Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Dpreview kind of biased towards Nikon

Reply
Thread Tools

Dpreview kind of biased towards Nikon

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2012
I don't usually comment on P&S's other than to deride them, but this
review is a bit odd.
Really, if you look at the images here, the Canon and Olympus, despite
their lower pixel count clearly produce more detailed, sharper images
and they do RAW.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-p310/4

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nick c
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-24-2012
On 6/24/2012 10:05 AM, RichA wrote:
> I don't usually comment on P&S's other than to deride them, but this
> review is a bit odd.
> Really, if you look at the images here, the Canon and Olympus, despite
> their lower pixel count clearly produce more detailed, sharper images
> and they do RAW.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-p310/4
>


Not to my eyes (old as they are). Making them equal (at 200), Canon and
Olympus appear to be just a tad more contrasty than the Nikon. Could it
be the contrast difference appears as though they are sharper?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-25-2012
On Jun 24, 6:40*pm, nick c <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 6/24/2012 10:05 AM, RichA wrote:
>
> > I don't usually comment on P&S's other than to deride them, but this
> > review is a bit odd.
> > Really, if you look at the images here, the Canon and Olympus, despite
> > their lower pixel count clearly produce more detailed, sharper images
> > and they do RAW.

>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-p310/4

>
> Not to my eyes (old as they are). Making them equal (at 200), Canon and
> Olympus appear to be just a tad more contrasty than the Nikon. Could it
> be the contrast difference appears as though they are sharper?


I don't think so, the Olympus appears more contrasty, but the Canon
looks about the same as the Nikon. At 100ISO, if you look at the
default coin image, you can see the lines framing the face more
clearly delineated in the Olympus and Canon shots, as well the date on
the coin is more readable, unlike with the Nikon. At 200 ISO, the
P310 has obliterated much of its detail, the image just look mushy.
The Canon still shows the lines near the face and the Olympus shows
the date clearly enough to make it out. Interestingly the older P300
shows more detail than the new one at 200 ISO. At 400 ISO, it's game
over with the Olympus and Canon RAW's clearly outclassing the Nikon
JPEGs.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-25-2012
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I don't usually comment on P&S's other than to deride them, but this
>review is a bit odd.
>Really, if you look at the images here, the Canon and Olympus, despite
>their lower pixel count clearly produce more detailed, sharper images
>and they do RAW.
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-p310/4



I think you should read the review. It is quite critical of the
Nikon, mentioning several times that the Nikon's small sensor results
in a lot of noise at above base ISO.

In the ratings, image quality, flash performance and low light/high
ISO performance are all marked down. The overall rating is also low
at only 69%. Of the stated competitors, the Canon PowerShot S100
(72%) and Olympus XZ-1 (74%) comfortably beat the Nikon.

"The Nikon Coolpix P310 is a hard camera to categorize, offering the
sort of manual control and customization options that we'd associate
with more expensive models, but with a small sensor and no Raw
shooting option. Ultimately, it's a good-looking, pocketable camera
that has a lot to offer, but falls short of its (more expensive)
high-end rivals when it comes to critical image quality."

 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-25-2012
On Jun 25, 2:48*pm, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:05:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't usually comment on P&S's other than to deride them, but this
> >review is a bit odd.
> >Really, if you look at the images here, the Canon and Olympus, despite
> >their lower pixel count clearly produce more detailed, sharper images
> >and they do RAW.

>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-p310/4

>
> What bias? They deride the camera for so-so image quality and don't
> recommend it. It's also rated lower than the competition.
>
> I'd hate to see a Nikon review if they were biased *against* Nikon.


This one line is a LIE. The camera, despite its pixel-count ERADICATES
detail, doesn't preserve or reveal it. When cameras with lower pixel
counts do a better job, something is wrong. Additionally, no one can
TELL that its images are low-noise because we have (even at 100 ISO)
no idea how much noise they actually had before the NR was dolloped
on.

"At its lowest ISO sensitivity settings, the Nikon Coolpix P310 gives
very good image quality, both in terms of detail (there's plenty) and
noise (there's virtually none to see)."
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-26-2012
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Jun 25, 2:48*pm, Bowser <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:05:22 -0700 (PDT), RichA <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't usually comment on P&S's other than to deride them, but this
>> >review is a bit odd.
>> >Really, if you look at the images here, the Canon and Olympus, despite
>> >their lower pixel count clearly produce more detailed, sharper images
>> >and they do RAW.

>>
>> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-p310/4

>>
>> What bias? They deride the camera for so-so image quality and don't
>> recommend it. It's also rated lower than the competition.
>>
>> I'd hate to see a Nikon review if they were biased *against* Nikon.

>
>This one line is a LIE. The camera, despite its pixel-count ERADICATES
>detail, doesn't preserve or reveal it. When cameras with lower pixel
>counts do a better job, something is wrong. Additionally, no one can
>TELL that its images are low-noise because we have (even at 100 ISO)
>no idea how much noise they actually had before the NR was dolloped
>on.
>
>"At its lowest ISO sensitivity settings, the Nikon Coolpix P310 gives
>very good image quality, both in terms of detail (there's plenty) and
>noise (there's virtually none to see)."



I am tempted to ask "Who is Theano Nikitas?"

He must be one of the freelancers that DPReview seems to be moving
towards using. It makes me wonder whether some of the salaried staff
have been paid off.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should Dpreview be aiming reviews more towards the "stupid" class? RichA Digital Photography 1 04-02-2012 08:38 PM
Biased random? Ivan Voras Python 21 08-31-2007 09:42 PM
Process and its memory Limit. (Linux biased) Nehil C Programming 8 07-09-2007 07:19 PM
Where can I find a review of Wireless Routers that isn't too biased? Bill & Debbie Wireless Networking 1 01-28-2007 03:28 PM
Politically biased lighting? landnotloans@hotmail.com Digital Photography 47 04-26-2006 03:52 PM



Advertisments