One of the strangest comments I repeatedly see is: ‘they don’t use their cameras in the real world,’ stated, as all things must be on the forums, as absolute fact. As if the sample galleries that accompany every review somehow generate themselves.
As my friends (who can no longer meet up with me without having a camera pointed at them or being asked to stand around as I kneel, climb or wait to ‘get the shot right’) will testify, we all-but sleep with the camera we’re reviewing (and I can’t guarantee some of us wouldn’t do that, if we it weren’t for the fact that the results would be unpublishable). And part of the opinion we build up about a camera is based on that real-world experience, rather than simply shooting test charts all day – though it’s possible to anticipate a lot of the real-world image performance from learning to interpret the different tests.
We try to make sure that our shooting experiences are a little bit varied – or, at least, that’s the justification I used to convince Phil to let me attend the first round of the Track Cycling World Cup in Manchester, recently. I’d originally been hoping to take the EOS 50D and a nice, fast telephoto lens; perhaps with an external flashgun of some description. Unfortunately, my all-too-efficient colleague Lars finished and published the review before the day came.
So instead I found myself trackside, watching some of the world’s best cyclists - including many of Great Britain’s Olympic heroes - clutching the Panasonic LX3, Canon G10 and Panasonic G1, none of which looks likely to make much of an impression in the professional sports-photography market. Indeed, the packs of D3 and 1DIII-toting pros around me made me feel distinctly out-gunned, if not downright inadequate. And it wasn’t just a case of theirs being seen to be so much larger than mine, so publicly. It was the fact that the G10 and G1 (I was only trying to get a sample video for the LX3), are simply not designed for taking photographs of fast-moving subjects in low light.
There is a world of difference between a roughly 300mm equivalent F2.8 lens on a pro-level DSLR and the G10’s 140mm equiv. F4.5 fully extended zoom (or the G1’s 400mm equivalent F5.6 for that matter), before you even start thinking about the speed and accuracy of autofocus. All those unspoken caveats that come with generalisations such as: ‘it doesn’t matter what camera you’ve got,’ felt much harder to brush-over, all of a sudden.
Our galleries aren't meant to represent the absolute pinnacle of what could be achieved if the camera were to be placed in the hands of the greatest living photographer. They are meant to give an impression of the results that most users can expect to get in a variety of situations, with a bit of patience. It's not at all unusual to clock-up 1500 photos on a DSLR review and 500+ for a compact. And that doesn't include the many shaken and out-of-focus images I got in Manchester with single wheels arriving in, or leaving, the shot. Or the medal-winning rear I inadvertently filled the frame with.
In the end I got a couple of gallery-worthy shots out of it along with a salutary lesson about the value of high ISOs and awful lot of panning practice. What I also got was the chance to observe and chat to other photographers, both amateur and professional, about the kit the use and the way they shoot. Because understanding our audience, as well as getting out and taking photos (and, of course, the charts and testing), is an important part of what we do.
That is totally true and very cool! I see everything I need to and more in your reviews and it is appreciated! Keep it up!
Posted by: Robert K | 10 Nov 2008 16:54:31
Hey Rich,
Good to see that you're enjoying the cycling, still - and I'm glad to see that it's allowed to let some of your personality shine through in the DPR blogs - awesome stuff!
- Haje (of photocritic.org demi-infamy)
Posted by: Haje | 10 Nov 2008 16:58:08
Thanks, Richard. I'm enjoying the additional commentary from the DPR team.
Have you folks thought about a "Best of" DPR photo album where you post your favorite images shot with the cameras and lenses you review? You could even hide the EXIF in a few and watch the forums go crazy in gear speculation!
