Dpreview - fact, or fiction?

<p>The overall theme of the site is as a schrine - holier than thou but seeming to welcome a fellow traveler (on the digital photo path) at the same time. The psycology, intended or not, worked on me. The fact that these guys have London as a place to shoot sample photos doesn't diminish their efforts. The graphs, etc, that appear on their site are to be found nowhere else (of which I am aware).<br>

Someone said, "All that glitters, aint gold."<br>

After reading their review of the 50D, their credibility in my mind has suffered greatly, to say the least. Now, to be fair, maybe their technology was having a bad bit day when they processed the 50D; mayhaps their machines - whatever they use to come up with the data on those graphs - were in a state of unrest. And maybe, just maybe they received a poor copy of the 50D... though how Canon could allow that to happen is beyond me!<br>

I hate it when I'm a chump. And I am, because I always took every character on that site as truth. After all, what do I know? What CAN I know? I've never even seen a lot of those cams... It must be the same, with you?<br>

Now many people have a 50D and, thereby, positive proof of the fallibility, of Dpreview. (Or, would that be the fallibility of their "techno" approach to reviewing a camera? Or does it matter?) As I have proven in the past few days - beginning from a neutral and inquiring position - the 50D is significantly better than the 40D in terms of picture quality and about the same, in terms of noise. I must assume that the rest of the people who bought a 50D have done the same (country-boy) research, and arrived at the same conclusion.<br>

So now the question is, what is the proper manner in which to reguard what is to be found, on Dpreview? I seldom execute a man - or even a web site (lol) - for a single mistake. Just a good, old-fashioned flogging... But then I have no way to be aware of other mistakes they may have made, as I do not buy every cam that becomes available! In other words, the 50D fiasco is the only one, of which I am aware. Were there more?<br>

Dpreview certainly has fallen, but perhaps not from grace?<br>

Where does Dpreview stand, now, in your perception?</p>

<p>their 'review' is just an opinion and should be treated as such; I find it much more valuable to read actual user reviews instead and Photo.net is a great place to get them (I mean the forums); there are other user review sites and dpreview has them as well in addition to their technical review. cb</p>

<p>I find Dpreview.com most useful for comparisons between the bewildering array of offerings in the digital camera market.It helps to sift the wheat from the chaff in as painless a way as possible by providing such things as the camera specifications side by side. So I see it as a reasonably neutral provider of information. Sites such as Photozone.de and Fredmiranda are maybe the places to look for more discriminating and partial reviews.</p>

<p>The review seem carfeul and considered and in many cases reflect what I find if I then buy the product. I would rate it as 'Recommended',</p>

<p>It's an opinion... something to listen to and push off of if needed.<br>

I don't always follow advice when I have good/clear reasons for my choices. My Dad warned me against Jeeps. I have two of them in the driveway. After he rode in one, he loved it.<br>

I'll look at the material available to me, decide for myself what meets my needs, and seldom have I felt any buyer's remorse (cognitive dissonance).</p>

<p>Could you explain a little better <strong>"the 50D fiasco"</strong> you refer to?<br /> <br /> DPReview listed 30 "pros" on its 50D "Conclusion" page compared to only 7 "cons."<br /> <br /> The conclusion they reached at dpreview - (<em>"We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but it's simply not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D. In some areas such as dynamic range and high ISO performance it's actually worse and that simply makes you wonder if the EOS 50D could have been an (even) better camera if its sensor had a slightly more moderate resolution."</em> ) - was echoed by numerous other reviewers, almost all of whom agree that Canon really pushed the limit, and may have pushed too far, going with 15 megapixels instead of maybe 12. I know that Bryan at<strong> the-digital-picture.com</strong> - an all-Canon website - says he struggled with whether to settle on the 40D or the 50D for his crop-camera lens tests, so clearly the 50D was not an unqualified improvement for him either. Similarly, the reviewer at <strong>dcresource.com</strong> questioned whether the upgrade to the 50D was worth it, and he said in the end he decided to stay with his 40D because the 50D wasn't enough of an improvement.</p>

<p>I think there's actually a widespread consensus that the 50D is a very, very good camera, but there is by no means a universal consensus that it's enough better than the 40D to make replacing the 40D with a 50D a no-brainer.</p>

<p>Your mileage obviously varies from that consensus, but I don't think it's fair to single out just one site that disagrees with your personal experience and consider that website to be a "fiasco" when other reviewers disagree with you also.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but there is by no means a universal consensus that it's enough better than the 40D to make replacing the 40D with a 50D a no-brainer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To be fair, I think that is pretty common for camera lines that recieve regular "upgrades". The same conversations were happening with the 20D and the 30D. Most of the time, there isn't enough of a quantum shift to make the decision a no brainer.</p>

