Rugby_Nut
member
Reged: 08/07/2008
Posts: 183
Loc: High Wycombe, Bucks
|
|
Any thoughts?
--------------------
Chris
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 20941
Loc: Currently Unknown!
|
|
Well, it's stopped raining now.
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
Rugby_Nut
member
Reged: 08/07/2008
Posts: 183
Loc: High Wycombe, Bucks
|
|
Not here it hasn't 
--------------------
Chris
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 644
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Quote:
Any thoughts?
Although larger and heavier than the Canon, those more accustomed to a professional-level dust sucker will possibly feel a greater affinity towards the Dyson with it's rigid body and larger dust display. 
--------------------
Rob
|
Repton
Mr Test Shot
Reged: 05/07/2005
Posts: 1776
|
|
Very predictable.
On the positive side though - Damien seems to see how far ahead of Canonikon Oly are in the micro stakes.
|
ACS
For Whom the Bell Trolls...
Reged: 04/09/2007
Posts: 50
|
|
I enjoyed the test but was very disappointed in Richard's placing of the Olympus. I'm a big fan of AP but this test has shaken my faith. There was no need to choose the Pentax to make up the test: they could easily have chosen, say, a Nikon D700. Then the E520 would have stormed into third (just ahead of the Dyson, which I notice didn't make the cut).
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4987
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
I enjoyed the test but was very disappointed in Richard's placing of the Olympus. I'm a big fan of AP but this test has shaken my faith.
Agree with the "enjoy" but I'm afraid I can't agree with the rest. IMO the text bent over backwards to emphasise the areas where the Olympus had an advantage. This is a welcome balance to some previous reviews which I feel were overly negative.
It's the whole rankings / podium thing which is wrong; you can't say whether a given apple is better than a given orange, but you can say which you personally prefer.
|
ACS
For Whom the Bell Trolls...
Reged: 04/09/2007
Posts: 50
|
|
I apologise: a series of recent AP tests really have made me wonder, and I was in Planet AP mode.
You mean, actually, seriously, what do we think?
Well I thought it was a good test. There was loads of detail, lots of useful observations, and where his views were particularly subjective, he said so. And it read well. And I think his conclusions were good, a useful guide to would be purchasers.
In fact think Mr Sibley is shaping up to be a bit of a star.
I think captions like "x camera delivered nicer colour here" aren't very useful, and I think observations on image quality (without technical data) are of limited use, and the podium thing doesn't make any sense to me at all. But hey, people like the confrontational/podium thing, which sells magazines.
And (grits his teeth) AP is a good mag: it normally delivers more quality in a week than most magazines manage in a month. Otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time faffing about these forums...
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 644
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
This report is more carefully worded than those seen previously.
I notice "Head to Head" has been dropped from the front page flash.
--------------------
Rob
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3661
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
One thing that often phases me a bit is that the camera which produces the best image quality doesn't necessarily win. I know that there are other factors but for a camera I think image quality should be pretty near the top.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
RovingMike
I had a dangly thing
Reged: 16/05/2006
Posts: 1098
Loc: Herts
|
|
Quote:
One thing that often phases me a bit is that the camera which produces the best image quality doesn't necessarily win. I know that there are other factors but for a camera I think image quality should be pretty near the top.
Isn't that what we have been complaining about? We KNOW the image quality of four thirds isn't as good as APS C. That's not what we buy it for.
--------------------
Mike
My flickr site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rovingmike/sets/
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3661
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
You've misunderstood me. My point was that the Pentax produced the better image quality and came last. I was not to having a pop at Olympus or 4/3, in fact I looked at an Oly at the weekend.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
Rugby_Nut
member
Reged: 08/07/2008
Posts: 183
Loc: High Wycombe, Bucks
|
|
Quote:
Isn't that what we have been complaining about? We KNOW the image quality of four thirds isn't as good as APS C. That's not what we buy it for.
True indeed. A 4/3 sensor will never be as good as a larger sensor. But in a year or two, technology will advance so that it will be as good or better than a current APSC. Of course the larger sensors will also improve during this time. The question is: at what point does image quality become so good for normal uses that any further improvements are pointless? Anyway, this has all be debated at some length in earlier posts.
As far as the head to head was concerned, Richards article was pretty fair and, to a point, the E-520 compared quite favourably with the D40. As we all knew, the Oly was going to struggle in comparison at the higher ISO's but I did notice that Richard said that at low ISO the image quality was very much the same. Lets not forget that the D40 body was £900 a few months ago and you could argue that it has more similarity to the E3. Even now though, if you bought a D40 body and a couple of Canon zooms that equate to the kit lens's that you can get with the E-520 for a total of £600, you would be spending a good £900. That's a lot of extra money for better high ISO capability and a magnesium alloy body.
