Roy5051
Reged: 02/09/2001
Posts: 664
Loc: Somerset UK
|
|
Angela's Podium has once again confused a reader (John Taylor, AP Answers) - how can a camera be better than another in December 2007, also better in March 2008, but worse in April 2008? Not only is this confusing the readership, I believe it is a totally unnecessary complication in camera tests.
A camera is a camera, whether it has a full frame or an APS-C sensor, and results should be based on the ultimate output, not on a comparison with other cameras. Specification, Handling and Performance, of course, have to come into the equation somewhere, but in the case of the D300 and the 5D, both scored 18/20 in all cases, and the image quality of the D300 scored 38/40 against 37/40 for the 5D. The D300 should therefore be top of the podium, as it scored more points.
Bringing into the equation the difference in time when the cameras were tested is, to me, irrelevant and just clouds the issue. Take this scenario: a reader wants a DSLR but cannot afford a new one, so looks at the secondhand market; he picks out a few possibles and gets copies of their respective AP tests - how on earth is he going to do a meaningful comparison if one camera was tested in Dec 2006, another in June 2007 and another in Dec 2007? Please drop this unnecessary data, then you will not have to keep answering these questions about your podium.
--------------------
Roy
Why do people with expensive cameras say you don't need one to take good photographs
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2244
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
Surely Angela's Podium is a marketing gizmo - designed to be noticed when you're leafing through the mag in WHSmiths or wherever?
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
Angela Nicholson
AP Technical Editor
Reged: 07/02/2006
Posts: 139
|
|
Quote:
Angela's Podium has once again confused a reader (John Taylor, AP Answers) - how can a camera be better than another in December 2007, also better in March 2008, but worse in April 2008? Not only is this confusing the readership, I believe it is a totally unnecessary complication in camera tests.
A camera is a camera, whether it has a full frame or an APS-C sensor, and results should be based on the ultimate output, not on a comparison with other cameras. Specification, Handling and Performance, of course, have to come into the equation somewhere, but in the case of the D300 and the 5D, both scored 18/20 in all cases, and the image quality of the D300 scored 38/40 against 37/40 for the 5D. The D300 should therefore be top of the podium, as it scored more points.
Bringing into the equation the difference in time when the cameras were tested is, to me, irrelevant and just clouds the issue. Take this scenario: a reader wants a DSLR but cannot afford a new one, so looks at the secondhand market; he picks out a few possibles and gets copies of their respective AP tests - how on earth is he going to do a meaningful comparison if one camera was tested in Dec 2006, another in June 2007 and another in Dec 2007? Please drop this unnecessary data, then you will not have to keep answering these questions about your podium.
We have found that without shooting exactly the same scene at the same time it is only possible to give an indication of how cameras' performance compares. It simply isn't feasible to make comparative tests at the same time as conducting the initial full test of a new model. For this reason we do our best to compare the images we have, discuss the specification and handling and examine the images we have from past tests so we can give an indication of how it compares.
Like it or not perception and expectation does change with time.
The reason we compare cameras on the podium and quote the original test date is to help just such a reader. It should help him or her put the cameras being discussed into context. If we continually rescored cameras looking at past issues would be even more confusing.
The D300 scored more points as it excels as an APS-C format camera. The EOS 5D is also very good, but it has a full-frame sensor and we have greater expectations. However, when images are examined side-by-side those from the 5D are usually better quality and therefore the 5D was at the top of the podium.
Angela
|
Roy5051
Reged: 02/09/2001
Posts: 664
Loc: Somerset UK
|
|
Sorry, Angela, it does not help the reader, it just confuses him/her, hence all the questions asking you to explain. In your last paragraph, you say that the 5D images are usually better than the D300 image, when examined side by side; this, to me, means that the 5D should have had a higher score than the D300 - it should not matter what format the camera is - by always using the same parameters for comparing images, say an A3 print at 300ppi, printed on the same printer, you should be able to make meaningful comparisons.
