Canon G5 vs Sony DSC V1

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Orfeo, Aug 11, 2004.

  1. Orfeo

    Orfeo Guest

    Howdy,

    OK, sorry to ask such a repetitive question for yall, but i'm about to get a
    digital camera and need the pro's advice :)

    OK, going travelling around the world so need something small but are
    experience with slr photography so want something with manual options. And
    of cource every penny counts for my trip so it needs to be cheep.

    I've boiled it down to the sony and the cannon, the sony has the size going
    for it, but has a washed out colour sensor (apparantly all the colours are
    cooler when taken on the sony). The cannon however has a nice
    vivid/saturated colour palet, but also suffers from bad optics cause they
    sqeezed all the sensors onto the same chip as the G3 (i've read). Also the
    cannon is bigger but has a faster widers lense.

    The way i see it is the sony's cooler colour bias can be fixed up in
    photohop later? yeah?, but the canon's lense problems can't? The size is a
    big plus for the sony and i figure i can get away with a slower lense (only
    f2.8 vs 2.0 for the g5 i think) and i'm prepared to give up the wide angle
    lense in favour of a smaller camera in the sony. So i think the Sony wins
    out hands down (also cheaper).


    But is there anything you guys could add that i'm missing??

    thanks heaps for any feedback, i know how many of these sorta of questions
    you get :)

    orfeo

    ps: has anyone had any experience with the Belkin Digital Camera Link for
    the iPod?? any advice?
     
    Orfeo, Aug 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Orfeo

    RonFrank Guest

    "Orfeo" <> wrote in message
    news:zCqSc.52323$...
    > Howdy,
    >
    > OK, sorry to ask such a repetitive question for yall, but i'm about to get

    a
    > digital camera and need the pro's advice :)


    So why ask here :)->

    IMO read the reviews on DP Review, Steve's Digicams, and the imaging
    resouce. Look in user forums, and read what users have to say about each
    camera you are considering. Then go to a store, and check them out in
    person.

    Ron
     
    RonFrank, Aug 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Orfeo

    mcs Guest

    "RonFrank" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Orfeo" <> wrote in message
    > news:zCqSc.52323$...
    > > Howdy,
    > >
    > > OK, sorry to ask such a repetitive question for yall, but i'm about to

    get
    > a
    > > digital camera and need the pro's advice :)

    >
    > So why ask here :)->
    >
    > IMO read the reviews on DP Review, Steve's Digicams, and the imaging
    > resouce. Look in user forums, and read what users have to say about each
    > camera you are considering. Then go to a store, and check them out in
    > person.
    >
    > Ron
    >
    > Can the original poster tell me about this color problem you allege to

    know about on the V1? Any links?
     
    mcs, Aug 11, 2004
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    "RonFrank" <> writes:

    >"Orfeo" <> wrote in message
    >news:zCqSc.52323$...
    >
    >>Howdy,
    >>
    >>OK, sorry to ask such a repetitive question for yall,
    >>but i'm about to get a
    >>digital camera and need the pro's advice :)

    >
    >So why ask here :)->


    Your response is needlessly negative,
    and I am not discussing film.

    IMO browsing Internet newsgroups is a low cost method for
    surveying the existing marketplace and for learning the current
    market issues. The personal perspectives provided help the
    browser judge objectivity. This is equivalent to learning
    "to talk the talk".

    >IMO read the reviews on DP Review, Steve's Digicams, and the imaging
    >resouce. Look in user forums, and read what users have to say about each
    >camera you are considering. Then go to a store, and check them out in
    >person.


    I always question reviews' objectivity. Who is funding the
    review service and what is their agenda? Similarly, advice
    supplied by salesmen might reflect equipment commission values
    (or what's currently sitting on the shelf in the back room).

    In larger metropolitan areas some camera stores offer equipment
    rentals. For a reasonable fee an adult can rent a dDSR (or other
    major piece of equipment), learn the equipment's capabilities and
    determine empirically what piece of equipment (if any) meets the
    prospective purchaser's needs. Renting equipment before purchase
    is equivalent to learning "to walk the walk".

    Of course, if previous renters have damaged (e.g., permanently
    warped) rental photographic equipment, the rental experience
    will be disappointing and the prospective purchaser will be
    discouraged. Prior experience helps, but caveat emptor.

    "All Rights Reserved"?
    If I 'right' must I reserve?

