Dpreview kind of biased towards Nikon

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jun 24, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    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
     
    RichA, Jun 24, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    nick c Guest

    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?
     
    nick c, Jun 24, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 24, 6:40 pm, nick c <> 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.
     
    RichA, Jun 25, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    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



    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."
     
    Bruce, Jun 25, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 25, 2:48 pm, Bowser <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:05:22 -0700 (PDT), 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

    >
    > 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)."
     
    RichA, Jun 25, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:

    >On Jun 25, 2:48 pm, Bowser <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:05:22 -0700 (PDT), 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

    >>
    >> 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.
     
    Bruce, Jun 26, 2012
    #6
    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. Bill & Debbie
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    341
    Jack \(MVP-Networking\).
    Jan 28, 2007
  2. GTO
    Replies:
    86
    Views:
    1,559
    measekite
    Oct 3, 2005
  3. Politically biased lighting?

    , Apr 17, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    953
    Paul Heslop
    Apr 26, 2006
  4. Jonathan Walker

    totally biased M$ Propaganda in the Dominion.

    Jonathan Walker, Aug 28, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    380
    peterwn
    Aug 29, 2007
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    247
    Bruce
    Apr 2, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page