RichardSibley
AP Technical Writer
Reged: 03/08/2007
Posts: 42
|
|
Unfortunately, there was an error in the test that was printed. An earlier version of the last two pages of my test was sent to press and not the final version. It happened whilst I was away on a press trip and I only found out on my return when it was too late.
The ‘It’s All Relative’ podium and the scores were based on my original thoughts of the camera, before AP’s technical team had all sat down to discuss the cameras – as we always do following a test. Unfortunately, the original text was accidentally sent to print, rather than the final version.
After discussing the camera at length in context with other models, we decided to award the Olympus E-520 85% and the E-420 83% (not the 86% and 84% printed in the magazine). The mark that was lost on each camera was from the image quality section. This was done to bring it into line with the scores awarded to other cameras on the market.
We also discussed the cameras in question as a whole, and decided the all round performance of the EOS 450D was so significantly better that it should be placed ahead of the other cameras, even though it had scored lower for image quality. We agreed that, at this end of the market, image quality is of less crucial importance than it is in higher end models.
As a result, and realising the Canon EOS 450D actually scored lower for image quality, the ‘It’s All Relative’ text was changed to emphasise the 450D’s all-round performance as the reason it was our preferred camera – not the image quality. The positions of the cameras on the podium remain unchanged.
We realise that this may have caused some confusion and would like to take this opportunity to apologise.
|
Iloca
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/12/2005
Posts: 3776
Loc: Northern Ireland
|
|
Ahh, OK.
While you're here, we've been discussing where Olympus should go with the E-System (Minaturisation of 4/3rds lenses). How would you feel about adding you're tuppence worth? It would be interesting to hear your views as a reviewer.
Regards, Richard
--------------------
Mi Vid Iloca
My Flickr Gallery
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4493
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
After discussing the camera at length in context with other models, we decided to award the Olympus E-520 85% and the E-420 83% (not the 86% and 84% printed in the magazine).
I'm pretty sure the difference isn't significant. But whether my confidence is 82%, 86% or somewhere in between, I'm not sure. 
|
raymebaby
newbie
Reged: 10/01/2008
Posts: 45
|
|
Quote:
We realise that this may have caused some confusion
It certainly has now.... Do you ever question the application of precise percentages to what are essentially qualitative, and often subjective, judgements?
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 498
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Quote:
Ahh, OK.
While you're here, we've been discussing where Olympus should go with the E-System (Minaturisation of 4/3rds lenses). How would you feel about adding you're tuppence worth? It would be interesting to hear your views as a reviewer.
Regards, Richard
Agreed; your views on the subject would be interesting Richard.
--------------------
Rob
|
agp
journeyman
Reged: 13/04/2007
Posts: 76
|
|
I know I've said this before, but here goes again. Raymebaby put it exactly right: I quote from the correction to the original article:
(Olympus E-520 85% and the E-420 83% (not the 86% and 84% printed in the magazine).
He put it better than I could ever do. What on earth difference does 1% make? It is statistically insignificant, and it worries me that a technical expert can write that in, as raymebaby says, what is to an extent a subjective test; and a full apology on this forum as well. Is there a case for avoiding these ridiculous percentages, which always seem to be within two or three of each other, and just list the notable good and bad points of each camera, and who they might be meant for? I admit I haven't used a Canon 450, but have two school 400s. It is horses for courses: the Oly gives superb results, but need more work than the Canon. Two boys at my school photographed a school play (swapping cameras halfway through) in a dark hall using a 400D and a 520. The Canon ones were good, but everyone loves the Olympus ones. What about mention of weight, lens availability - for example, Oly only allow Sigma in the reasonably-priced range, whereas there are hundreds for Canon, including the superb Tamron.
I know that this information may be in the article, but people are often influenced by scores.
I've been a subscriber for many years, but these one or two percent differences are really making me think.
Incidentally, the camera I take on holiday with me is the Olympus.
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 498
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
I agree with some of the concerns raised. A lot of people have criticised the notorious podium used to rate cameras 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Is it really doing anything useful? Doesn't it simply give out the message that those cameras tested which do not come 1st are failures? Also, when is image quality the most important factor and when is it not? The answer to this now seems to be resting on shifting sands and all of these factors add up to confusion.
I am not raising these questions because I think Olympus cameras should be scored higher. Rather that the scoring system is genuinely a puzzle which frequently raises ranking issues, good or bad, which can sometimes inaccurately influence public perceptions of all brands. IMO it is time for the magazine to give up the podium and to concentrate less on the gladiatorial 'head to head' articles and confusing review percentages, all of which seem to do more to stimulate arguments on forums than help buyers.
Richard, I enjoy your writing and my comments are in the spirit of constructive criticism, not a rant. I genuinely believe AP is a great and enjoyable magazine, but I don't think the podium and subjective percentages are among its greatest creations. So it's a rather luke warm 81% and third place from me on this issue. 
--------------------
Rob
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4493
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
the scoring system is genuinely a puzzle which frequently raises ranking issues, good or bad, which can sometimes inaccurately influence public perceptions of all brands. IMO it is time for the magazine to give up the podium and to concentrate less on the gladiatorial 'head to head' articles and confusing review percentages, all of which seem to do more to stimulate arguments on forums than help buyers.
Agreed.
|
agp
journeyman
Reged: 13/04/2007
Posts: 76
|
|
I'm fairly surprised that there has been no response to this from the piece's author. I am not being vituperous - I (used to?) love AP, and have read it since the early 60s.