    I got no problems.
    Other people got problems.
    00: 18+ _8 02 03/35 06 09

    Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
    --
    Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
    Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
    Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg
     
    Richard Ballard, Aug 11, 2004
    #4
  5. Orfeo

    Orfeo Guest

    cool thank, i didn't think to check the user forums, ta


    orfeo


    "RonFrank" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Orfeo" <> wrote in message
    > news:zCqSc.52323$...
    > > Howdy,
    > >
    > > OK, sorry to ask such a repetitive question for yall, but i'm about to

    get
    > a
    > > digital camera and need the pro's advice :)

    >
    > So why ask here :)->
    >
    > IMO read the reviews on DP Review, Steve's Digicams, and the imaging
    > resouce. Look in user forums, and read what users have to say about each
    > camera you are considering. Then go to a store, and check them out in
    > person.
    >
    > Ron
    >
    >
     
    Orfeo, Aug 11, 2004
    #5
  6. Orfeo

    Orfeo Guest

    it was in an australian mag. i'll try to find a online copy of it, but
    basically it compared a photo of a colour chart with the g5, and all the
    colours were noticly cooler , not as bright vivid etc....aparantly a
    cultural prefrence of the japanese market....

    orfeo


    "mcs" <> wrote in message news:D8rSc.1524$Iv.1494@trndny03...
    >
    > "RonFrank" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > "Orfeo" <> wrote in message
    > > news:zCqSc.52323$...
    > > > Howdy,
    > > >
    > > > OK, sorry to ask such a repetitive question for yall, but i'm about to

    > get
    > > a
    > > > digital camera and need the pro's advice :)

    > >
    > > So why ask here :)->
    > >
    > > IMO read the reviews on DP Review, Steve's Digicams, and the imaging
    > > resouce. Look in user forums, and read what users have to say about each
    > > camera you are considering. Then go to a store, and check them out in
    > > person.
    > >
    > > Ron
    > >
    > > Can the original poster tell me about this color problem you allege to

    > know about on the V1? Any links?
    >
    >
     
    Orfeo, Aug 11, 2004
    #6
  7. Orfeo

    Sabineellen Guest

    >OK, going travelling around the world so need something small but are
    >experience with slr photography so want something with manual options.


    Orfeo. I would suggest you get a camera that uses AA batteries if you're
    travelling. Take a small international AA charger and NIHM batteries.

    Here are 5MP cameras that'll use AA. I suggest you buy one that uses either SD
    or CF media.

    http://tinyurl.com/2kg2n
     
    Sabineellen, Aug 11, 2004
    #7
  8. Orfeo

    Orfeo Guest

    Here is the artical about the sony's washed out colours

    http://dp-now.com/archives/000696c.html

    from dp-now.com, i think its on the 3rd page,

    orfeo


    "mcs" <> wrote in message news:D8rSc.1524$Iv.1494@trndny03...
    >
    > "RonFrank" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > "Orfeo" <> wrote in message
    > > news:zCqSc.52323$...
    > > > Howdy,
    > > >
    > > > OK, sorry to ask such a repetitive question for yall, but i'm about to

    > get
    > > a
    > > > digital camera and need the pro's advice :)

    > >
    > > So why ask here :)->
    > >
    > > IMO read the reviews on DP Review, Steve's Digicams, and the imaging
    > > resouce. Look in user forums, and read what users have to say about each
    > > camera you are considering. Then go to a store, and check them out in
    > > person.
    > >
    > > Ron
    > >
    > > Can the original poster tell me about this color problem you allege to

    > know about on the V1? Any links?
    >
    >
     
    Orfeo, Aug 12, 2004
    #8
  9. On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:07:11 GMT, "Orfeo" <>
    wrote:

    >I've boiled it down to the sony and the cannon, the sony has the size going
    >for it, but has a washed out colour sensor (apparantly all the colours are
    >cooler when taken on the sony). The cannon however has a nice
    >vivid/saturated colour palet, but also suffers from bad optics cause they
    >sqeezed all the sensors onto the same chip as the G3 (i've read). Also the
    >cannon is bigger but has a faster widers lense.


    There is a very extensive review of the Sony at
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/ and almost certainly the Canon as
    well.

    I did a very detailed comparison of the DSC-V1 and the Olympus C60z
    before making my choice. The Sony definitely has a more "washed out"
    appearance to its colour but, according to the reviewer, it gives a
    more accurate capture of true colours than many similar digicams - the
    reason being that many / most deliberately emphasize warmer colours in
    the pictures.

    So what it really comes down to is whether you want the colours to be
    snappier, brighter and warmer or more genuine reproduction of the
    colours in the original subject.

    I bought the Sony.
     
    Simon Pleasants, Aug 16, 2004
    #9
  10. On 11 Aug 2004 16:05:01 GMT, (Richard Ballard)
    wrote:

    >I always question reviews' objectivity. Who is funding the
    >review service and what is their agenda? Similarly, advice
    >supplied by salesmen might reflect equipment commission values
    >(or what's currently sitting on the shelf in the back room).


    Questioning the reviewers' objectivity is never a bad thing, but don't
    let being overly cynical blind you to good information, either.

    One of the sites mentioned http://www.imaging-resource.com/ the
    reviewer has no obvious axe to grind, but in any case, original
    pictures under a variety of conditions are provided on the site.
    Whilst I valued the opinion of the reviewer ulimately my decision was
    based on my own observations. These were reached by downloading every
    original control image taken by each of the cameras being considered,
    going through them in great detail on my computer.