<p>DPReview has a consistent and reliable testing methodology. This is in distinct contrast to the typical review posted here, which is done by someone without any training, with no real methodology, and with no real experience testing a wide range of equipment; Bob Atkins is probably the only person posting here with any real training and experience in this area. As a result, the data from dpreview can be very useful if it addresses areas you care about. The interpretation is exactly that, but, once again, it tends to be consistent. You can use it as you want or not, but it is generally far more useful as test data than anything you read here.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I don't think most reviews address the things that really matter, like how something feels when it's in your hands, which probably matters far more than anything in a review.</p>

 

<p>Of all the digital camera review sites, DP Review is the best. Why? They test cameras under consistent conditions and present results based on both in-camera JPGs and converted RAW files, which some sites pretty much ignore. I don't always agree with their conclusions, and I wish they'd do more to evaluate the cameras as photography tools and not just file-producing devices, but that's very subjective and hard to do. I also wish they'd do a comparison of printed files since noise characteristics vary, and affect prints differently. But, overall, I like the site.</p>

<p>I still love DPReview. As a matter of fact, I dare-say that review was one factor that helped change things for me. As a wedding photographer, I questioned the need for more than 12MP. I was happy at 10MP. We started with the 10D and went through all the ranks thereafter (and we have beautiful 16x24 prints from the 10D). I did like the jump to the 20D, the screen of the 30D was nice, but the 40D represented a significant upgrade (14-bit Raw for one). If I were buying today, I would most definitely get a 40D over a 50D as there is nothing about the 50D that does anything for me. Each camera has the same metering and focusing system- one just has more MP which more or may not (more CF cards, more hard drive space) be a good thing. All-in-all, I think it was a pretty good review and they did give the camera a "highly recommended". </p>

<blockquote>

<p>DPReview has a consistent and reliable testing methodology. This is in distinct contrast to the typical review posted here, which is done by someone without any training, with no real methodology, and with no real experience testing a wide range of equipment; Bob Atkins is probably the only person posting here with any real training and experience in this area</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Test charts and timings aren't everything, in fact some would argue that they tell you little about what the using the camera would actually be like. I'd like to think I write from the viewpoint of a skilled, trained, experienced photographer actually using a camera for photography.</p>

<p>I like dpreview but my priorities differ than theirs. For example they assign a heavy weight to 'default' settings while I prefer 'optimal' settings. Likewise they have a heavy weight on optimal image quality while I prefer ease of producing good image quality. However, that doesn't mean the reviews are bad - you just have to read them and pick out the facts that are important to you when judging cameras.<br>

Do you care about the weight; absolute resolution; dr range; jpeg quality; in body is; dust removal; grip; view finder; fps; colour; wb; built in flash; type of mount; ....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>DPReview is the closest thing on 24x36mm sensors to the Photozone.de for 15x22mm sensors. I like the latter better, and wish they'd test on a 5D or something. More subjective reviews are nice, but some of us are the old-time readers of <em>Modern Photography</em> (charts, etc.) rather than <em>Popular Photography</em> (more charts later, especially after Keppler took over, but more subjective on the whole).</p>

<p>Of course, the English (not including Wales, Scotland, or Cornwall) photo magazines consider all American magazines to be overly techie and say, in effect, "I don' need no stinking charts" and "If it isn't Nikon, it's no good". At least one English magazine consistently found 6MP Nikons (when that was all there was) to be sharper than 8 or 10MP Canons. Of course, by the end of that period, their comparisons were based on 2x3" prints, as I recall.</p>

<p>its an opinion, like all the other reviews, the 50D was probably more aimed at the 20,30d people that thought the 40D wasn't enough of an upgrade, people will complain no matter what. I returned the 50D because I think Canon went to far and jumped over the sweet spot of 12mp for APS-C, so thats just my opinion. I think when buying a camera you would base it on all available information, not just one.<br>

