Macworld reviews the D70s - what are they smoking?

[ottocrat]

Macworld have their review of the D70s up on their US site: <a href="http://

www.macworld.com/2005/07/reviews/nikond70s/index.php?lsrc=mwrss">link</a>.

<br>

<br>

Of course, Macworld isn't a dedicated camera mag but even so it's a serious publication

read by many photographers. You'd think they'd ask someone vaguely competent to write

the review. But in amongst gems such as this - "<i>Offered as a body only for $900, or in

a kit with an 18-70mm lens for $1,200, the D70 costs as much or more than the 8-

megapixel Canon Digital Rebel XT. Resolution isn?t everything when it comes to image

quality, but if I can get an extra 2 million pixels for the same price, without giving up any

other features, why should I buy the D70s?</i>" - comes this very odd statement:<br>

<br>

"<i>When it comes to usability, the D70s differs from the Canon Digital Rebel XT, its main

competitor, in one predominant way: all of its controls are interlocked. In other words, you

can?t change any camera setting without using at least two controls. While this makes it

impossible to accidentally change a camera setting, it also makes it impossible to alter any

setting with only one hand.</i>"<br>

<br>

Now I haven't used a D70s but I assume that its controls are identical to the D70. So

*what* is the reviewer talking about??

[michael_bradtke]

I would say that they are smoking crack

[jbq]

I've stopped reading reviews of non-computer equipment in computer magazines for that exact reason.

[chris hughes]

I read that too and was left with nothing but a big question mark. Macworld clearly has no

idea what they're talking about. I love my D70S but I'm more than willing to entertain

informed negative reviews of the hardware. However, this Macworld article is completely off

base. It's obvious that the writer has very little knowledge of the camera, the competition and

the market it targets.

[arnabdas]

I do not agree with the part <I>"in one predominant way: all of its controls are interlocked ..."</I> -- but what's so wrong with the rest of the review?

<P>

Seems to me to be a quite unbiased (though amateurish) review on the D70s. It is certainly not a good value, at least not compared to classic D70.

[ottocrat]

I'm having trouble getting past the astonishing contention that you can't control the D70s

unless you use two hands. That on its own is enough to discredit the review totally.

 

But, OK, if you want more, how about the fact that he marks down the D70s for being more

expensive than the Drebel purely on the grounds that the Drebel has a higher resolution? No

mention of the respective merits of the kit lenses, no mention of the features (spot metering,

high speed flash sync, etc). It's thoroughly unprofessional, if you ask me, and yet the author

has apparently written books on digital photography.

[mendonphoto]

Agreed - reviews of SLR cameras by non-photo-people are worthless. In fact, reveiws of SLR cameras by most photo-people are worthless. But, let's be honest, most people that buy the D70 (or D50, 300D, 350D, 20D, etc.) will never really know what their camera will do. They'll rarely leave "green rectangle" mode. So, the only difference most people will care about is that, "my camera is an 8MP camera and it's black, and that means it's better than by buddy's whose camera is only 6MP and is silver." So, that review in Macworld is perfect for those people because it tells them how to get the most pixels for the least amount of money.

 

At the Forbidden City in Beijing last week, I saw a lady with a 20D and a Canon 10-22mm EFS lens. She wanted to take a picture of the interior of one of the large buildings. It was kind of dark inside, and she of course had her camera in full-auto mode. Up pops the flash. She'll never know that she would have got the same picture with a $200 digicam and a $50 wide angle adaptor.

[steve_muntz]

Consumer Reports magazine is an expert on anything and everything, but I've read some articles about cameras, etc in there over the years that just make me say "huh?". Computer guys know the number of pixels, but photographers are the ones who care about things like spot meters.

 

People buy D70's (or DRebels) for a lot of different reasons - some are pros, some are serious photographers going for their first DSLR, some are tech-people looking for the latest and greatest but really don't have much of an interest in photography itself (actually this isn't a new concept). Different reviews appeal to different users.

[nedevermac.com]

Another thing is that Macworld marks down the d70s for having control interlocks and a

larger body but marks down the Rebel XT for having no interlocks and a too-small body.