    The review site not only provided helpful information from the
    reviewer but also all of these sample images without which my decision
    would have been far less informed.

    Additionally, I found it a good comparison compared to end user
    reviews. Many of these end users have only used one camera - the one
    they've bought. It either missed, met or exceeded their expectations
    and the review reflect this, but since their expectations were all
    different, the goal posts were in different places. As a result it is
    very difficult to use these as a guide between closely specified
    cameras. Having one person, who is an expert, and has used them both
    provides a much more valid guide to which might be the better unit -
    notwithstanding the fact that there will still be a certain amount of
    reviewer bias as he/she will have their own set of expectations and
    preferences.
     
    Simon Pleasants, Aug 16, 2004
    #10
  11. In Message-ID: <>,
    Simon Pleasants <> writes:

    >On 11 Aug 2004 16:05:01 GMT,
    > (Richard Ballard) wrote:
    >
    >>I always question reviews' objectivity. Who is funding the
    >>review service and what is their agenda? Similarly, advice
    >>supplied by salesmen might reflect equipment commission values
    >>(or what's currently sitting on the shelf in the back room).

    >
    >Questioning the reviewers' objectivity is never a bad thing, but don't
    >let being overly cynical blind you to good information, either.
    >
    >One of the sites mentioned http://www.imaging-resource.com/ the
    >reviewer has no obvious axe to grind, but in any case, original
    >pictures under a variety of conditions are provided on the site.
    >Whilst I valued the opinion of the reviewer ulimately my decision was
    >based on my own observations. These were reached by downloading every
    >original control image taken by each of the cameras being considered,
    >going through them in great detail on my computer.
    >
    >The review site not only provided helpful information from the
    >reviewer but also all of these sample images without which
    >my decision would have been far less informed.


    Your comments are valid, but they do not address my original
    concerns -- objectivity of review (sins of omission?). And
    all review readers do not take the time or effort to personally
    validate the review conclusions provided (sins of commission?).

    >Additionally, I found it a good comparison compared to end user
    >reviews. Many of these end users have only used one camera - the one
    >they've bought. It either missed, met or exceeded their expectations
    >and the review reflect this, but since their expectations were all
    >different, the goal posts were in different places. As a result it is
    >very difficult to use these as a guide between closely specified
    >cameras. Having one person, who is an expert, and has used them both
    >provides a much more valid guide to which might be the better unit -
    >notwithstanding the fact that there will still be a certain amount of
    >reviewer bias as he/she will have their own set of expectations and
    >preferences.


    My experience is that consumers usually understand their
    equipment requirements whether they are purchasing dSLRs,
    automobiles, whatever -- otherwise they would not be shopping.

    For example, I currently am dSLR shopping. I have experience
    in film photography [Minolta 35mm SLR, Yashica 2.25"x2.25"
    (120) TLR] with some scanning by Eastman Kodak, I know my
    shooting style and I am investigating how purchasing a dSLR
    can enhance my current capabilities. I am taking my time
    making an (additional) capabilities versus cost trade. I use
    RPD as a forum to identify dSLR technology trends and issues.

    IMO outside experts' primary utility is suggesting opportunities
    and applications that new technology offers -- subject matter that
    the consumer has not experienced. E.g., I do not attempt to teach
    a cobbler how to make shoes, but I might offer to teach a cobbler
    how to cook.

    "All Rights Reserved"?
    If I 'right' must I reserve?

    I gut no problems.
    Other people gut problems.
    00: 18+ _8 02 03/35 06 09

    Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
    --
    Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
    Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
    Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg
     
    Richard Ballard, Aug 17, 2004
    #11
  12. On 17 Aug 2004 11:38:15 GMT, (Richard Ballard)
    wrote:

    >Your comments are valid, but they do not address my original
    >concerns -- objectivity of review (sins of omission?).


    I did not dwell on objectivity, this is true, and clearly I have no
    access to information regards whether the reviewer gets differing
    commission levels / mark ups on different makes.

    This is, in part, why I took the decision to thoroughly review the
    sample images myself. Unless he had deliberately sabotaged the images
    of the one camera to make it look less favourable, I believe that I
    was in possession of as much information as is realistic. I don't
    think anyone can know *everything*.

    >And all review readers do not take the time or effort to personally
    >validate the review conclusions provided (sins of commission?).


    Unfortunately this is a fact of life. If people do not bother to do
    the product research then it is a simple case of buyer beware.
    Nevertheless I do believe that some information is better than no
    information when making a decision, although the more information you
    can get, the better - up to a point. The point is the moment where it
    becomes information overload and the number of choices is just
    unrealistically high.

    It will also nearly always be true that between any two unit of
    similar spec and price each will have things it does better than the
    other and vice versa.