Ross</p>

<p>I remember when the Nikon D70 originally came out that the most common negative about it in all the reviews was that the viewfinder was too dark-not too good at the best of times and more of a concern for me as I have various eye problems which make photography more difficult for me. I went to my local camera store to see for myself and was pleased to find that, for me at least, the viewfinder was 'ok' and I bought it and used it happily for 4 years. If I had just based my decision on reviews, I would have missed out on what was at the time a pretty good camera. Reviews-especially technical reviews-are just opinions with some being more informed than others but still opinions. I am always more interested in what the end users have to say than the technicians and I also go back to both Modern and Popular Photography days. I think that reviews can be useful in helping cut down on the number of cameras one should go out and hold etc. but that's it-I would never buy/not buy on the basis of reviews alone. cb :-)</p>

<p>"The crux of the bisket, is the apostrophy..." (Frank Zappa)<br>

I like Dpreview as well, Frank, and your point is as gold. BUT<br>

<em>"We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but it's simply not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D." </em> (Dpreview.com)<br>

Semantics - the slayer of many; the friend, of none. In your perception of the word "significantly" then, Dpreview, would you be so good as to mention a camera that does offer "significantly" better image quality? Or, does that exist?<br>

I'm a guy who is getting old. I have completed the warrior path; realized that everything I ever fought was a part of my self, of which I would be rid. Right and wrong are perceptions, and absolutes, most certainly not! I grant to each of you the right to perceive, as you will! I don't suppose that maybe you would reciprocate... NAH!<br>

When I see two images (printed, or not) one from the 40D and one from the 50D, I see a difference immediately. Ah, but just what IS that difference? You need to look very closely to see the many little things that combine, to produce the overall effect. <br>

Is that difference "significant?" From the point of view manned by Joe Sixpack, probably not. I have wondered, at times, why I try so hard for customers that really and truly do not see the quality I achieve. And they don't - believe me.<br>

So... how shall we define, "significant," being a group composed of photographers? We won't. That definition will remain a personal, and individual perception. Still I believe that, among photographers, the difference will be perceived as significant. I have yet to hear from a single 50D owner who does not perceive it in that manner. And as for the rest, how can they know?<br>

And how is it that I, a person who owns nary a big red L, am shooting urban images that surpass those proffered as samples on Dpreview, and had the advantage of high-dollar glass? How is it that someone credible can say "The pixel density on the 50D sensor is past the point where more pixels can be useful." Has it occurred to them that Canon found a way to re-write whatever mathematic rule they are using as their basis, for their statement?<br>

Finally, could it be we are seeing market research, at its finest? Canon may believe it knows how this cam should sell, having unveiled several before it. Could they have asked Dpreview to put a mild curse on the cam, just to see the extent of the effect it would have?<br>

I have many more questions, than answers. May it remain, ever so.<br>

My GUESS (and it is just that - a guess, selected from the possibilities I can perceive because it does the best job of explaining what I have observed) is that Canon a) sells a cam that is better than the one Dpreview tested or b) this entire issue is caused by one person's perception of the word "significant."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>DPReview has a consistent and reliable testing methodology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which doesn't necessarily make it a good methodology, David.</p>

<p>Their insistence on using ACR for all their conversions "to maintain a level playing field" sometimes has the opposite effect, partly because they routinely use Beta (read: <em>not very good</em> ) releases of the software in order to get the review out, despite the self-evident negative impact that doing so has on IQ.</p>

<p>The 50D certainly suffered from this.</p>

<p>Speaking personally I am absolutely satisfied (I've tested and tested this) that ACR (and Lightroom) in any flavour does a comparatively-to-very-poor job of converting my 40D (and 50D - although I've relied on RAW files from the 'net for my tests there) files compared with Capture One and Raw Therapee.</p>

<p>The difference in noise is <em>glaring </em> and I'm not talking about noise reduction, I'm talking about the fact (and as far as I'm concerned it <em>is</em> a fact) that ACR seems to <em>create</em> noise that the others don't.</p>

<p>The point here is that - if ACR inherently "suits" files from some cameras better than others (and I fervently believe that even at default settings, it does) - then by definition it <em>isn't</em> a level playing field, and tests using it as the converter are <em>still</em> biased, and in an unquantifiable, impossible-to-adjust-for way.</p>

<p>Tests - I think - should use the camera manufacturer's own conversion software: any bias caused by that approach is a known quantity, to be factored into the final conclusion as appropriate.</p>

<p>

<p>Sorry their review did not re-enforce your purchase decision. But, I do not think they are in business to cater to every new buyers ego. However, if your happy with the camera and can see the difference then that is the important thing. Their opinion as well as anyone’s opinion should not change what you see. I do believe that you find significant improvement in the 50D, which is great and I would hope that I would see the same thing. <br>

