Consumer Reports digital camera reviews

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Guest, Jun 3, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    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
    Guest, Jun 3, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    plb49 Guest

    On Jun 3, 2:35 pm, <> 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
    plb49, Jun 3, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    peter Guest

    <> 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.
    peter, Jun 3, 2007
    #3
  4. Guest

    ray Guest

    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.
    ray, Jun 3, 2007
    #4
  5. Guest

    Mark² Guest

    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, Jun 4, 2007
    #5
  6. Guest

    Allen Guest

    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, Jun 4, 2007
    #6
  7. Guest

    Mark² Guest

    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
    Mark², Jun 4, 2007
    #7
  8. Guest

    LurfysMa Guest

    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.


    --
    LurfysMa, Jun 4, 2007
    #8
  9. 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
    Doug McDonald, Jun 4, 2007
    #9
  10. Guest

    Allen Guest

    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
    Allen, Jun 4, 2007
    #10
  11. Guest

    David Guest

    "LurfysMa" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
    >


    I have seen several magazines including consumer reports become more
    political in recent years. Two that I read that fit this category are
    Consumer Reports and Scientific American. I just want pure data, but they
    now seem to blend a social and political agenda into their ratings
    (C-Reports), choice of articles (S-American), and editorials (both). I do
    not like this trend. I subscribe to both, but that will end if they shift
    any further in that direction. AARP will never get a penny from me for the
    same reason. As they used to say, "Just the facts, just the facts".

    David
    David, Jun 4, 2007
    #11
  12. David wrote on Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:06:30 -0500:


    D> "LurfysMa" <> wrote in message
    D> news:...
    ??>> 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.
    ??>>

    D> D> I have seen several magazines including consumer reports
    D> become more political in recent years. Two that I read that
    D> fit this category are Consumer Reports and Scientific
    D> American. I just want pure data, but they now seem to blend
    D> a social and political agenda into their ratings
    D> (C-Reports), choice of articles (S-American), and editorials
    D> (both). I do not like this trend. I subscribe to both, but

    D> AARP will never get a penny from me for the same reason. As
    D> they used to say, "Just the facts, just the facts".

    But that's not all what Consumer Reports has ever supplied. I
    have been a subscriber for 45 years and *will* continue even if
    I usually try to add to the information and opinions when I make
    a major purchase.


    James Silverton
    Potomac, Maryland

    E-mail, with obvious alterations:
    not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
    James Silverton, Jun 4, 2007
    #12
  13. Allen wrote:

    >>

    > 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



    Exactly. Even their reliability ratings are suspect. Even when they
    rate a product as having poor reliability, it may only be because
    they abused it in a certain way, and used properly it would be
    very nice.

    When buying any non-throw away it behooves people to use Net resources
    to find out about it. The net of course is full of people
    out to both shill and attack products, and you have to sort through
    them, but in general it can be done. I, for example, about
    four years ago bought an early HDTV set against the recommendations
    of most people. I have been very happy with it: yes, they were
    right about its main faults, but I corrected one (an uncorrectable
    color temperature, as it has no adjustment, was easily corrected
    with a standard 85C filter from B&H) and don't mind the other
    (a less than stellar black level.)

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Jun 4, 2007
    #13
  14. Guest

    Mark² Guest

    Doug McDonald wrote:
    > Allen wrote:
    >
    >>>

    >> 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

    >
    >
    > Exactly. Even their reliability ratings are suspect. Even when they
    > rate a product as having poor reliability, it may only be because
    > they abused it in a certain way, and used properly it would be
    > very nice.


    That's not where they get their reliability ratings. -Has nothing to do
    with sample cars they use or abuse. Reliability is based on extensive
    surveys taken among owners of each vehicle, and maint. records for each.
    When they don't have enough samples for a particular vehicle, they note
    that, and don't offer a rating for it.


    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Jun 4, 2007
    #14
  15. Guest

    LurfysMa Guest

    On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 09:06:30 -0500, "David" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"LurfysMa" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> 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.
    >>

    >
    >I have seen several magazines including consumer reports become more
    >political in recent years. Two that I read that fit this category are
    >Consumer Reports and Scientific American. I just want pure data, but they
    >now seem to blend a social and political agenda into their ratings
    >(C-Reports), choice of articles (S-American), and editorials (both).


    The whole point of the editorals is to make judgments and take
    positions. You can't (well, shouldn't) ding them for that. I have no
    problem with them editorializing all they want, in fact I think it
    adds value, as long as they clearly identify it as such and keep it
    out of the reviews.

    >I do
    >not like this trend. I subscribe to both, but that will end if they shift
    >any further in that direction. AARP will never get a penny from me for the
    >same reason. As they used to say, "Just the facts, just the facts".
    >
    >David



    --
    LurfysMa, Jun 4, 2007
    #15
  16. Mark² wrote:

    >>
    >> Exactly. Even their reliability ratings are suspect. Even when they
    >> rate a product as having poor reliability, it may only be because
    >> they abused it in a certain way, and used properly it would be
    >> very nice.