    >>Additionally, I found it a good comparison compared to end user
    >>reviews. Many of these end users have only used one camera - the one
    >>they've bought. It either missed, met or exceeded their expectations
    >>and the review reflect this, but since their expectations were all
    >>different, the goal posts were in different places. As a result it is
    >>very difficult to use these as a guide between closely specified
    >>cameras. Having one person, who is an expert, and has used them both
    >>provides a much more valid guide to which might be the better unit -
    >>notwithstanding the fact that there will still be a certain amount of
    >>reviewer bias as he/she will have their own set of expectations and
    >>preferences.

    >
    >My experience is that consumers usually understand their
    >equipment requirements whether they are purchasing dSLRs,
    >automobiles, whatever -- otherwise they would not be shopping.


    I have to disagree to an extent, although not completely. Yes, in
    your example an expert photographer will probably not benefit a vast
    amount from a straight forward review. However someone who is looking
    to buy a digital compact and has not previously used one may well
    benefit from reading other peoples' comments on particularly models.
    Nevertheless, bear in mind that any two people buying the same thing
    will have differing requirements and expectations and are unlikely to
    have cross model experience. Therefore one says the camera is good,
    the next says it is okay but neither can reliably say what it is like
    relative to another camera which they have probably not used.
    Someone, such as a reviewer, may have used both and can therefore give
    a more accurate appraisal of the two products relative to one another
    (notwithstanding the possible influences already discussed).

    >IMO outside experts' primary utility is suggesting opportunities
    >and applications that new technology offers -- subject matter that
    >the consumer has not experienced. E.g., I do not attempt to teach
    >a cobbler how to make shoes, but I might offer to teach a cobbler
    >how to cook.


    Indeed, but when I bought my latest car I test drove about 8 others
    and visited every major dealership in my town. I found a car I was
    very happy with but my other half was less keen so we kept looking.
    Had we bought it doubtless we'd have been happy - and indeed since
    then my sister in law has bought one herself and is indeed happy.

    A few test drives later, however, we found another one for the same
    price which was just an all round nicer car and we bought it. Had we
    gone with my first choice we'd have had an inferior, yet still very
    nice, vehicle but been none the wiser about its inferiority.
    Professional reviews can help assist with things like this (cameras
    are not so easy to take out for a spin) without actually telling me
    how to put it in gear and drive off - and indeed having subsequently
    read reviews of the cars they do bear out my own experience on the
    test drives.
     
    Simon Pleasants, Aug 17, 2004
    #12
  13. In Message-ID: <>,
    Simon Pleasants <> writes:

    >On 17 Aug 2004 11:38:15 GMT,
    > (Richard Ballard) wrote:
    >
    >>Your comments are valid, but they do not address my original
    >>concerns -- objectivity of review (sins of omission?).

    >
    >I did not dwell on objectivity, this is true, and clearly I have no
    >access to information regards whether the reviewer gets differing
    >commission levels / mark ups on different makes.


    Once again, I always wonder how people providing a review
    earn their living. I.e., who is paying the bills, and
    does the sponsor benefit from lack of objectivity?

    >This is, in part, why I took the decision to thoroughly review the
    >sample images myself. Unless he had deliberately sabotaged the images
    >of the one camera to make it look less favourable, I believe that I
    >was in possession of as much information as is realistic. I don't
    >think anyone can know *everything*.


    Consumers know pre-existing requirements. Consumers must
    learn new technology issues (durability and _relevant_ increased
    capabilities), but they need not know "everything". Reviewers
    suggesting new capabilities might (?) provide rationale for a
    more expensive dSLR purchase, but the consumer's priorities
    are the deciding factor.

    >>And all review readers do not take the time or effort to personally
    >>validate the review conclusions provided (sins of commission?).

    >
    >Unfortunately this is a fact of life. If people do not bother to do
    >the product research then it is a simple case of buyer beware.
    >Nevertheless I do believe that some information is better than no
    >information when making a decision, although the more information you
    >can get, the better - up to a point. The point is the moment where it
    >becomes information overload and the number of choices is just
    >unrealistically high.
    >
    >It will also nearly always be true that between any two unit of
    >similar spec and price each will have things it does better than the
    >other and vice versa.


    People walk away from information overload if they smell
    misleading sales pitches in progress. And most decisions
    can be delayed. Retrospect often helps to organize and
    filter a data overload.

    [RB comment:
    In Message-ID: <>,
    Simon Pleasants <> writes:]
    >>>Additionally, I found it a good comparison compared to end user
    >>>reviews. Many of these end users have only used one camera - the one
    >>>they've bought. It either missed, met or exceeded their expectations
    >>>and the review reflect this, but since their expectations were all
    >>>different, the goal posts were in different places. As a result it is
    >>>very difficult to use these as a guide between closely specified
    >>>cameras. Having one person, who is an expert, and has used them both
    >>>provides a much more valid guide to which might be the better unit -
    >>>notwithstanding the fact that there will still be a certain amount of
    >>>reviewer bias as he/she will have their own set of expectations and
    >>>preferences.

