i>"</p>

Good good. I think the older reviews are still valid and useful, and above all, neutral. I was just curious how this will be implemented, whether it would be in addition or aside from the already existing reviews.

Mr. Greenspun: I like to keep two steps behind... it gives my ideas a nice 'retro' feel to those who are two steps ahead :)

 

The lenses comment is a good point. There are a few Nikon lens reviews, but not many (I crossed over to the dark side and saw that there were a good number of Canon lens reviews). That might be another category that could use some description. As for actual reviewing: I'm ALWAYS looking for something to come between me and my thesis (or, for that matter, the freshman claculus classes I always end up teaching). I don't have a huge background to draw on, but I'd be more than happy to try to give something back to the website which has given me so me free education. The new 80-400 VR from Nikon is missing on the Nikon lens list.....

"... so MUCH free eduction."

I like the standards as drafted i.e. as broad standards.

 

1. I might have been a bit more explicit of the requirements for reporting handling ("what are the ergonomics of setting exposure? Of focusing? Of getting the shot?") and convenience of carrying around these cameras ("Is it possible to carry this camera all day comfortably in your hand? Around your shoulder? In a bag?") .

 

But these are perhaps too explicit, revealing my bias toward 35mm street, people and travel photography.

 

2. Without necessarily regarding cameras as gadgets, it might be useful to require reviewers to illustrate any ergonomic points with little jpegs. E.g. an adverse comment on the placement of an exposure compensation dial should have a little jpeg showing where it is on the camera...

Sounds good to me. If you're looking for submissions, I'd be happy to write reviews for three of the cameras that I've been using lately...Nikon Fm3a, Voigtlander Bessa-L, and the Hasselblad XPAN.

<p>

Not exactly the mainstream bodies of the new millenium, I know, but very satisfying to use.

<p>

I assume this is how you want people to volunteer to write these things. You said to respond in this thread.

Ooh-ooh... how is the XPAN? I like the idea... but aren't the lenses all a bit slow?

I would add one point. It is far more useful to read a review that has been written by someone who has actually used the camera fairly extensively, rather than just "taking it for a spin" for a few hours. I have noticed that a few of the reviews that have already been posted here have been based on only a very brief period of use of the camera. These reviews are not particularly helpful. I can read about the features of any camera on the manufacturer's website. What I look for on photo.net is someone's opinion about what it is like to actually use the equipment on a daily basis. Which features seem great at the beginning but turn out to be worthless or annoying in the long run? Which features are winners and might be a reason to buy this particular camera over another? I think that Kirk Tuck's review of the Leica M6 is a good example of the kind of review that I find useful.

I can see where Steve is coming from, but I'm not sure how realistic that is for new equipment. And I think it's possible to, in a trial run, figure out most of the bugs and issues of a given piece of equipment. Don't forget, PG pointed out in the editorial plan somewhere that long-time users can (, will, and do) comment on the reviews over time with these sorts of observations.

I agree with Steve, but I do see a problem. I bought an Olympus E10 and before doing so I looked at all the reviews. The one by PG was least informative and least accurate, but I then looked at the others and bought the camera, which is excellent for my own purposes. Here's the problem - I have daily experience and detailed knowledge of 3 cameras (the E10, Mamiya RZ & Arca Monorail) but I don't have enough knowledge of the features of competetive cameras to make subjective comments, for example I know that the rotating back on the RZ is generally excellent (although it can't be used on my tripod unless it has a motordrive fitted) but I can't compare that to the Bronica which has no rotating back but which has an optional gizmo that rotates the camera. Also, my opinions are biased towards the type of work I do, which in my case is commercial/fashion - I said earlier that the E10 is excellent, and so it is as far as my own needs are concerned, but it's useless for any kind of action shots.

 

I think that most people would have the same limitations as me.

I would prefer that the reviews focus on the relative merits of different cameras. You sort of mention some issues in your bullets but i'm worried that people will take your list as explicit and not suggestive. Aka, while it might be harder to use the dof on slr a slr a might retain accurate focus ability with 1/4 the light of camera b at 1/2 the cost even though camera b has a easy to use dof button. Alas, low light focus ability isn't one of your bullet.