    >
    > That's not where they get their reliability ratings. -Has nothing to do
    > with sample cars they use or abuse. Reliability is based on extensive
    > surveys taken among owners of each vehicle,


    That's true only for cars and a very few other things. For those, yes,
    as a retrospective look, it has value.

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Jun 4, 2007
    #16
  17. Guest

    ASAAR Guest

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

    > 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.


    Nonsense. For cameras they're not addressing the concerns of
    those that have a great knowledge of cameras, but those of the much
    greater public that know little about cameras and have modest needs
    and expectations. In other words, is the camera reliable, easy to
    use, and will it produce good 4" x 6" snapshots are of more
    importance than whether it has the features and potential quality of
    multi-thousand dollar DSLRs.

    > 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.


    See? You understand more about CR than your initial knee-jerk
    response indicated. :)
    ASAAR, Jun 4, 2007
    #17
  18. Guest

    LurfysMa Guest

    On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:46:53 -0400, ASAAR <> wrote:

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

    >
    > Nonsense. For cameras they're not addressing the concerns of
    >those that have a great knowledge of cameras, but those of the much
    >greater public that know little about cameras and have modest needs
    >and expectations. In other words, is the camera reliable, easy to
    >use, and will it produce good 4" x 6" snapshots are of more
    >importance than whether it has the features and potential quality of
    >multi-thousand dollar DSLRs.
    >
    >> 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.

    >
    > See? You understand more about CR than your initial knee-jerk
    >response indicated. :)


    knee-jerk? kettle-black? ;-)

    --
    LurfysMa, Jun 4, 2007
    #18
  19. In article <>, ASAAR
    <> wrote:

    > Nonsense. For cameras they're not addressing the concerns of
    > those that have a great knowledge of cameras, but those of the much
    > greater public that know little about cameras and have modest needs
    > and expectations. In other words, is the camera reliable, easy to
    > use, and will it produce good 4" x 6" snapshots are of more
    > importance than whether it has the features and potential quality of
    > multi-thousand dollar DSLRs.


    Granted they review based on the needs of the lowest common
    denominator. HOWEVER, they often review products that have no business
    in the hands of the lowest common denominator; nor do they try to
    elevate the awareness level of their audience.

    Look: Way back when, I used to be in photo retailing. I lived in
    absolute terror of the next CR on cameras; there was absolutely no way
    to predict what they'd recommend as "best." It had more to do with the
    way they chose to review than the actual qualities of the camera.

    They once rated the Miranda Sensorex (sort of a "prosumer" camera of
    the time) over the seriously professional Nikon FTn for RELIABILITY.
    How? They'd simply asked how many times the camera had broken down in
    the last X years, and totally ignored the number of rolls run through.
    For the Miranda, it was probably dozens, the Nikon probably hundreds or
    thousands.

    The lesson is, even if the product is for the Average Joe, a "generic"
    review agency CANNOT correctly review products much more complex than a
    can opener. They simply don't, and can't, have the context to know
    what's important.
    Scott Schuckert, Jun 4, 2007
    #19
  20. Guest

    Allen Guest

    Scott Schuckert wrote:
    <snip>
    > They once rated the Miranda Sensorex (sort of a "prosumer" camera of
    > the time) over the seriously professional Nikon FTn for RELIABILITY.
    > How? They'd simply asked how many times the camera had broken down in
    > the last X years, and totally ignored the number of rolls run through.
    > For the Miranda, it was probably dozens, the Nikon probably hundreds or
    > thousands.

    <snip>
    In defense of Miranda--
    My first SLR was a Miranda F. It was what I could afford, and it had a
    huge number of features, such as removable prism. It turned out that the
    lens on it was an extremely good performer, as was a 135mm Soligor that
    I later bought for it. The real price of that low price and all the
    extra features was that it literally fell apart after a few years, but
    during its life it was a great camera. I replaced it with a Canon FTBn,
    which I really liked, but it finally succumbed to one too many dunkings,
    including one which required that I put it in the kitchen oven at a very
    low setting for about 45 minutes, it was in turn replaced by a Canon EOS
    Elan, which I handed down to my daughter. Back to that Miranda F--I got
    what I paid for, which was several years of very pleasant use and a
    large number of pictures that I treasure.
    Allen
    Allen, Jun 5, 2007
    #20
    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. ArtKramr

    Consumer Reports picks Olympus 4000

    ArtKramr, Nov 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    746
    Ed Kirstein
    Nov 13, 2003
  2. Mark Herring

    Open letter to Consumer Reports

    Mark Herring, Apr 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    690
    §c©©t§
    Apr 18, 2004
  3. catherine yronwode

    Consumer Reports rated digital photo editors including freeware

    catherine yronwode, Jul 1, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    134
    Views:
    2,066
    ASAAR
    Jul 7, 2007
  4. Wlm Singleton
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    340
    Yrrah
    Jul 3, 2007
  5. Victek
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    386
    Bill Tuthill
    Oct 1, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page