    >>
    >>My experience is that consumers usually understand their
    >>equipment requirements whether they are purchasing dSLRs,
    >>automobiles, whatever -- otherwise they would not be shopping.

    >
    >I have to disagree to an extent, although not completely. Yes, in
    >your example an expert photographer will probably not benefit a vast
    >amount from a straight forward review. However someone who is looking
    >to buy a digital compact and has not previously used one may well
    >benefit from reading other peoples' comments on particularly models.
    >Nevertheless, bear in mind that any two people buying the same thing
    >will have differing requirements and expectations and are unlikely to
    >have cross model experience. Therefore one says the camera is good,
    >the next says it is okay but neither can reliably say what it is like
    >relative to another camera which they have probably not used.
    >Someone, such as a reviewer, may have used both and can therefore give
    >a more accurate appraisal of the two products relative to one another
    >(notwithstanding the possible influences already discussed).


    A problem with voluminous reviews is that consumers might
    have different priorities than the reviewer. A voluminous
    review makes it difficult for a consumer to extract the
    consumer's own high priority information.

    Reviewers (presumably) are experts with a wealth of relevant
    personal experience. Novice photographers probably will not
    appreciate (or utilize) nuances in capabilities -- not initially,
    (usually) not for a long time, and (sometimes) never. For that
    matter, IMO novice photographers should concentrate on
    learning composition, not comparing technical nuances.

    I wonder about the wealth of RPD discussion concerning digital
    processing (e.g., RAW vs. TIFF vs. JPG) at the dSLR. My own
    perspective is take a quality image and postprocess it (leisurely)
    on a laptop or desktop computer where poor postprocessing
    decisions can be reworked. IMO novice photographers should
    concentrate on learning to use their equipment intuitively, and
    should learn composition -- learn the digital image processing
    mechanics later and leisurely.

    IMO expert photographers view photographic equipment reviews
    differently. Expert photographers want an equipment
    specification sheet, they want assurance that the spec sheet
    is accurate, they want a reasonable ergonomic interface, and
    they want reliability and durability. They make their own
    decisions based upon good information (rather than accept a
    reviewer's decision).

    IMO personal shooting style is very important in evaluating
    dSLRs. For example, I am extremely concerned about the
    apparent (tenths of a second) delay between the time the
    photographer presses the already half-pressed shutter button
    on some dSLRs and the time of actual exposure. My personal
    shooting style includes half-pressing the shutter button on
    _manually_-metered/focused film SLRs to minimize time delay to
    shutter trip. I don't always utilize this technique, but I use
    it frequently enough (to catch peak action and also to reduce
    camera body movement) that I do not want to mess around with
    a dSLR with a significant time delay between shutter button
    press and shutter trip -- nonintuitive. I wonder how many
    reviewers would emphasize this priority of mine when
    'calculating' a numerical evaluation for their review?

    And while this statement is somewhat cynical, reviews often
    are written to a preestablished format that requires a certain
    length review. A reviewer might invent nonissues in order to
    pad a written review to the required length. (Notice I did
    NOT say 'paid by the word'. ;-)

    >>IMO outside experts' primary utility is suggesting opportunities
    >>and applications that new technology offers -- subject matter that
    >>the consumer has not experienced. E.g., I do not attempt to teach
    >>a cobbler how to make shoes, but I might offer to teach a cobbler
    >>how to cook.

    >
    >Indeed, but when I bought my latest car I test drove about 8 others
    >and visited every major dealership in my town. I found a car I was
    >very happy with but my other half was less keen so we kept looking.
    >Had we bought it doubtless we'd have been happy - and indeed since
    >then my sister in law has bought one herself and is indeed happy.
    >
    >A few test drives later, however, we found another one for the same
    >price which was just an all round nicer car and we bought it. Had we
    >gone with my first choice we'd have had an inferior, yet still very
    >nice, vehicle but been none the wiser about its inferiority.
    >Professional reviews can help assist with things like this (cameras
    >are not so easy to take out for a spin) without actually telling me
    >how to put it in gear and drive off - and indeed having subsequently
    >read reviews of the cars they do bear out my own experience on
    >the test drives.


    "Inferiority" is a relative term reflecting a particular reviewer's
    experience and perspective. Based upon your automotive
    purchasing experience, you might decide to write an automotive
    review. Your review would reflect opinions based (partially) upon
    your personal finances (which a reading consumer might be not able
    to match) and your concepts of automotive utility and luxury
    (which might be not suitable for a reading consumer slightly taller
    than 200 cm). Don't laugh. My hands are too large to comfortably
    use smallish cellular telephones and smallish cameras, and an
    uncomfortably held camera is not steady. Based upon my personal
    experience, third party reviews can become 'Procrustean beds'
    that fit nobody comfortably.