<br>

Your upset because they said that the 50D is not a significant upgrade to a 40D? If so, then I could see their point in that a person who bought a 40D 8 months ago would more than likely not want to re-make that purchase 8 months latter, and it would take a very significant change in IQ for most to do that. If it had been a couple of years, then the significance of the prior purchase would be less of a factor. I was very surprised in the short time between the 40D and 50D, I think that is causing a lot of the lukewarm views of the 50D. <br>

<br>

IMO they are one of the better test sites around, they are pretty consistent and I look at the comparisons and make my own opinion. I do read their conclusions, but I do not take their opinion over what I see and what is important to me. Maybe you should do the same. There are other reviews out there that show their product affinities to a great extent and it is hard to separate that from the facts, but IMO dpreview is pretty neutral in this regard.</p>

 

 

 

 

</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I remember when the Nikon D70 originally came out that the most common negative about it in all the reviews was that the viewfinder was too dark-not too good at the best of times and more of a concern for me as I have various eye problems which make photography more difficult for me. I went to my local camera store to see for myself and was pleased to find that, for me at least, the viewfinder was 'ok' and I bought it and used it happily for 4 years. If I had just based my decision on reviews, I would have missed out on what was at the time a pretty good camera.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Up to 2005 I had been happily using Nikon film cameras. I then looked into buying the D70, but read reviews about moiré effect in some of the shots. I probably should have just ignored it even ( since there were many favorable opinions out) though I have been extremely happy with my 20D.</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>I enjoy using dpreview as well, but they do have at least one out of focus studio shot. I forget which one it was but I was dissappointed when I found it because it made me question the rest of their studio photos. However I have seen far more focus issues on the other popular test sites so I still give dpreview the nod.</p>

<p>I also hope they have finally settled on one studio set up and I also hope they have learned to leave it permanently set up (just with a can of air near by to blow the dust off!). I also wish they would shoot the same view of their studio set up no matter the sensor size, so that all the enlarged reproductions are the same size on screen.</p>

<p>DPR is NOT the best review site, at least not if you are technically inclined. That'd be Imaging Resources.<br>

DPR (specifically, Phil) was so incensed at Canon a few years ago, that he actually posted a rant/article! In addition, they unfairly compare 21MP cameras with 12MP cameras on a *100%* crop basis.<br>

Many a forum post has pointed out where a Nikon camera gets high points for the same feature (or a lesser feature) and Canon gets low marks.<br>

I read the forums. For *camera* details, I go elsewhere...</p>

You have to look at a number of sites to really get a good review on a camera or lens. I personally use dpreview, Bob Atkins (via photo.net and his own site), and Fred Miranda. The first one because as Jeff Spirer says, they are consistent, that at least gives me a baseline to start with. bob's reviews because he mixes tech and everyday reasons. And Fred Miranda's site because the reviews are done by actual users of the equipment. Although this causes a wide variety of answers, it does gie me added insight as to how the equipment fairs in pro and serious ametuers hands...and other intangibles that "testing" doesn't reveal

<p>Most (if not all) technical reviews today are based on looking at the image on a pixel by pixel base. Personally, I do not look at my images at that scale, so I do not care about conclusions drawn at that level.<br>

Lets be honest about it: if we can not make good images with (bascially) any DSLR today, it is our fault, not the camera's. The truth is that technology is oving on at incredible speed, and we are trapped discussing minute and most likely insignificant differences between cameras A, B, and C. While what we should be doing is trying to improve our skill sets and hone our vision. I don't want or need to be a computer technician, I just need to see if the camera fits my purposes and if it has good handling for the commands I want to use.</p>

<p>Amen, Paolo. Dpreview hasn't fallen one iota in my opinion. Just because they didn't do a 100% gush about a particular camera isn't their fault. You think you have problems? Imagine you'd bought an EOS 5D:</p>

<p>http://www.pdngearguide.com/gearguide/content_display/news/e3i9f631ea10a4997bca41d95b95be499dc</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nobody has mentioned lenses -- it is easy to see that the 50D outstrips resolution (especially edge resolution) of the Canon 50/1.4, and it's hard to believe that Canon makes a higher resolution lens. To me, this dpreview.com review indicates that it's end-of-the-line for APS-C cameras.</p>

<p><!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } A:link { so-language: zxx } --></p>

<p >Try and take a look at <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/">www.dxomark.com</a> , where all the sensors RAW data have been tested. Here you can see that the 50D out-performs both 40D and D300 I terms of low-light performance. But it also shows that there have been made compromises in the design. But then again, the perfect camera does not exist...</p>