 

Hum - I guess what I am also trying to say (in a convoluted way) is that there are clear classes of cameras based on feature/price point (aka: olympus 3030, nikon 995, canon G?, ...) - since prices and resolution are similar - it would be esp useful to comment on specific trade off between cameras (nikon has better macro, olympus has faster lens with less chromatic aberration)...

 

Hum -- I guess I am mixing two issues and being a poor and unorganized writer they are hard to sep.

 

a) Reviewers might take your bullets too literal (even if you meant them to be literal) and omit other important details.

 

b) It is often important to directly compare items in the same class to give a better indication of the trade off (harder since the reviewer needs 'expert' knowledge of multiple items).

> think that Kirk Tuck's review of the Leica M6 is a good example of the kind of review that I find useful.

 

exactly. Kirk's review sets the standard in my view. one requirement is ample objectivity to overcome the natural reluctance to fault equipment they own and have paid good money for. most reviews are clamourings of justification for their purchase. I can read the Calumet catalogue and find the fluff. I want the dirty details.

Philip: Something that have not been mentionned (or I missed it): what about review for old or discontinued cameras ? Given how large is the used camera market and how useful it is for people that don't really have a lot of money but want to do serious photography, I think it would be a nice idea to have that sort of review. Do you think it is worth ?

Perhaps it reflects my shooting preferences, but I would like to see examples of low-light performance in reviews of digital bodies. By low-light I mean exposures ranging from few seconds to several minutes. That's the area they are presumably weak in (noise, hot pixels), but I saw very little discussion of this.

<p>

Remote release? Bulb mode? Maximum exposure time? Star trails with a digital camera? Moonlit landscape? Night cityscape (how long an exposure, exactly)? Dim indoors with large depth-of-field? Multiple exposure on bulb? Correction for fluorescent lights (filter/built-in)? Am I better off with film, finally?

I think it would be very helpful if there was also a standard template that could be filled in. This way the formatting would be consistent (H3..? level 3 heading??), and section headings/field titles would prompt people to supply appropriate comments.

Philip, in addition to the guidelines you've laid down, I think it would be valuable, in the digital camera section, for users to give their opinion of the colour accuracy of the camera, and also to indicate the length of time that they've been using it. It's very easy to give a rave review in the first flush of enthusiasm for a product, but after a few weeks its drawbacks begin to be more obvious.<br>For example: Some digital cameras appear to be geared toward giving saturated colour above everything else. Their CCD filters are so narrow cut that it makes it almost impossible for them to give accurate colour (are your ears burning yet, Fuji?).<br>The colour might look impressive initially, but when you've been unable to get the camera to distinguish between shades of red, or even between red and magenta, then your enthusiam might fade, even if the colour rendering doesn't.<br>Just a suggestion.

I would add a cautious second to the idea of some reviews of 'classic' cameras, but would suggest restricting it to those you might reasonably find and get repaired in the outside world today.

For instance, a group roundup of the Nikon FM/FE/FG/FM2, and compatibilty with modern lenses, or someone who owns an F3 comparing it against the F2a that Phil reviewed, and versus the newer F4/F5 would be useful and interesting, since a used manual or Semimanual Nikon from the 80's may be a better choice for a student or amateur on a budget than a more automated and plasticized current consumer model. (sorry for the Fx references; I'm not a Canonista, but a follower of the other camp). Case in point, the Mamiya C330 review, while not a current production model but easy to find, afford, and repair, was helpful when I went MF shopping two years ago. Partly based on that review, which included what it was like to handle in the field, I settled on a C220. Monaghan's page at SMU provided a complementary resource of the competing older models (Bronica S2, Kowa 66), but also made clear the difficulty of getting them repaired, and hence potentially lower interest to this community. Someone willing to face down a few of the low-priced MF options (Used Fuji Rangefinder vs. Seagull vs. used YashicaMat, for instance), may appeal to the budget-conscious MF users reading this forum.

 

Personally, I'd admit to being curious about field reports of people who use the Mamiya RB/RZ system, or the Bronica GS-1, since I met a hiker in Arches last year (a middle-aged man about 2/3 my size, and I'm not large) with an RB plus a couple lenses, and wondered about what that weighed and how it operated outdoors versus my field-camera + lenses. That's been the joy of photo.net reviews; opinionated, and most of the opinions based on trying to actually get a picture with the camera, not the glossy brochures the manufacturer packed along.