Going back to my scenario, what advice would you give the potential camera buyer in that situation?
--------------------
Roy
Why do people with expensive cameras say you don't need one to take good photographs
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 5312
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
The D300 scored more points as it excels as an APS-C format camera. The EOS 5D is also very good, but it has a full-frame sensor and we have greater expectations. However, when images are examined side-by-side those from the 5D are usually better quality and therefore the 5D was at the top of the podium.
So does that mean that image quality is the only factor used when deciding the podium? I suspected as much here but I would like to hear from the horse's mouth so to speak.
I can understand the thinking behind the podium model, as models age their percentage rating is less and less applicable as the market moves forward, but in this particualr review I found the inconsistencies between the findings in the body of the text and the conclusions drawn in the podium section meant that the podium view is pointless.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
MickLL
Two Grand Man
Reged: 01/08/2004
Posts: 2452
Loc: SE England
|
|
Quote:
We have found that without shooting exactly the same scene ......
There used to be a nice ship just across the river !!
Sorry - I'll get my coat.
MickLL
|
Angela Nicholson
AP Technical Editor
Reged: 07/02/2006
Posts: 139
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The D300 scored more points as it excels as an APS-C format camera. The EOS 5D is also very good, but it has a full-frame sensor and we have greater expectations. However, when images are examined side-by-side those from the 5D are usually better quality and therefore the 5D was at the top of the podium.
So does that mean that image quality is the only factor used when deciding the podium? I suspected as much here but I would like to hear from the horse's mouth so to speak.
I can understand the thinking behind the podium model, as models age their percentage rating is less and less applicable as the market moves forward, but in this particualr review I found the inconsistencies between the findings in the body of the text and the conclusions drawn in the podium section meant that the podium view is pointless.
Image quality is one factor - usually the most important - but it is not the only factor. The specification of the D300 outstrips that of the EOS 5D in just about every respect apart from the sensor size and this has an impact upon the image quality (larger sensors = larger photosites = less noise etc). It also depends upon who a camera is aimed at. A novice photographer is going to be pretty flumuxed by a relatively complex camera like the D3 no matter how good its image quality is. If the handling of the camera is a significant barrier to achieving the potential image quality then the camera will not fair so well on the podium.
What are the inconsistencies you are referring to?
Regards
Angela
|
Roy5051
Reged: 02/09/2001
Posts: 664
Loc: Somerset UK
|
|
If the specification of D300 outstrips the 5D in just about every respect, why are their scores the same, 18/20? I am sorry, Angela, but you just keep bringing extra data into the equation which does not help your argument. Again, it is irrelevant who the camera is aimed at when deciding on a podium place, simply because you tend to group similar levels of camera together when you have a "group test", which is where the podium appears.
As for handling, again the two cameras in question have the same scores. And why bring the D3 into the argument?
IMHO the best tests are the simplest - tests that eveyone can understand. AP tests are generally excellent and easily understood by most photographers. The problem arises when group tests are done and the dreaded podium is brought into the equation. If you must do group tests, all the cameras should be tested again, at the same time, against each other, and comparisons made on those results. Alternatively let the original test results stand, and do a straightforward comparison.
As I said before, a camera is a camera, and the resulting pictures are what matters. Everything else is down to personal taste, i.e. what the prospective purchaser is looking for in respect of specification and handling. I am sure that I will not be able to persuade you to drop the podium, but you must see that it is causing you more problems than its dubious results are worth.
--------------------
Roy
Why do people with expensive cameras say you don't need one to take good photographs
|
Angela Nicholson
AP Technical Editor
Reged: 07/02/2006
Posts: 139
|
|
Quote:
If the specification of D300 outstrips the 5D in just about every respect, why are their scores the same, 18/20?
................................
As for handling, again the two cameras in question have the same scores.
If we followed that reasoning just about every camera would have scored 100% for the last 10 years!
