Digital Photography Review

Are the reviews done by this site any good and worth considering.

To me it seems that they tend to "diss" any digital camera that does not have the latest video capability.

Are there any other worthwhile sites that I should be looking at ?.

Thanks.

Ignore the 'score', read the actual review, skip the video bit if you like. Same as with any other review site...

 

I find that they're one of the more comprehensive review sites out there, though I don't necessarily agree with their conclusions.

 

Particularly invaluable for 'vintage' digital cameras, as the extremely detailed reviews are a good substitute for the instruction manual.

I'm going to agree with Steve. Ignore their conclusions - or anything you feel like ignoring. But the site is useful and does provide sample images. You could save yourself a lot of regret just by examining sample RAW files, whether from their collection or someone else's.

Site owned by Amazon, so they main business is to increase selling. But its still useful.

There are very many websites that list the 'top ten' (or 20) cameras, software, etc. in different categories along with a short (subjective) review. I haven't bought equipment for years but DPreview is one of the few websites I've come across that does in-depth reviews and provides detailed information. I also like the fact that the website is clear about whether a review is a 'full one' or an 'initial one' (preview, first impressions).

 

+1 for not blindly accepting conclusions or scores. Conclusions may well be (partly) based on features - like video - that are not important to you.

 

Another website I've used in the past is DXOMark which tests (and ranks) camera sensors and lenses. I have no idea how reliable the tests are though they do explain their test methods. Again, don't blindly accept the scores or rankings. I used it to check their evaluation of a couple of lenses that I had in mind. I also found it useful for searching for lenses within a range of parameters (camera, lens mount, focal lengths, price range, etc.).

DPReview is careful to list the features they like and dislike. The reader if free to weight those features differently when making a decision. If you really dislike inclusion of video capability, shop for cameras which don't have it. However video is a very popular feature, which is why it is nearly ubiquitous, which may leave you without features you really like. The guiding principle is, "It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."

 

Frankly, I haven't seen enough difference in image quality between cameras to make a real distinction. It's all about lenses and ancillary features. I'm a resolution hog, but that's mostly self-imposed. I've been very satisfied with 24 MP, even 12 MP, but it's nice to have 60 MP at times.

I agree: what matters is what a review tells you about the features that matter to you, given what you shoot. Ignore the rest. I almost never use my cameras for video, so I simply don't give any weight to what reviewers say about video.

 

I'd also suggest that you ignore all sample images unless they are full-size raws that you can download. There are two reasons. One is that even weak images often look very good when downsized to screen size. This is particularly an issue if you are concerned about lens sharpness or resolution. On screeen images only help for that if they are blown up. the second reason is that the processing needed to produce a JPEG can have more of an impact on an image than the quality of the equipment.

I used to depend on the magazines for notices, but since they're no longer with us (US), I just Google for

"name of camera" +review

DPReview provides very good information. Just ignore any of the reviewers opinions. Any thing to do with measurements are good. Sample images are also good. Top 10, camera of the year etc.. you have to check how they reward them.

For years although I love Pop Photography Magazine I know for sure I would never want their camera of the year. They list their criteria and by knowing their criteria I know what they picked for camera of the year is something I definitely don't want.

I've never found sample images helpful. They all look good to me or about the same. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. Maybe you guys are better pixel peepers than me. ;)

 

In any case, I found DPR pretty good. When they flag certain features as being good or bad that you wouldn't otherwise know. It might help you make a decision which one to buy. They also have reviews based on use. For example, landscape photography or sports photography. Or you need a small camera for travel or you want to buy one that works underwater or by cost of camera. They give you an assortment of reviews for just a few cameras in each category to pick from rather than trying to determine from hundreds of cameras.

Opinions are everywhere, so are reviews whether data-supported or purely impressionistic. Take your pick. I do read "brand ambassador" and "influencer" takes on gear with a some suspicion, especially when there's a strong odor of "shill" evident. Audio gear is another area with an equally large army of critics. Frankly, I don't pour over this stuff unless I'm actively thinking of buying. Would rather be looking for new stuff to point my cameras at.

 

Have never worried about dying in my sleep not owning a Leica M11, or anything else!

@AlanKlein I kind of agree with you on random sample images, tyken with decent(ish) gear, but I am quite a huge fan of dpr's test scene, where you can compare results from 4 cameras side by side; I have always been shopping for low light performance, when browsing reviews. Their AF tracking tests were also quite impressive.

IMHO it shouldn't harm to read up on dpreview, before you buy. And no, they surely are neither perfect nor enough to test everything but if they happen to test something they give you a base for a good idea of where that camera was in the big picture of everything, at that moment. Pondering a used Mk. 2, you should read Mk. 3 reviews too.

 

@za33photo I 'd search the web for reviews I am after, or more specifically YouTube. Or ask the good folks here who might be reviewing the stuff, you are interested in.

 

I think Dpreview stopped covering Leica M after the 1st Monochrom's review. The Northrups on Youtube did their only "sorry we(!) feel unable to review that thing, so here is an interview with one of it's fans"-video about that camera and Overgaard blogged endlessly. But all of that is entirely useless information, if you are shopping Nikon.

I remember the days when I had to go to the local Library to do research on a product before I purchased it. The only magazine that gave you the type of unbiased "Reviews" we see today was Consumer Magazine. The only problem was that they mainly reviewed consumer products. Of course you could get some insights by purchasing a dedicated magazine that dealt with the product you wanted to purchase, but you had to wait for that magazine to publish that review(if they ever did). That's when the library came in handy because they all the old editions. Maybe if you got lucky you could find the review you were looking for in those old editions, maybe not. It's a lot easier these days...

Thank you All for your thoughts and responses.

I will read as many "reviews" as I can find , and take them as guidelines only.

I will take everything with a pinch of salt , and with my tongue firmly in my cheek.

I may be in the market for a newer and better digital camera , but just not yet , because my old second hand digital cameras are still working although two of them have failing electronics.

Funny , because my "ancient" Nikon FM2n film camera (purchased used) , is still working perfectly.

Thanks again.

:D.

I find it can be very useful to read a few reviews of cameras you already own, that way, you get a feel for the reviewer's preferences and can relate them to your own experiences.