Posted by: Charles Hueter | 10 Nov 2008 17:04:05
Thanks for the idea. I'm not sure I'd want my efforts too directly compared with my more capable colleagues, though. ;)
We do effectively have such a thing on the plasma screen in the office, though. Again, names removed to protect the inexperienced.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 10 Nov 2008 17:16:19
This is my main beef with DPR camera reviews: the single "Highly Recommended," "Recommended," etc. ratings. Highly recommended for what? Indoor candids? Landscape? Street? Sports? Yes, you can usually figure it out by reading the whole review, but there it still is, that big bitmap at the bottom that seems to say "This, and this alone, is what this camera is worth." I know that's not what you really mean to say, but certainly for at least a subset of your readers, that's what they read.
That said, I think your reviews are really very good, and most useful. Keep up the excellent work. And keep blogging!
Posted by: Nerdie McSweatervest | 10 Nov 2008 17:17:43
Is there picture with the G10?
Posted by: talepictures | 10 Nov 2008 17:53:53
Definitely keep blogging!
I personally do find myself overwhelmed by some of your test charts & comparison graphs n' such, but I do heed whatever comments you tend to add better describing the figures & numbers & have come to appreciate the value of mathematically justifiable tests. I mean we all know that most serious cameras that come out today, specially higher up on the food-chain are going to be stellar & are going to receive your Highly Recommended review grade.
And in those circumstances, it's good to have a test graph comparing the ISO performance or noise or distortion or IS... because in the hands of capable photographers, they're all bound to shine!
And for those of us who simply like to see shots that are more life-like, you do an excellent job with the galleries covering a good amount of dynamic range & varying light situations...
Bah, i'm babbling... In short, you guys do a good job with your reviews & while I also believe you should start categorizing or comparing (in a "best of" sorta way) the Highly Recommended cameras, as too many of your cameras seem to be rated Highly Recommended!
Cheers!
Posted by: Gaurav S. | 10 Nov 2008 17:55:13
I'm not really in a position to talk about the rating system but yes, we are aware it isn't currently perfect. Though I doubt there's much we could do to stop some people applying far too weight to it.
There will be a G10 image in the review samples (I hope). One that will withstand publication at full resolution (which this one won't).
Posted by: Richard Butler | 10 Nov 2008 18:02:57
IMHO, it seems that most of the samples gallerie are of outdoor shots (i.e. D90 and many others). I just wished there was more indoor shots (testing high ISO in low light - incadescent or flourescent) like the Canon EOS 1000D. The indoor shots from that samples gallery showed low light indoors + action. That's a good test for a DSLR.
Posted by: Robert Gee | 10 Nov 2008 18:08:17
I have posted twice in this blog before asking if somebody could help me but unfortunately couldn't have a reply. Why I can only find a "post a comment" window in the posts that already have comments? I tried to comment on Lars' post about ACR but just coudn´t find where
Posted by: Andre Oliveira | 10 Nov 2008 19:27:43
http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2008/11/painting-pictur.html#comment-137990062
Posted by: Richard Butler | 10 Nov 2008 20:10:16
There's an interesting point coming through here.
IMHO, most of the cameras from the mainstream manufacturers are pretty competent - at least when operating in their 'sweet spot'. For simple P&S, this sweet spot may be somewhat limited (even if they can be very good within these limitations). OTOH, a high-level DSLR (with suitable lens, flash etc.) can deliver good results under much more extreme conditions (low light, fast action etc.) In effect,the big challenge facing the buyer is to find a make and model that will match their approach to picture taking - taking into account real-life financial limitations. i.e. "Highly Recommended For ..."
And the challenge for reviewers is to help potential buyers by pointing out what the cameras they test excel (or flop) at.
Posted by: Jim T | 11 Nov 2008 03:18:27
Thanks so much for your hard work. I'm not a high-end amateur, but I've been reading this site since maybe 1999 or 2000--20% for the camera reviews and 80% for seeing the samples. Although living in the U.S. I have a godchild in Godalming, where photos are often taken--so I love seeing the village and the surrounding area. And as a massive Anglophile, I check faithfully for fun new photos for my desktop--though I've certainly had my fill of Tower Bridge/Tower/St. Paul's/Southwark Cathedral! :-) I love it when you explore the nooks and crannies around that part of London and give us some new angles on your world. Even better when you get out to Manchester, Oxford, or wherever else you think to go. Thanks again!