    We probably should agree to disagree on this issue.
    I am independent minded and too old to change my ways.

    "All Rights Reserved"?
    If I 'right' must I reserve?

    I gut no problems.
    Other people gut problems.
    00: 18+ _8 02 03/35 06 09

    Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
    --
    Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
    Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
    Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg
     
    Richard Ballard, Aug 18, 2004
    #13
  14. On 18 Aug 2004 00:09:01 GMT, (Richard Ballard)
    wrote:

    >In Message-ID: <>,
    >Simon Pleasants <> writes:
    >
    >>This is, in part, why I took the decision to thoroughly review the
    >>sample images myself. Unless he had deliberately sabotaged the images
    >>of the one camera to make it look less favourable, I believe that I
    >>was in possession of as much information as is realistic. I don't
    >>think anyone can know *everything*.

    >
    >Consumers know pre-existing requirements. Consumers must
    >learn new technology issues (durability and _relevant_ increased
    >capabilities), but they need not know "everything". Reviewers
    >suggesting new capabilities might (?) provide rationale for a
    >more expensive dSLR purchase, but the consumer's priorities
    >are the deciding factor.


    How much information the consumer requires is really down to the
    individual consumer. As you say their priorities are the deciding
    factor but a good review can offer advice on the very areas which are
    of interest and quite possibly introduce a consideration of relevance
    which to which the consumer had not given any thought.

    >People walk away from information overload if they smell
    >misleading sales pitches in progress. And most decisions
    >can be delayed. Retrospect often helps to organize and
    >filter a data overload.


    I agree - I think anyone would walk away from a salesman if they smell
    a misleading sales pitch and I also agree that most decisions can be
    delayed.

    But I still believe my recent move into digital photography was helped
    immensely by the reviews I read and by further information, such as
    spec sheets and sample images. My knowledge of the intended use for
    the camera and my experience of 35mm photography enabled me to narrow
    down the choice of models considerably. Where the reviews came into
    their own was in deciding between the last two or three. Models were
    of a similar price level and the specs sheets much the same - so what
    were the real differences between the cameras - how did they perform
    under control conditions relative to one another? This was when the
    information and sample images in the reviews really helped.

    I discovered, for example, that between my two main choices under
    almost all circumstances one camera provided warmer but slightly
    softer images than the other. So it was a simple case of personal
    choice - did I prefer the slightly sharper images with weaker colour
    or the slightly brighter but less sharp images of the other? Without
    the full reviews and the sample images I would not have been aware of
    this difference and therefore able to make that choice of preference.

    Furthermore, with a 35mm background, I was much less aware of the
    issues surrounding white balance under different prevailing lighting
    and never even considered what merits the different types of memory
    might bring to the product.

    >A problem with voluminous reviews is that consumers might
    >have different priorities than the reviewer. A voluminous
    >review makes it difficult for a consumer to extract the
    >consumer's own high priority information.


    Well that depends on the consumer and how well the review is written.
    If the review neatly breaks up different aspects and the consumer has
    a clear idea of what is and what is not relevant to themselves, then
    information overload is more easily avoided.

    >Reviewers (presumably) are experts with a wealth of relevant
    >personal experience. Novice photographers probably will not
    >appreciate (or utilize) nuances in capabilities -- not initially,
    >(usually) not for a long time, and (sometimes) never. For that
    >matter, IMO novice photographers should concentrate on
    >learning composition, not comparing technical nuances.


    Absolutely, but then novice photographers should not be, and probably
    won't be, judging a digital compact by whether it offer auto exposure
    bracketing or whether it provides a fully manual mode etc. They
    probably should not even be looking at a unit which such features.

    Any decent reviewer will accept these differences in the needs of the
    photographer and should adjust their writing accordingly. I agree
    absolutely that novices should concentrate on learning technique ahead
    of owning a unit with the maximum number of whistles and bells, most
    of which will be neither understood nor used. And in any case, the
    fastest autofocus or continuous frame rate on the planet won't help
    you if you can't frame the subject properly, completely misjudge
    depths of field or try to shoot directly through glass with the flash
    on!

    >I wonder about the wealth of RPD discussion concerning digital
    >processing (e.g., RAW vs. TIFF vs. JPG) at the dSLR. My own
    >perspective is take a quality image and postprocess it (leisurely)
    >on a laptop or desktop computer where poor postprocessing
    >decisions can be reworked. IMO novice photographers should
    >concentrate on learning to use their equipment intuitively, and
    >should learn composition -- learn the digital image processing
    >mechanics later and leisurely.


    Agreed.

    >IMO expert photographers view photographic equipment reviews
    >differently. Expert photographers want an equipment
    >specification sheet, they want assurance that the spec sheet
    >is accurate, they want a reasonable ergonomic interface, and
    >they want reliability and durability. They make their own
    >decisions based upon good information (rather than accept a
    >reviewer's decision).


