AP (UK photo mag) seems to have dubious DSLR tests?

[steven_moseley1]

Hi,

 

A recent dual test in the UK 'Amateur Photographer' magazine (AP) of the Nikon

D200 V Fuji S5 was a clear win for the D200. This seems to me to go against the

popular opinion which seems to think the S5 is clearly better in the image

stakes.

 

The chatter on AP's own websites forums thought the AP testers methodology was

possibly flawed and that it certainly favoured the sensor on the Nikon.

 

Then last week the same AP tester absolutely hammered the new Sigma SD-14 with

awful test results. The AP forums seemed to disagree with the magazines results

and even one of AP's forums own moderators thought something was amiss.

 

I contacted AP and the editor quickly replied and refuted anything was wrong

with their testing regime. He said that AP was often disagreeing with everyone

else and that they did not rely on any one company for advertising ans so were

free to say what they liked. He also said that he knew what the results of the

D200 v S5 test would be before the tester presented them! (I found that last

remark interesting)

 

Did anyone else see these tests and think them at all odd? I would have thought

that many magazines & well respected journals in the UK and abroad are just as

free from advertising pressure as the AP, but AP consistently pushes that same

line as justification for it's out of the ordinary test results. The UK's BJP

and 'Professional Photography' magazine are two that spring to mind.

 

cheers Steve.

[Ed_Ingold]

The D200 is a 10.5MP camera, being compared to a 6.2MP Fuji S5 (discounting Fuji's specification games). The results are hardly unexpected. It sounds like your favorite ox was gored ;-)

[stephend]

I've noticed in the past that AP tends to prefer Nikons over Canons. Perhaps it's just a case of

"they're both good, but we're most familiar with the Nikon user interface." Not great

journalism, perhaps, but not outright dishonest?

[michaelkh]

I have to say, I was a little surprised by the SD-14 review, but I do wonder whether the

difference is that we are used to seeing very image-quality-focussed reviews of cameras.

For example, with the S5 (which I most certainly covet), we see people saying "OK so it's

slower shot-to-shot, but look at the image quality", whereas the AP review is "image

quality is good, but ...".

 

The same is actually true of the SD-14 review, where the image quality is given good

scores (with the qualifier that work is needed in raw mode) but the handling is criticised.

We might think to ourselves: 'well, we can get used to the handling and we'll be working in

raw anyway', but they have covered all the bases a bit more evenly.

 

My concerns: I must say I am concerned about the whole business of percentage scores.

The SD-14, which is an innovative but idiosyncratic camera capable of high quality results,

gets a rather weak score - a score much lower than the AP has recently given to some

truly below-average compact cameras. The idea of giving a percentage score suggests

there is some kind of precision to reviews, where the text is rather more subjective.

 

I'm also far from convinced that their review methodology with regard to colour spaces,

white balance, etc., is particularly solid, and if there is one area where the reviewer in

question has left me unsure, it would be this one.

 

Having said all that, I think the recent changes in AP are for the better, in general. (I'll say

that, and then there will be some sort of disaster of objectivity-failure like the L Ron

Hubbard 'photographer' article, I bet).

[michaelkh]

As an aside, on the subject of the S5/D200 results being 'hardly unexpected': it's quite a

shame that AP hasn't done more to explore the difference between stated and, for want of

a better term, effective resolution.

 

Several quite high quality reviews have shown that in many cases the gap between the

D200's effective resolution and that of the S5 is even closer than the (actually fairly small)

difference between 10.5 and 6 megapixels would suggest. The balance of reviews

suggests that the gap is, in fact, unexpected.

 

I agree that Fuji's 'specification games' harm them. It is sad that they have not done

enough to deal with a marketing department which is associating the S5's quite high

effective resolution with the S and R pixels, rather than with the hexagonal sensor sites,

where the credit largely lies. They've gone for the simplistic megapixel myth, and it's not

to their credit.

 

On a final note regarding the SD-14 review: AP recently ran an 'updated' review of the

pentax K10D in the light of new features offered by a firmware upgrade, so there is,

perhaps, a precedent to point at, if people were to suggest re-reviewing the SD-14.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Dubious because they don't go along with the crowd? What heresy! Issue a fatwa! Burn them at the stake! Tie them to a goat and send them out into the desert! Get the tar and feathers!