Posted by: Patrick | 11 Nov 2008 06:42:40
If you show evidence that you have been out and given the camera a good thrashing and come back with some decent pictures, adds to the credibility of the review, and the reviewer, no question.
Posted by: Attomole | 11 Nov 2008 13:58:35
Good idea, the one with best DPR's pictures taken with cameras in test.
An add-on to this idea: each review could also have (besides the real-life gallery), a page with opinions about what was like to use the camera for various moments.
Posted by: Barbu | 11 Nov 2008 14:13:59
It kills me that so many people complain about the last 2 words in a N-thousand word review. Does anybody really expect that hundreds of hours of testing can be accurately distilled into a single phrase ? That's wat I use the review for. Personally, I want to see more adverbs: sorta-kinda-recomended, really-highly recomended, barely-more-than-just-average.
Posted by: Joe U | 12 Nov 2008 23:13:55
I live near a velodrone in PA. They sure go by you fast
Posted by: laslo | 14 Nov 2008 01:45:36
I think that the final rating HAVE to be changed. I know that there are certain things that should be taken into account, but let's make it the best for photographers, and not just for novice people. I know that most are amateurs, but lets just have strong positions where they are needed. For example... more pixel count cameras with no inventions or whatever, deserve a recommended. A camera that has features that are by no means for professionals, should recieve a plus mark, but a camera that doesn't have it should NOT have a minus.
At least, I see it that way...
Alan.
Posted by: Alan Schamber | 17 Nov 2008 18:54:12
Great to see the blogs - makes the site much more fun than a reference that it was before. I'll now drop in to see what's up every so often instead of just when I need info.
Thanks!
Posted by: Alex | 19 Nov 2008 17:21:28
"And that doesn't include the many shaken and out-of-focus images I got in Manchester with single wheels arriving in, or leaving, the shot."
I'm a keen cyclist and have also tried to take photos of cycllng action with a point and shoot cameras (once at le Tour in France in London and once at le Tour in France). My conclusion is that an optical viewfinder is invaluable for these types of shots - although the 'shutter lag' is the same for an optical viewfinder and an the electronic display, the electronic display shows what happened a fraction of a second ago.
For this reason an optical viewfinder is one of my 'must haves' for any point and shoot camera. Agreed it is useless most of the time. But for taking action photos (and this includes things as simple as the kids playing football) and for taking photos is bright light (where an electronic viewfinder can be difficult to read) an optical viewfinder can be a lifesaver.
Martin
Posted by: Martin Budden | 21 Nov 2008 01:24:58
I appreciate your reviews and spend much time reading them. Professional and thorough. But, none of your sample photographs generally fit the "real world." Looks like your photogs just wander around London looking for grab shots. Come with me to Scotland, Africa, Alaska, the American Northwest, Slovenia, the Galapagos Islands. Show me what a camera will do in the "real world." Surely with your assets we can expect better. Spend some money. Hell, I'll gladly take one of your cameras to somewhere where the wind is blowing at 50MPH and the temp is around freezing or below, or into South Africa at temps that will boil your toes. Frankly, you can do better, one heck of a lot better in terms of showing me what the camera will do in the real world of photography.
Course, I must admit, I like your stuff. But, frankly, you need some competition.
Best regards,
Bill
Posted by: Bill Lockhart | 24 Nov 2008 22:10:35
Hi Bill
Much as I'd love to get out to the Galapagos Islands, unfortunately it's difficult to justify the time or expense. We're trying to expand the range of material in the galleries, though.
Thanks for your comment too, Martin. Part of this post was about trying to understand how people use cameras so your comments are particularly helpful.