However, it does seem to be a fairly serious issue, bearing in mind the public apology for the 1% error in the review, a matter of no significance whatsoever. I wonder what Geoffrey Crawley would think of it? I have read no complimentary comments about the camera comparisons, which generally vary within the range of, at most, 3%.
I admit that I am on the Olympus forum. However, I am not biassed - I have a Canon EOS 1DS Mark II, complete with around £6000 of superb lenses; two, admittedly, by Tamron - wish they made Oly fitting! Do I take it out and about with me - no! It is too heavy. Do I photograph school plays with it? No - it is too loud, and I can give a couple of boys a Canon and my Oly to take some shots, with my big Canon on a tripod on the balcony (still produces great shots). An $800 silencer is used, but with difficulty. I also, responsible for school photography budget, have bought nothing but Canons. To be honest, Nikon would have been as good, but I have all these Canon lenses ... Anyone remember the "Tamron adaptall"? Probably too complex these days, and I still wish that Tamron do Oly fittings.
It is these things which will help me decide on a camera. I use the Oly E520 almost all the time, because it is quiet, quick and light. However, for our rugby tournament the Canon is infinitely better.
This is what I want to read. Not that one camera is 1% or 2% 'better' than another, by arbitrary and subjective criteria, and it does worry me that a technical expert (and the technical team, as apparently serious discussion was involved), sees it as so significant as to require a public apology.
Surely we want to know what is good about particular cameras, without always "comparing them". In an absolute sense - unless the marks vary between 50 and 100%, rather than 80 and 86 - they can't be compared ...
Edited by agp (19/07/2008 12:40)
|
Photocracy
The Great Pretender
Reged: 18/11/2006
Posts: 498
Loc: Sunny South Coast
|
|
Agreed. Well put.
--------------------
Rob
|
agp
journeyman
Reged: 13/04/2007
Posts: 76
|
|
Thanks, Photocracy.
Only problem is that in this week's AP Geoffrey Crawley compares two wide zoom lenses, and they end up with a 1% difference!
|
Repton
Mr Test Shot
Reged: 05/07/2005
Posts: 1763
|
|
Yes amen to that
|
Repton
Mr Test Shot
Reged: 05/07/2005
Posts: 1763
|
|
As a footnote
I've just read the review of the Canon EOS 1000D in the latest AP and thought it was an excellent review - very informative and fair.
Well done Richard 
|
ACS
For Whom the Bell Trolls...
Reged: 04/09/2007
Posts: 46
|
|
Yeah, I enjoy Richard's reviews - I think he's one of the best reviewers at AP. Given so much of a test is inevitably subjective (not a criticism), the reviewer is important!
Nice camera, the 1000D. However, I think I'll go for the third choice, given the price difference!
£579.99 for the canon including the (um, er, how do I say this) 'average' 18-55mm. Or...
£349.99 for the Oly and a spectacularly sharp 14-42mm.
Nuff said. I'm off to check Flybe to see where I can go with the 230 quid I'll save....
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 20214
Loc: Currently Unknown!
|
|
Actually it's a new redesigned lens. Not the old 'average' 18-55mm
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37091
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Actually it's a new redesigned lens. Not the old 'average' 18-55mm
And the only place I can find reviews of both lenses (DPReview) rates the 18-55 IS as exactly the same for quality as the 14-42 (7.5).
Here are the two ratings:
Detail Rating (out of 10)
Build quality 6.5
Ergonomics & handling 7.5
Features 6.5
Image quality 7.5
Value 8
and
Detail Rating (out of 10)
Build quality 6
Ergonomics & handling 6.5
Features 7
Image quality 7.5
Value 9
So there's not a lot to choose between them.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
Edited by Benchista (29/07/2008 14:56)
|
ACS
For Whom the Bell Trolls...
Reged: 04/09/2007
Posts: 46
|
|
My apologies to canon, and I'm glad they've got their optics fixed (they just need to sort out the manual focus ring, by the sound of it!)
S'funny thing we all get excited about camera bodies when usually its the lens that matters. Let's hear it for Geoff Crawley...
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 37091
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Indeed. For quite a long time, Canon's kit lenses were really pretty poor, going back to film days - the 28-90 and 28-105 f4-5.6 were pretty woeful (even though the 28-80 and 28-105 f3.5-5.6 were really quite good). Certainly the manual focus ring on cheaper lenses is still dreadful - one of the worst is the 50mm f1.8 Mk II.
Quite why they can suddenly do much better in terms of optical quality at more or less the same price point is a bit of a mystery...
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 20214
Loc: Currently Unknown!
|
|
As I've said before, not all the 18-55 lenses were bad. The one I had was pin sharp, also a few other people I know had good ones as well.
I think it was down to the QC process more than anything 
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9311
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
...one of the worst is the 50mm f1.8 Mk II.
I'd have to say I don't reckon it's the worst I've got... The manual focus rings on my 35-105 and 70-210 push-pulls take that prize - the 70-210 is particularly awful and very difficult to use with any degree of precision...
By comparison the 50mm is quite smooth - not as good as the 50mm Nikkor I also have - but definitely acceptable though the ring's a lot narrower than I'd like...
Worst I've ever had has to be the Nikkor AF 28-105G kit lens that came with my F65. Aside from a build quality that made even the worst Canon lens look quite solid (and I'm no fan of Canon construction standards) the focus ring was little thicker than the edge of my Cokin polariser and gritty as hell. All in all the most appalling lens I've ever owned...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