    Agreed - and in such circumstances the reviewer can provide little
    help to the expert.

    >IMO personal shooting style is very important in evaluating
    >dSLRs. For example, I am extremely concerned about the
    >apparent (tenths of a second) delay between the time the
    >photographer presses the already half-pressed shutter button
    >on some dSLRs and the time of actual exposure. My personal
    >shooting style includes half-pressing the shutter button on
    >_manually_-metered/focused film SLRs to minimize time delay to
    >shutter trip. I don't always utilize this technique, but I use
    >it frequently enough (to catch peak action and also to reduce
    >camera body movement) that I do not want to mess around with
    >a dSLR with a significant time delay between shutter button
    >press and shutter trip -- nonintuitive. I wonder how many
    >reviewers would emphasize this priority of mine when
    >'calculating' a numerical evaluation for their review?


    With such a specific requirement probably most reviews would not cover
    it. Nevertheless it does not mean that there is *no* useful
    information in a review.

    >>Indeed, but when I bought my latest car I test drove about 8 others
    >>and visited every major dealership in my town. I found a car I was
    >>very happy with but my other half was less keen so we kept looking.
    >>Had we bought it doubtless we'd have been happy - and indeed since
    >>then my sister in law has bought one herself and is indeed happy.
    >>
    >>A few test drives later, however, we found another one for the same
    >>price which was just an all round nicer car and we bought it. Had we
    >>gone with my first choice we'd have had an inferior, yet still very
    >>nice, vehicle but been none the wiser about its inferiority.
    >>Professional reviews can help assist with things like this (cameras
    >>are not so easy to take out for a spin) without actually telling me
    >>how to put it in gear and drive off - and indeed having subsequently
    >>read reviews of the cars they do bear out my own experience on
    >>the test drives.

    >
    >"Inferiority" is a relative term reflecting a particular reviewer's
    >experience and perspective. Based upon your automotive
    >purchasing experience, you might decide to write an automotive
    >review. Your review would reflect opinions based (partially) upon
    >your personal finances (which a reading consumer might be not able
    >to match) and your concepts of automotive utility and luxury
    >(which might be not suitable for a reading consumer slightly taller
    >than 200 cm).


    Of hundreds of cars on the market I drove the equivalent model from
    half a dozen different manufacturers. A reader might not be able to
    match my finances in which case they should not be reading the review
    of the car I bought because they couldn't afford it anyway - similarly
    I did not waste my time reading the reviews of big Mercedes, Jaguars
    or similar cars which were beyond my budget. Likewise someone who
    needs a people carrier will only bother to review different people
    carriers because a two seater coupe is useless to their needs. Most
    reviewers would understand that a review of a people carrier needs to
    address a specific part of the automotive market.

    >Don't laugh. My hands are too large to comfortably
    >use smallish cellular telephones and smallish cameras, and an
    >uncomfortably held camera is not steady. Based upon my personal
    >experience, third party reviews can become 'Procrustean beds'
    >that fit nobody comfortably.


    But fortunately you don't have to sleep in them :) A good review
    will be written in such a way that you can extract the bits that are
    relevant to you and ignore the bits which are not.

    >We probably should agree to disagree on this issue.
    >I am independent minded and too old to change my ways.


    I am also independent minded, but I still value advice when looking at
    something about which I may not know all I need to :)

    As it happens I went against the advice of the member of staff in the
    camera shop - in her opinion the W1 was a nicer unit than the V1 based
    on whatever criteria should judges things by, but I knew from my other
    investigations that the W1 failed to provide the level of manual
    controls that I was looking for.

    Simon.
     
    Simon Pleasants, Aug 18, 2004
    #14
  15. In Message-ID: <>,
    Simon Pleasants <> writes:

    >On 18 Aug 2004 00:09:01 GMT,
    > (Richard Ballard) wrote:
    >
    >>In Message-ID: <>,
    >>Simon Pleasants <> writes:
    >>
    >>>A few test drives later, however, we found another one for the same
    >>>price which was just an all round nicer car and we bought it. Had we
    >>>gone with my first choice we'd have had an inferior, yet still very
    >>>nice, vehicle but been none the wiser about its inferiority.
    >>>Professional reviews can help assist with things like this (cameras
    >>>are not so easy to take out for a spin) without actually telling me
    >>>how to put it in gear and drive off - and indeed having subsequently
    >>>read reviews of the cars they do bear out my own experience on
    >>>the test drives.

    >>
    >>"Inferiority" is a relative term reflecting a particular reviewer's
    >>experience and perspective. Based upon your automotive
    >>purchasing experience, you might decide to write an automotive
    >>review. Your review would reflect opinions based (partially) upon
    >>your personal finances (which a reading consumer might be not able
    >>to match) and your concepts of automotive utility and luxury
    >>(which might be not suitable for a reading consumer slightly taller
    >>than 200 cm).