I didn't find myself using the viewfinder when panning in the velodrome (I fixed focus and exposure on a known point, lined the camera up to another known point and began panning as soon as the riders reached it). I agree the LCD is too slow for such situations.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 25 Nov 2008 09:53:43
"One of the strangest comments I repeatedly see is: ‘they don’t use their cameras in the real world,’ stated, as all things must be on the forums, as absolute fact. As if the sample galleries that accompany every review somehow generate themselves."
Hate to say this but not everyone saying this is saying so out of the blue. A perfectly valid example- and mind you I am not dragging this out of the closet of the past because I hold it against Phil anymore since he admited (to his positive credit) that he made a mistake- but to show you one valid example of where that comes from- was when the e-330's live view was described as a "solution looking for a problem." Interestingly enough most real world photographers that were reviewing it, in particular one street life photographer was raving how good it was to have an articulated live view where you could still keep eye contact with the subject and intimidate less- a completely valid real world observation in street photography that certainly escapes high ISO charts from a controlled lab. I did see a post recently where it was asked if I held the e-330 arms extended, because I said more than half the shots I take with my e-330 are with live view. That just shows the misunderstanding of real world use of live view of this camera.
Not all of these comments are unfounded. And as for the galleries- I am sorry to be so blunt, but a set of snapshots don't exactly speak of a lot of experience using the camera in real world situations that a photographer would- though I will commend dpreview in that I am seeing improvements vs the past of what was done before.
So I think things have changed for the better. But there are some of those comments you mention you find strange that do have some real reasons to them. My opinion, of course, and since you mention you find it so strange thought I could tip in where some things like that can come from (certainly you will have a share of fanboys saying that too, for no real reason).
- Raist
Posted by: Ricardo Hernandez | 18 Dec 2008 16:03:06
I can only speak from my own experiences here but I have never reviewed a camera without using it extensively out-and-about. My point is that we always try to use them in a variety of situations to really get a feel for what they're capable of.
It's impossible for us to mimic every single person's definition of what 'real-world photography' might mean - it's been said that taking photographs up a mountain is more of a 'real-world' situation than street-level London, for instance (though I'd question how many people that's true for). It's unrealistic to expect us to put every camera through every possible use, but we do our best to do more than take 'snapshots.'
And I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion about specific cases of cameras I've not used, but I don't think Phil's comments are conclusive proof of 'a misunderstanding of real world use of live view,' as they could, fairly reasonably be seen as 'a failure to appreciate every possible use of a new technology.'
I'm certainly not saying that every possible criticism is unfair, and I'm not claiming to be an expert in all fields of photography by any means. But our reviews are based on a lot more than just test charts.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 18 Dec 2008 18:15:41
I have to say I rather like DP's reviews. I think that they are generally to the point, and strike a good balance between the entirely different requirements of many different shooting situations and kinds of photographers. When I consider the length of review that would be required to satisfy every type of photographer, from novice to hobbyist to pro, and even within that, the even MORE different needs of say, a team sports photojournalist, a wedding professional, and commercial product photographer, I'm even more impressed that the reviewers manage
to satisfy most readers to some degree. And I say that as full time professional, with formal training, since 1985, and as a hobbyist for some time before. You can't please everyone, and I would dread reading the length of review it would take to provide much more value. I'd think the reviews would become less valuable, as we'd have to wade through so much to find the nuggets that apply to each of our own shooting needs and requirements. Please don't change things - sometimes people don't know when to leave well enough alone.
Posted by: Alan Schietzsch | 12 Jan 2009 03:21:48
This is my main beef with DPR camera reviews: the single "Highly Recommended," "Recommended," etc. ratings. Highly recommended for what? Indoor candids? Landscape? Street? Sports? Yes, you can usually figure it out by reading the whole review, but there it still is, that big bitmap at the bottom that seems to say "This, and this alone, is what this camera is worth." I know that's not what you really mean to say, but certainly for at least a subset of your readers, that's what they read.
That said, I think your reviews are really very good, and most useful. Keep up the excellent work. And keep blogging!
Posted by: abby | 16 Feb 2009 01:37:03