[John Seaman]

In my opinion AP stands head and shoulders over other magazines in terms of the depth and objectivity of its equipment reviews. Obviously if you just look at the percentage score you are not going to get the full story.

[steven_moseley1]

Hi,

 

"It sounds like your favorite ox was gored ;-)"

 

Assumption..wrong. I do not own any of the DSLR's mentioned. I am a film user mainly, but keep abreast of all things digital and being English, like to see fair play!

 

John: I never just look at their barmy percentage scores as it would be quite silly to do so. If their reviews are so fantastically deep and objective than why do they cheapen them with such a nasty percentage score at the end? as has been said it implies some sort of 'absolute' precision where in fact none exists at all..it is simply crazy. Take a look at the BJP or 'professional photography' magazine who avoid such silly scores and do have really in depth reviews.

 

What does bother me is that AP seem to think that they alone amongst all the magazines & journals in the entire world are free from advertiser pressure..really? the only one in the world with free speech? I do not think so..this seems quite an arrogant attitude to take, they are saying they are right and everyone else is wrong and are under pressure from advertsisers. AP has trotted out this line for years and still are.

 

I am also greatly bothered when the editor says he knows the results of the 'review' before the tester presents the results to him! so why bother employing the tester? why not just ghost write it himself?

 

The whole regime just bothers me a little too much to take any of their so-called 'reviews' seriously any longer....bring back Geoffrey Crawley..

 

cheers Steve.

[colin carron]

When trying to get an idea of any piece of kit from reviews I go by the principle they use in ice skating : Take an average of all the judges scores having first knocked out the lowest / highest from the East German judge.

[ilkka]

You have to take all reviews with a bowl of salt. Read them and try to understand what they actually mean, not necessarily what they say, and then make up your own opinion. Do not under any circumstances put much weight in their conclusion. If you think of reviews as 90% entertainment and 10% disguised facts and infomation, you are quite safe.

[alan_ginman]

"Issue a fatwa! Burn them at the stake! Tie them to a goat and send them out into the desert! Get the tar and feathers!"

 

Surely you need to get the tar and feathers BEFORE you tie them to the goat and send them into the desert? Ohterwise you'd have to try and find the goat again. And deserts tend to be very big. Although admitedly, the UK ones are quite small.

 

Regards

 

Alan

[david_purton]

What do you expect from AP. Nobody seems to have mentioned that, given this was a comparison review between a D200 and S5, that her conclusion was the Canon 5D was better! I have 25 years professional experience and am a wedding, school and portfolio photographer. I went to London and borrowed an S5 and D200 and a 17-35mm f2.8 Nikkor. The same shots, in RAW, were adequately revealing and hardly anything new.(Processed in Lighhroom and CS2..an even better result for the Fuji is available in Hyper Utility, if you can stand the software!) The D200 has it in ultimate fine detail resolution and due to low artifacting can be sharpened (like the D2x) to an extraordinary degree.The S5 colours are more vibrant and completely hammers the D200 for noise, noticeable increasingly from 400asa upwards and dramatically better at 1600asa. I have Noise Ninja and CS2 and Lightroom and was still unable to match the S5 for noise performance with the D200. I took crops from A3 and had sections printed to 12 X 8ins. There was no obvious resolution difference at this print size, except for the Fuji style artifacts just visible as halos around some very fine details at 100% on a 19inch calibrated LCD monitor but scarcely visible on the prints. Absolutely no point publishing them to the web for resolution differences!

 

Oh yes! Did I say the dynamic range on the Fuji is greater than any other Dslr, including the Canon 1DS mk2, at around 12.5 f stops throughout it's asa range.

 

So we all know now because we have been told often enough, the D200 for lower contrast scenes where an optimum resolution may be of benefit, and an S5 if you photograph people. I don't do landscapes, I do pretty girls in studios, weddings and school photography...so, you can keep your landscapes and D200 and I will save for a pair of S5's thank you very much! Actually I will probably leave it another year or so to see what Nikon do for the D300/D3x. There can be no doubt, if they can conquer the noise and dynamic range issues of their present line up and maintain a true 12 mp which already tests the optics, they will have created the "dream" dslr or may be Fuji will get their first or may be they could work together!

 

Just like the old days, if you want substantially better than dSLR's can offer, you have to go to "medium format" and put up with the price differentials!

 

David