[ShunCheung]

MacWorld is a computer magazine, not a photography magazine. You should take their D70s review with a grain of salt to begin with. And if you indeed have complaints about their review, please write to MacWorld directly.

[ottocrat]

I have. Do I take it you don't consider this a valid subject for discussion here?

[fri www.splitlife.com]

I actually think its (overall) a good review. Most people who are in the market for the d70 / xt will not be pro photographers, as such like another person has commented, they will be looking for the most megapixels for their buck. however misguided this may be it is what most consumers would look for and the review is letting them know that. for this reason i reckon the xt will overtake the d70/s in sales soon if nikon doesn't come out with something to plug the gap between the d70/d100 and the d2's.

[ShunCheung]

Chris, IMO this is a valid enough topic for discussion in this forum, but I am not sure we can get anywhere here.

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>Steve Muntz, jul 05, 2005; 02:49 p.m.</B>

<br>

Consumer Reports magazine is an expert on anything and everything,

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

You *are* being sarcastic here, right?

<br>

<br>

CU is, always has been, and most likely always will be, the "poster child" organization for the old adage, "Jack of all trades, master of none" -- IOW, they know a (very) little bit about nearly everything, but next to nothing about anything.  If you want to find out which brand of 3-pair-for-$5.00 undershorts will survive the most cycles through a washing machine before disintegrating, "Consumer Reports" is putatively useful.  But if the subject "products" are even mildly sophisticated, let alone such complex contraptions as cars, cameras, computers, audio equipment, etc., they're laughably out of their depth.

<br>

<br>

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>fri dom, jul 05, 2005; 04:56 p.m.</B>

<br>

I actually think its (overall) a good review. Most people who are in the market for the d70 / xt will not be pro photographers, as such like another person has commented, they will be looking for the most megapixels for their buck. however misguided this may be it is what most consumers would look for and the review is letting them know that.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

But that does NOT make it "a good review".  Regardless of the venue, a *good* review would illuminate and explain all those features and benefits of the truly better piece of gear, in terms that are accessible to the publication's target audience; so that, with a little luck, the reader may actually have a chance of getting some educational value out of the piece (beyond, of course, gaining the certain knowledge that MacWorld isn't worth the paper it's printed on <~>).

<br>

<br>

And please note, tho' I'm no "pro photographer", I'm certainly not so ignorant/naive as to think "megapixels are everything".  But if I were such a rank newbie, that "review" could (and would, had I read it) do me a grave disservice by not only failing to disabuse me of that delusion, but actually reinforcing it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE><B>

"A lie, repeated often enough, will end up as truth." -- Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, Adolph Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, 1933-1945

</B></BLOCKQUOTE>

</BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Don't condone lies -- even those made out of ignorance, as opposed to malice.

<br>

<br>

[ilkka]

Some photography magazines are not much better. The British Practical Photography, for example, has made some very odd reviews where they complain about a feature in one camera and praise the same in another. This is why I like Michael Reichmann's reviews (of Luminous Landscape). He is an experienced photographer and actually uses the test equipment in the field and comments on that basis.

[lex_jenkins]

Keep in mind that enthusiastic "reviews" from inexpert writers for miscellaneous electronics magazines helped make the D70 the dSLR darling for several months before they switched their fickle yet still inexpert attentions to the 20D.

[steve_muntz]

Jay, I was trying to be *very* sarcastic, but sometimes that doesn't come across well on the forums...

[fri www.splitlife.com]

jay,

 

good quote but a bit extreme here i think. i dont think anyone is lying, in fact the reviewer does say "Resolution isn't everything when it comes to image quality". The full review (the link is at the top of this page) i still rate as pretty good for a quick overview. As a previous d70 user I would probably go for a xt instead for the gain in pixels and $ (i do a lot of large prints so the extra res does make some small difference for me at least).

 

and the main point of the review (if not this thread) is that the d70s has a too large price excess attached to it for what comes down to a .2' bigger lcd (if you upgrade a d70 firmware and battery).

 

i suppose operation of the camera is a personal thing, i personally like the one-handed operation of the d70 with the on/off switch/shutter integrated, altho settings may be a 2-handed thing i've never found a problem with it. seems like this reviewer did.

 

anyway no-one has answered the main thread question - what are they smoking? i would go for green solder...