«

Has anyone in this group read the new CR digital camera article--and if so,
what did you think of it and its conclusions?

Norm Strong

On Jun 3, 2:35 pm, <normanstr...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Has anyone in this group read the new CR digital camera article--and if so,
> what did you think of it and its conclusions?
>
> Norm Strong

I read it--what I liked most was the singling out of camera models
that addressed certain problems seen in earlier models. Most
important for me are having an optical viewfinder and minimal shutter
lag. I will certainly refer to it when I replace my backup Powershot
S410.

That being said, I still think of dpreview.com as THE source.

Paul B.
www.scienceteacher.biz

<> wrote in message
news:. ..
> Has anyone in this group read the new CR digital camera article--and if
> so, what did you think of it and its conclusions?
>
> Norm Strong

It is somewhat useful but also somewhat suspicious.

The picture quality is judge by eyeballing a print out, this seems too
unreliable to me.

IMO, things that can be measured should be measured. E.g. resolving power,
color accuracy, lens distortion, noise, etc.

Eyeballing should be reserved for things that are impossible to measure.
But, eyeballing is cheap and fast.

Use this along with other resources on the web for a more complete picture.
Like the other poster said, dpreview.com is very good (there's a reason why
amazon.com bought them) Unfortunately they don't review all cameras.

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 11:35:41 -0700, normanstrong wrote:

> Has anyone in this group read the new CR digital camera article--and if so,
> what did you think of it and its conclusions?
>
> Norm Strong

Very superficial. They generally don't even mention, let alone consider
attributes which I mark of major import.

wrote:
> Has anyone in this group read the new CR digital camera article--and
> if so, what did you think of it and its conclusions?
>
> Norm Strong

Consumer Reports is great for reliability ratings of washing mashines, cars,
and lawnmowers. But when it comes to cameras, they really haven't a clue.
I subscribe and will continue to do so, but they cater to generalized
"consumers" (thus the name), and definitely not picky photog types who know
specs and which specs really matter and why.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mark² wrote:
> wrote:
>> Has anyone in this group read the new CR digital camera article--and
>> if so, what did you think of it and its conclusions?
>>
>> Norm Strong
>
> Consumer Reports is great for reliability ratings of washing mashines, cars,
> and lawnmowers. But when it comes to cameras, they really haven't a clue.
> I subscribe and will continue to do so, but they cater to generalized
> "consumers" (thus the name), and definitely not picky photog types who know
> specs and which specs really matter and why.
>
Perhaps washing machines and lawnmowers, but based on my personal
experience, certainly not cars.
Allen

Allen wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Has anyone in this group read the new CR digital camera article--and
>>> if so, what did you think of it and its conclusions?
>>>
>>> Norm Strong
>>
>> Consumer Reports is great for reliability ratings of washing
>> mashines, cars, and lawnmowers. But when it comes to cameras, they
>> really haven't a clue. I subscribe and will continue to do so, but
>> they cater to generalized "consumers" (thus the name), and
>> definitely not picky photog types who know specs and which specs
>> really matter and why.
> Perhaps washing machines and lawnmowers, but based on my personal
> experience, certainly not cars.
> Allen

Notice that I referred only to reliability ratings. You are a sample of
ONE, which is statistically insignificant...meaning you certainly could have
a lemon by any maunfacturer. Their reliability statistics have been
historically consistent.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 17:19:41 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> wrote:
>> Has anyone in this group read the new CR digital camera article--and
>> if so, what did you think of it and its conclusions?
>>
>> Norm Strong
>
>Consumer Reports is great for reliability ratings of washing mashines, cars,
>and lawnmowers. But when it comes to cameras, they really haven't a clue.
>I subscribe and will continue to do so, but they cater to generalized
>"consumers" (thus the name), and definitely not picky photog types who know
>specs and which specs really matter and why.

They also have an agenda. I'm not sure what to call it, but they will
very harshly rate a product for extra-cost features that they don't
like. They do not just say "it works" or "it doesn't work". They have
to add their personal bias as to whether the feature is worthwhile. I
think they also have a bais against high end models.

I guess it's the "bargain basement" bias.


--

Allen wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> Has anyone in this group read the new CR digital camera article--and
>>> if so, what did you think of it and its conclusions?
>>>
>>> Norm Strong
>>
>> Consumer Reports is great for reliability ratings of washing mashines,
>> cars, and lawnmowers.
>>
> Perhaps washing machines and lawnmowers, but based on my personal


Not anything. Not cars, not washing machines, not orange juice,
not paint. The tend to zero in on the political correctness
of an item, not it's suitability for use by someone who cares.

Doug McDonald

Mark² wrote:
> Allen wrote:
>> Mark² wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> Has anyone in this group read the new CR digital camera article--and
>>>> if so, what did you think of it and its conclusions?
>>>>
>>>> Norm Strong
>>> Consumer Reports is great for reliability ratings of washing
>>> mashines, cars, and lawnmowers. But when it comes to cameras, they
>>> really haven't a clue. I subscribe and will continue to do so, but
>>> they cater to generalized "consumers" (thus the name), and
>>> definitely not picky photog types who know specs and which specs
>>> really matter and why.
>> Perhaps washing machines and lawnmowers, but based on my personal
>> experience, certainly not cars.
>> Allen
>
> Notice that I referred only to reliability ratings. You are a sample of
> ONE, which is statistically insignificant...meaning you certainly could have
> a lemon by any maunfacturer. Their reliability statistics have been
> historically consistent.
>
I bought a car based on their very glowing review. Four years later that
same car was placed on their lemon list. I don't think that lemon list
decision was based on just my one car; it was almost certainly based on
many complaints from across the country. Also, when that lemon list came
out the did the "weather man" act--they didn't mention their erroneous
original praise. I found many other recommendations from that same time
period that weren't consistent with experience. Also, some of their
tests on materials like soaps and detergents were tested in only one
location, with no attempt to check out varying local conditions of
things like hardness of water. In short, I completely lost faith in
them. If you place complete faith in them, then I wish you good luck.
Allen