The point is, cameras have moved on since the EOS 5D was introduced so our scoring system needs to take this into account.
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3402
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
If the job of a camera was to throw a potato as far as possible it's performance would be easy enough to measure but it isn't that easy and there are many things to think about and many of those things are more subjective than measurable.
I can understand peoples confusion and perhaps dissatisfaction but isn't it best to just read the review, take what you want from it and then move on and make your own mind up?
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
Roy5051
Reged: 02/09/2001
Posts: 664
Loc: Somerset UK
|
|
Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning in your first paragraph. Surely if two cameras score the same, they are roughly equal in that measurement - I don't see where 100% comes into it.
--------------------
Roy
Why do people with expensive cameras say you don't need one to take good photographs
|
Roy5051
Reged: 02/09/2001
Posts: 664
Loc: Somerset UK
|
|
I agree with your second point. My point is that confusing data is being fed to us unnecessarily.
--------------------
Roy
Why do people with expensive cameras say you don't need one to take good photographs
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3402
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
Mostly or maybe entirely because it's subjective I think. If you or I wrote the review it'd probably be different but probably just as subjective. I can see your point, BTW, but I also think that maybe sometimes people get a bit too tied up in reviews and what others think.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
Angela Nicholson
AP Technical Editor
Reged: 07/02/2006
Posts: 139
|
|
Quote:
Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning in your first paragraph. Surely if two cameras score the same, they are roughly equal in that measurement - I don't see where 100% comes into it.
Perhaps this will make it clear.
DSLRs have improved over time in terms of their specification, handling, performance and image quality. If we awarded extra points for every improvement that has been made along the way we would have had a camera that scored 100% quite some time ago. And just about every camera following it would have been awarded 100%, or very close to it.
The small print next to the podium in our tests says something along the lines of...
'if we were to retest a camera today that we originally tested 2 years ago it would be awarded a lower score because of the progress that has been made over time'
Take the Olympus E-330 for example. When we first tested it it was the only DSLR to offer a full-colour, usable Live View LCD screen and it would have received extra marks in its specification score for that fact. Today, however, Live View technology is almost commonplace and we are more likely to mark a camera down for not having it.
Scoring a camera is not an easy task and one we do not take lightly.
Angela
|
Angela Nicholson
AP Technical Editor
Reged: 07/02/2006
Posts: 139
|
|
Quote:
Alternatively let the original test results stand, and do a straightforward comparison.
That is exactly what we do. The podium shows a quick summary of how the cameras compare.
Angela
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9160
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Alternatively let the original test results stand, and do a straightforward comparison.
That is exactly what we do. The podium shows a quick summary of how the cameras compare.
Angela
Perhaps the podium would cause less confusion you left out all the spiel about scores and how things would differ if the camera were retested today etc. and simply stated which camera you feel is the 'best' and what the qualities/specifications are that, in the opinion of the reviewer(s), elevate it above the rest of the herd.
As soon as you start slapping scores on things you can guarantee that the measurebators will pop up claiming you're not using the right methodology... 
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is better than one in the cupboard........
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 5312
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The D300 scored more points as it excels as an APS-C format camera. The EOS 5D is also very good, but it has a full-frame sensor and we have greater expectations. However, when images are examined side-by-side those from the 5D are usually better quality and therefore the 5D was at the top of the podium.
So does that mean that image quality is the only factor used when deciding the podium? I suspected as much here but I would like to hear from the horse's mouth so to speak.
I can understand the thinking behind the podium model, as models age their percentage rating is less and less applicable as the market moves forward, but in this particualr review I found the inconsistencies between the findings in the body of the text and the conclusions drawn in the podium section meant that the podium view is pointless.