--------------------
Chris
|
GeoffR
Reged: 31/05/2003
Posts: 3839
Loc: Bucks
|
|
I think the inclusion of the scores on the podium is at best confusing. The podium is a ranking and some what subjective. The scores are supposedly more scientific and absolute. I can see why the Canon was placed above the Olympus, I think, but I can't see where the Pentax came from.
I too thought it was a good article but, as I am no fan of Canon's control philosophy, I would have chosen the Olympus for first place on the podium. Given that there has to be a winner I think the scoring might benefit from weighting Image quality above specification but I doubt others will agree.
The 4/3 sensor suffers from more compromises than does the Canon sensor but by all accounts Olympus have controlled the noise well. Perhaps the Micro 4/3 will be better able to attract customers and increase its contribution to Olympus profits.
Is it possible that the, slowly, growing trend towards so called full frame sensors is distorting the scoring slightly? Canon have FF sensors so it may be perceived as a better long term prospect, just a thought. I wouldn't expect AP to be swayed but I am not so sure about some others.
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3661
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
I don't know which is the best camera, and although image quality isn't everything if I thought that the Pentax produced the best image quality I'd probably have placed it at number 1 and provided reasons why the others could be good buys too, if I thought that they could be.
Taking things to an extreme, for example, Nikon D700 Vs Camera phone. The Nikon is the best camera but I want to carry it in by back pocket so I'm placing the camera phone at No.1. There's a part of me that see's the logic in that decision but there's a part of me that wants to put the Nikon at No.1 because it's clearly the best camera and then still make a personal choice to go for the camera phone.
I don't have a problem with someone placing the camera which produced the best image quality last, I just find the concept intriguing. But none of this would stop me buying an Olympus if I wanted one.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 644
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Quote:
...Lets not forget that the D40 body was £900 a few months ago and you could argue that it has more similarity to the E3. Even now though, if you bought a D40 body and a couple of Canon zooms that equate to the kit lens's that you can get with the E-520 for a total of £600, you would be spending a good £900...
The 40D is currently around £830-£900 with the 17-85 IS kit lens which it must have to stand a comparison with the E-520. But the E-520 is £500-£530 with the 14-42 lens. This £300+ difference was presented as £100 by making a body only comparison.
--------------------
Rob
|
zuiko
Olympian...
Reged: 19/06/2006
Posts: 439
Loc: Norfolk.
|
|
The following is from the front cover of AP
"Two fighting-fit enthusiast cameras, the Canon EOS 40D and the Olympus E-520, square up to each other. Richard Sibley is there to referee the bout"
If you have a fight you have to proclaim a winner, this is the flaw in AP tests. The winners and losers are the people who hand the money over for the purchase of their cameras or lenses and the losers are companies who fail to convince. Each purchase is based on extreme variables from combination of image quality, handling, kudos, build, features and cost to name but a few. With such variables, fighting is pointless as each persons needs are different. The worse aspect of this forum as a whole is infighting, and AP themselves are the leader and main protagonist. Isn't it about time there was an editorial change of direction, give peace a chance? Give us the info and we decide who wins and loses based on our own needs!
David
--------------------
" ENCEFFC!" "ENNSEAEFFSEA!"" ENNCEFFC!" "ENNCEEFC!"
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4987
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Each purchase is based on extreme variables from combination of image quality, handling, kudos, build, features and cost to name but a few. With such variables, fighting is pointless as each persons needs are different.
Indeed.
Quote:
The worse aspect of this forum as a whole is infighting, and AP themselves are the leader and main protagonist.
There's a lot of banter, but rarely any nastiness. Outside the confines of this room anyway.
I'm all in favour of the sort of article which gives an unbiased comparison of two (or more) cameras, this helps the person who is looking to buy in this segment of the market to make a choice. But if the podium and ranking were removed I'd be much happier. Raw scores are fine providing there's a rider to the effect that, if they had been done by a different reviewer on a different day, they might have varied by up to 5 percent.
|
Repton
Mr Test Shot
Reged: 05/07/2005
Posts: 1776
|
|
Ultimately it's all got everything to do with shifting product and very little to do with photography
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 644
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
More care was exercised in the writing of this review than has been seen for a while and that is certainly to be applauded. But yes, the gladiatorial language used in the titles has perhaps become a sales promoting drug which AP is finding it hard to pull back from. It's a shame this approach developed in the first place as I suspect it is almost impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.
--------------------
Rob
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