    >
    >Of hundreds of cars on the market I drove the equivalent model from
    >half a dozen different manufacturers. A reader might not be able to
    >match my finances in which case they should not be reading the review
    >of the car I bought because they couldn't afford it anyway - ...


    "A reader ... should not be reading the review" does not equate
    to "the reader does not require personal transportation". Your
    statement merely means that you (as a reviewer) might have
    priced yourself out of this particular market.

    > ... similarly
    >I did not waste my time reading the reviews of big Mercedes, Jaguars
    >or similar cars which were beyond my budget. Likewise someone who
    >needs a people carrier will only bother to review different people
    >carriers because a two seater coupe is useless to their needs. Most
    >reviewers would understand that a review of a people carrier needs to
    >address a specific part of the automotive market.


    Few sponsors want reviewers to limit their potential audience.

    >>Don't laugh. My hands are too large to comfortably
    >>use smallish cellular telephones and smallish cameras, and an
    >>uncomfortably held camera is not steady. Based upon my personal
    >>experience, third party reviews can become 'Procrustean beds'
    >>that fit nobody comfortably.

    >
    >But fortunately you don't have to sleep in them :)


    It is not clear to me that you understand the mythical legend
    of Procrustes. Procrustes was an innkeeper on a lonely road.
    He had one bed for visitors. If a visitor was too short, Procrustes
    stretched the visitor to fit. If a visitor was too tall, Procrustes
    cut the visitor off at the knees. 'One size fits all' does not equate
    to comfort (or appropriate functionality).

    >A good review
    >will be written in such a way that you can extract the bits that are
    >relevant to you and ignore the bits which are not.


    Perhaps ... if the review sponsor is objective. Do you remember
    the original 'Dick Van Dyke' show featuring Carl Reiner and a
    relatively unknown actress named Mary Tyler Moore? I learned
    a truism from that show: "Never make the recipe on the back of
    the pepper box". That recipe is designed to sell pepper and it is
    hard on your stomach. I react similarly to reviews that I consider
    not objective.

    >>We probably should agree to disagree on this issue.
    >>I am independent minded and too old to change my ways.

    >
    >I am also independent minded, but I still value advice when looking at
    >something about which I may not know all I need to :)


    I view free advice critically, especially when apparent priorities
    differ from my own.

    >As it happens I went against the advice of the member of staff in the
    >camera shop - in her opinion the W1 was a nicer unit than the V1 based
    >on whatever criteria should judges things by, but I knew from my other
    >investigations that the W1 failed to provide the level of manual
    >controls that I was looking for.


    Then you were deciding based upon your personal experience
    and your priorities -- not from a review.

    IMO this thread has become not productive. IMO agreeing to
    not agree is the pleasant compromise.

    "All Rights Reserved"?
    If I 'right' must I reserve?

    I gut no problems.
    Other people gut problems.
    00: 18+ _8 02 03/35 06 09

    Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
    --
    Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
    Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
    Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg
     
    Richard Ballard, Aug 18, 2004
    #15
  16. On 18 Aug 2004 14:32:22 GMT, (Richard Ballard)
    wrote:

    >In Message-ID: <>,
    >Simon Pleasants <> writes:
    >
    >
    >{snip}
    >
    >IMO this thread has become not productive. IMO agreeing to
    >not agree is the pleasant compromise.


    Then, just so the original poster does not think we have contributed
    nothing to the thread - I am pleased with the performance of the V1 I
    have bought and would not hesitate to recommend it. My only
    disappointment is that there is noticeable lens distortion at both
    ends of the zoom range.

    It was a camera I did not consider when first looking and posted a
    message to this forum of a similar nature. Someone suggested the V1
    is a better alternative so I read the spec sheet to check if it had
    the features I required and once done, checked the reviews of its
    performance and sample images provided compared to the others in the
    running. In discussion with my other half, for whom it was being
    purchased, we agreed we preferred the images created by the V1 and
    decided to buy it.

    I cannot offer comment or comparison with the Canon G5 as I do not own
    one and have not used one.
     
    Simon Pleasants, Aug 19, 2004
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. -Gene-

    Sony DSC F828 vs. DSC F848

    -Gene-, Oct 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,261
    Bob Niland
    Oct 28, 2003
  2. digcam

    Sony DSC-V1 vs Sony DSC-F717

    digcam, Oct 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    599
    Unclaimed Mysteries
    Oct 31, 2003
  3. luke

    Sony DSC P10 (or the DSC P5, DSC P9 or DSC P12)

    luke, Dec 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    633
  4. Ohaya

    Is it just me? Sony DSC-P72 vs. DSC-P92

    Ohaya, Jan 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    455
    Ohaya
    Jan 10, 2004
  5. Replies:
    9
    Views:
    683
Loading...

Share This Page