Image quality is one factor - usually the most important - but it is not the only factor. The specification of the D300 outstrips that of the EOS 5D in just about every respect apart from the sensor size and this has an impact upon the image quality (larger sensors = larger photosites = less noise etc). It also depends upon who a camera is aimed at. A novice photographer is going to be pretty flumuxed by a relatively complex camera like the D3 no matter how good its image quality is. If the handling of the camera is a significant barrier to achieving the potential image quality then the camera will not fair so well on the podium.
What are the inconsistencies you are referring to?
Angela, thanks for the response. I think the key part of your reply is that it "depends upon who a camera is aimed at" and this doesn't just apply to the experience of the user. A Full Frame sensor is a huge advantage for the landscape photographer but less so for the sports fan. In contrast fast responsive AF is a must for the sports fan but not a key tool for the landscape fan. Of course there are those of us who aren't so easily compartmentalised as that and who will want to have the best of both worlds. You reference this in your verdict, but it’s treated almost an aside rather than something which would be particularly relevant to a lot more photographers than just sports togs. Image quality is important, of course, but provided you can achieve a certain level of image quality I stand by my point that it only really counts once you've got an image in the first place. Also, improvements in image quality give diminishing returns. Unless you’re catering for a readership of pixel peepers or those who want to enlarge past A3 size, once you’ve reached a certain benchmark the importance of better image quality should also be measured on a diminishing basis.
The inconsistencies I reference are down to the fact that throughout the body of the text you refer to the failings of the 5D, the 'pedestrian' shooting rate, the 'poor enlarged image quality', the fact that the AF 'struggles in low light', the dated menu system, vignetting, etc, but these seem to be not important when it came to the verdict where the 5D's ability to capture more detail 'particularly in low light' (if the struggling AF will get you a sharp image  )
The point I'm making is that the review read like a comparison of cars where one is written off for poor handling, poor brakes, poor visibility etc but still gets awarded 'best car' for having the highest top speed. Now maybe the other aspects of the 5D's performance weren't as bad as you made out, but certainly I found the overall tone of the body text inconsistent to the conclusion.
The task of a reviewer is not an easy one, and the manufacturers don't make it any easier for you by deliberately positioning their cameras in different points of the market. However, I think that the differences in photographers are as important as the differences in the equipment. One way around this problem would be to mark cameras against usage, e.g. General Beginner, General Enthusiast, Landscape/Still life/Macro, Sports/Action/Performance, Portrait, another would be only to compare apples with apples, but when comparing two such different types of camera as the 5D and the D300/40D I don’t feel that you can treat them as a ‘class’.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
Malcolm_Stewart
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2244
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
|
|
You've raised some good points, and that's why I, and probably many others, just treat any review as just another opinion about a very complex item. I wouldn't dream of buying any modern DSLR based on just one reviewer's report.
--------------------
Malcolm Stewart
|
Zou
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/02/2007
Posts: 2024
Loc: Edinburgh
|
|
I personally don't take reviews seriously if they try to score the product being reviewed. An in depth discussion of its merits and potential drawbacks should suffice. Comparison can be made to other products, but I feel the culture of ranking and scoring has led to a lot of people not making as informed a decision as they could have - a lot of people will buy on the basis of a high review score, and still end up with a camera unsuitable for their photography.
Surely the number of queries and confusion about the podium system should be telling AP something - that it doesn't work as well as it should.
--------------------
Zou's Flickr Page
|
OneTen
'Two Breakfasts'
Reged: 23/06/2003
Posts: 2247
Loc: Hartland, Devon
|
|
The problem seems to stem from marking a score out of 20 or a percentage etc. This only remains valid at that moment in time and becomes worthless as technology increases or for comparing cameras of different sensor size. Could an index system be devised where quality is measured against a benchmark and therefore all cameras could be compared, regardless whether compact, APS or FF? There would be no upper limit so as improvements in quality took place scores would get higher.
As for handling I don't bother with reviews, this is such a subjective area. I would rate the handling of a Nikon very low because the layout of the controls don't suit me, that doesn't mean it's a poor camera though.
--------------------
Richard .......... My Website - My Flickr
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
