Re: DSLR , which one?
Every reviewer has their favourite (or is paid to think a certain way). Remember that Canon and Nikon had IS/VR lenses long before the digital age, so for them to drop that and go for in-body stabilization is asking a lot.Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Yet they then seem to go praise cannon for not bothering at allthis kind of fanboyism is most tiresome.
IS/VR is better in the lens at the longer end of zooms
| Photographer |
I've never been lucky enough to use any of the high end Nikon or Canon lenses from yesteryear, but I'm assuming they have physical switches for the OS?
My point is that not putting it in the body is the negative, yet I've seen reviewers criticise it for been present! I'm not trying to say one is better, just that the option is good, options that cost practically nothing in the grand scheme are always welcome. I for one like the fact my 1.4f nifty fifty is able to be image stabilised, sure its not as good as OS for all scenarios, but the option, when combined with a £150 prime is hard to say no too!
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
The new Sony looks interesting. Be nice to get a proper release date / price! I like the new grip!
WEX currently have a repaired (so 6 month warranty) A450 for £300 instead of £414 new - bit of a bargain.
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-...s&bsku=1521042 & scroll down
yes, they have a switch.
older IS/VR lenses also tend to be good for only upto ~ 2 stops stabilisation which isn't as good as a newer sensor shake system (or a newer IS/VR design) & it's not unknown for the IS/VR system to break (sensor shift can break too).
depends on the lens if its better or not, 300mm+ on a body with IS/VR isn't going to be as good as if it was in lens with IS/VR
| Photographer |
Because? In-body stabilisations do automatically adjust for focal length in most cameras with them. I don't deny that lens based systems are great as well, and they have their advantages, just as in-body has theirs.
Rubbish.
You might be right that some reviewers, or sites, have favourites, though I have no personal knowledge of that. You are wrong that they all do.
For a start, in 20 years and several thousand articles for a variety of computer and photo press, I have never once been offered, much less accepted, any form of inducement to "think a certain way". I have never even had editors question my opinion, much less try to dictate what it will be. If they had, I would have stopped working for them, and that covers dozens of publications, from PC Pro to the Daily Telegraph.
As for "favourites", where I have a favourite, it is based on objective criteria, like quality, performance, and value for money. If those criteria change, so will my "favourite". In other words, I judge standards by a benchmark set by class-leading products.
Also, professionalism dictates that you can separate personal preferences from the general case. Whether a particular product appeals to me is beside the point, if I am not the target market for that product. You are also expected to be able to view products entirely objectively, as to how well they do their job, regardless of whether that job is one that appeals to the reviewer. I have little personal interest in a variety of product types, including entry-level P&S cameras, SSDs, iPhones and their competitors, etc. But that doesn't mean I can't judge a product on whether it does it's job, and how it stacks up to competitors, regardless of whether it's a product I'd buy or not.
My "favourite" for DSLR is Canon, largely because I have a load of Canon gear. I also have or have had DSLRs from Nikon, Olympus and Minolta. Were I buying right now, it'd be Canon because of the system accessories but if I lost it all (say, had it stolen), I'd start from scratch and may well end up with something else, with Nikon being a strong contender. I'd look at the options and buy what suited my needs best.
As a reviewer, I'm fully aware that what suits my needs won't be the same as what suits everyone else's needs, so I judge every product on it's merits, not on personal preferences or favourites. Being able to see beyond your own perspective is a critical requirement for the job.
The notion that every reviewer is either incapable of being professional or is corrupt is both wrong and offensive.
What I will concede is that I have no way to know whether others have been bought. Nor, unless you have specific knowledge, do you. And if you do have that knowledge, kindly explain how you have it of "every" reviewer. And on the same note, how do you know if someone prefers a product because they're biased, as opposed to because they think it's the best?
Is every reviewer competent, professional and objective? Not in my opinion, no. Some are far, far better than others. And since the advent of the internet, that has gotten noticeably worse, because standards of professionalism have dropped. Everybody and his cousin can now be a "reviewer". Some are good, a lot bad, some knowledgeable and some not, some with good contacts and some not. And those contacts are critical, because that's what gets you in front of board members of some of the world's largest companies, what gets you interviews and meetings, what gets you into confidential product development labs, sometimes months or a year or more before reports of products hit the press, let alone before product ships. It's what gets you into factories and design and production facilities all over the world, and in my case, gets you into discussions with the White House and dinner invitations from Downing Street.
And if you are perceived as lacking professionalism, let alone being partial or corrupt, all that vanishes.
Not "every reviewer" is either playing favourites or bought, and the suggestion is as offensive as it is factually incorrect.
Not necessarily as it depends on the combo e.g. a Sony 70-400 G on a Sony body (typically ~3 stops stabilisation) will outperform a Canon 100-400 L IS (old design only rated for 2 stops stabilisation) on a Canon body.
( before you ask yes, I do have experience of both)
Not bad for an initial price. It will drop once the new product sheen has worn off.
As with any new item in the world.
Saw the Pentax K-M with the 18-55MM and 55-200MM lenses for around 450 quid at Currys Digital.
Personally, I've just gone for a Canon EOS 550D, but again, a major decision in this was how it actually felt in the hand. I'd recommend trying them in a store before committing yourself to a manufacturer.
I was in a similar place a few years ago and I ended up going for a Sony A200. I'm fairly happy with my choice and here are the reasons why:
- I was very inexperienced when I bought it and it was the cheapest. Thus the smallest capital investment meaning I had the least to lose.
- Old Konica/Minolta lenses are compatible with the set. This is great as there are thousands of old lenses floating around on eBay for peanuts. I've got an OK zoom lens, a 50mm fixed focus f/2.8 and the kit lens and I've spent about £130 on top of the original price. Not bad at all!
- It has in body stabilisation. This, coupled with the point above, means you can spend £50 on an old minolta lens and still benefit from it being stabilized. A great money saver!
- I've taken some lovely photos with it!
I know that at some point in the future I will upgrade to a new camera (one with amazing low light performance and HD video hopefully!) and that will probably mean jumping ship from Sony, and selling/giving away my old kit. However I've only spent around £400 for a decent camera and some good lenses, and got a good few years of use. No complaints!
not necessarily - if you look at the Alphas that use CMOS sensors their high ISO is pretty competitive these days & Sony are getting ready to release DSLRs with HD video ( & rumour has it "done right" i.e. better than existing iterations from competitors).
whilst reputedly CCD based sensors as in the A2xx/A3xx series have better IQ at low ISO they can't do high ISO as well as CMOS & they don't have the data transfer rate for HD video.
That is quite interesting. I guess Sony developments just don't get reported quite as much as Canon and Nikon. If I can get a Sony camera that competes then I'll be very interested.
I've heard the "Live View" from the Sonys is also quite good in comparison to others.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote