g12
Too much stuff
I felt compelled to write this having just read the review in Black+White Photography magazine (UK) of the Canon 50D. I'll start by telling you their 'overall' rating... 97%.
I wonder if any product could ever be described as 97% perfect? I wonder if any SLR, shaped so awfully out of necessity (this area of my opinions explains why I find myself on RFF), could ever be considered this close to perfect. I wonder if any device with such a mess of un-intuative buttons could ever be described as 'almost perfect'.
'Performance' was the lowest rating of the four categories, with 96%. Ridiculous.
'Handling' was 97%. Ludicrous.
'Specification' was 98%. Absurd.
To say that the specification of something is 98%, to me, says 'we cannot think of much of anything we would add to this camera to make it perfect'. That's a stunning lack of creativity, especially as it's a crop sensor and every fool and his dog knows that if it ain't full-frame then you've got a free pass to complain for years and years and years (yes, M8 owners, stop it, and learn to enjoy what you have).
I've owned a Canon 40D, and if asked to review, I would say that 'for what it is, it's okay'. It takes nice lenses, it clicks when you press the button, the menus are a mess, it's like operating a computer because, well, it IS a computer. It gave me some pleasure when owning it, it didn't break when I took it to New Zealand. It didn't break when I took it across the USA. The sensor needed to be cleaned a lot, the anti-dust system did nothing useful, it was bulky, it was heavy, the strap lugs were a pain, the autofocus wasn't anywhere near perfect, especially in fading light. The live-view ate the battery when used.
Presumably all these things have been improved or fixed, a thousand more useful innovations have been added and the camera is now a masterpiece that every human should own.
But no, the reviewer adds a few dislikes, including noise, BANDING and loss of detail at higher ISOs. Yet this still results in a 'Performance' grade of 96%!
Is there something wrong with this magazine that they would publish this sort of nonsense? A quick check shows that they aren't owned by Canon, there's a full-page Nikon ad on the back cover. It reminds me of when Q would give every new U2 or Oasis or whatever album five stars when it came out and have it in the 'avoid' section a year later. Are camera reviewers really so excitable that they think that whatever this camera does that it's worth this sort of praise? Don't they spend all day with cameras around them? Am I missing something? Isn't this 'basically the same as the last one of these they made but with a bigger sensor and a few crap bits fixed but basically just a sensor, a viewfinder, a lens mount and a CF card holder'.
I'm going to stop buying Black+White Photography magazine because of this. I feel like an idiot for having bought it for a few months.
Finally, they give it, at £1200, 97% for 'value for money'. Here endeth the post, I'm off to stroke my M4-P ($750), hereby given a rating of 75% (no live-view... but it is full-frame).
I wonder if any product could ever be described as 97% perfect? I wonder if any SLR, shaped so awfully out of necessity (this area of my opinions explains why I find myself on RFF), could ever be considered this close to perfect. I wonder if any device with such a mess of un-intuative buttons could ever be described as 'almost perfect'.
'Performance' was the lowest rating of the four categories, with 96%. Ridiculous.
'Handling' was 97%. Ludicrous.
'Specification' was 98%. Absurd.
To say that the specification of something is 98%, to me, says 'we cannot think of much of anything we would add to this camera to make it perfect'. That's a stunning lack of creativity, especially as it's a crop sensor and every fool and his dog knows that if it ain't full-frame then you've got a free pass to complain for years and years and years (yes, M8 owners, stop it, and learn to enjoy what you have).
I've owned a Canon 40D, and if asked to review, I would say that 'for what it is, it's okay'. It takes nice lenses, it clicks when you press the button, the menus are a mess, it's like operating a computer because, well, it IS a computer. It gave me some pleasure when owning it, it didn't break when I took it to New Zealand. It didn't break when I took it across the USA. The sensor needed to be cleaned a lot, the anti-dust system did nothing useful, it was bulky, it was heavy, the strap lugs were a pain, the autofocus wasn't anywhere near perfect, especially in fading light. The live-view ate the battery when used.
Presumably all these things have been improved or fixed, a thousand more useful innovations have been added and the camera is now a masterpiece that every human should own.
But no, the reviewer adds a few dislikes, including noise, BANDING and loss of detail at higher ISOs. Yet this still results in a 'Performance' grade of 96%!
Is there something wrong with this magazine that they would publish this sort of nonsense? A quick check shows that they aren't owned by Canon, there's a full-page Nikon ad on the back cover. It reminds me of when Q would give every new U2 or Oasis or whatever album five stars when it came out and have it in the 'avoid' section a year later. Are camera reviewers really so excitable that they think that whatever this camera does that it's worth this sort of praise? Don't they spend all day with cameras around them? Am I missing something? Isn't this 'basically the same as the last one of these they made but with a bigger sensor and a few crap bits fixed but basically just a sensor, a viewfinder, a lens mount and a CF card holder'.
I'm going to stop buying Black+White Photography magazine because of this. I feel like an idiot for having bought it for a few months.
Finally, they give it, at £1200, 97% for 'value for money'. Here endeth the post, I'm off to stroke my M4-P ($750), hereby given a rating of 75% (no live-view... but it is full-frame).
emraphoto
Veteran
well not to be argumentative but i happen to really like B+W magazine?!? it's informative manner and lack of gearcentric filler keeps it top of the heap.
Morca007
Matt
Rating anything that isn't quantifiable is a pretty silly idea.
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
maybe the grading scale was between 90 and 100. 90 being the lowest and 100 the king of kings.
in that view, a 97% means its only 70% perfect.
Magazines publish fluff, some more than others. It helps them sell a copy or two when someone wanders into a bookstore looking for a discerning review when they are racking their brains deciding between a D90 and a 50D. Which we all know buying a particular system is a lifelong commitment.
in that view, a 97% means its only 70% perfect.
Magazines publish fluff, some more than others. It helps them sell a copy or two when someone wanders into a bookstore looking for a discerning review when they are racking their brains deciding between a D90 and a 50D. Which we all know buying a particular system is a lifelong commitment.
ZeissFan
Veteran
It could be that the reviewer is a fan of Canon products. That would explain the over-the-top praise of the camera.
And some people simply are in love with digital and are willing to overlook shortcomings because they know those features will appear in the next version of the camera: Live View, dust reduction, anti-shake, bigger viewfinder, brighter viewfinder, faster startup time and on and on. Many people aren't put off by the cost of upgrading a camera every 18 months or so and even look forward to it (see dpreview).
And some people simply are in love with digital and are willing to overlook shortcomings because they know those features will appear in the next version of the camera: Live View, dust reduction, anti-shake, bigger viewfinder, brighter viewfinder, faster startup time and on and on. Many people aren't put off by the cost of upgrading a camera every 18 months or so and even look forward to it (see dpreview).
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Well, I have a 50D. It's a good camera. (I also have a couple of 5D's) It always makes an exposure when I press the shutter button, has great picture quality, and I like the size...fits my hand well. Using Canon DSLR's, though, is second nature. I've been using them since the D30, which I bought the day they came out (no, not the 30D, the really old one). I have had only one Canon digital fail, and that was a 10D with well over 100,000 exposures on it. I simply shot the shutter out.
Declaimer: I own and use regularly several Leica cameras. This isn't Leica bashing.
Different strokes for different folks.
Declaimer: I own and use regularly several Leica cameras. This isn't Leica bashing.
Different strokes for different folks.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I find it a little difficult to tell here whether the OP is complaining about a digital SLR review because he doesn't like digital SLRs or because he regards the review in question as a puff-piece (or both). He's perfectly entitled to not like DSLRs, of course. But many people do like them so it doesn't seem unreasonable for a photography magazine to publish a review of one.
As it happens, I have a 50D and think its a good camera, though far from perfect (my views on it are expounded at length here for anyone prepared to put up with some boredom). The main things that concern me there are levels of digital noise and the effort and expense needed to take actual advantage of the (expensive) 15MP APS-C sensor. Both relate to (arguably) cramming too many pixels onto too small a sensor. I've read a number of reviews of the 50D (all after I bought mine) and tend to judge the integrity (or perhaps ability, its hard to tell) of the reviewer based on whether they mention what I see as "the elephant in the room" regarding this camera. Many do, but many more don't.
So what are we left with here? Some camera reviews published in magazines are less than adequate, perhaps because of a lack of integrity or perhaps through lack of ability or dilligence. Hmmm. I think I knew that beforehand. Or that the OP doesn't like digital cameras (or maybe just not Canon ones). I guess I didn't know that before now, but he's not on his Pat Malone there so it hardly surprises me.
Me, I'll continue to use my 50D for the many things I like it for, my Leica or Konica film RFs for those circumstances where I prefer them and other cameras where they seem more appropriate or just because I like using them. With any luck, I might take the occasional photograph I like to look at.
...Mike
As it happens, I have a 50D and think its a good camera, though far from perfect (my views on it are expounded at length here for anyone prepared to put up with some boredom). The main things that concern me there are levels of digital noise and the effort and expense needed to take actual advantage of the (expensive) 15MP APS-C sensor. Both relate to (arguably) cramming too many pixels onto too small a sensor. I've read a number of reviews of the 50D (all after I bought mine) and tend to judge the integrity (or perhaps ability, its hard to tell) of the reviewer based on whether they mention what I see as "the elephant in the room" regarding this camera. Many do, but many more don't.
So what are we left with here? Some camera reviews published in magazines are less than adequate, perhaps because of a lack of integrity or perhaps through lack of ability or dilligence. Hmmm. I think I knew that beforehand. Or that the OP doesn't like digital cameras (or maybe just not Canon ones). I guess I didn't know that before now, but he's not on his Pat Malone there so it hardly surprises me.
Me, I'll continue to use my 50D for the many things I like it for, my Leica or Konica film RFs for those circumstances where I prefer them and other cameras where they seem more appropriate or just because I like using them. With any luck, I might take the occasional photograph I like to look at.
...Mike
Benjamin
Registered Snoozer
From what I've seen it's a pretty rubbish magazine on the whole. Then again, most of them are.
I've always thought it unlikely that they (read any photographic publicication) will give bad review any camera produced by a large company, rather simply because they need the money.
I've always thought it unlikely that they (read any photographic publicication) will give bad review any camera produced by a large company, rather simply because they need the money.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I've enjoyed reading B & W magazine, one of the better out there these days. But that's not saying much.
The business model of periodicals is to raise revenue by selling advertisements, which is predicated upon selling magazines over the counter and via subscriptions. These two activities - advertisement revenue and selling magazines - can be at cross purposes when the purchaser of the magazine expects a non-biased product review, while the product review itself, if realistic, may affect the magazine's relationship to the advertiser who manufactures said camera. So they have to tread the fine line of being realistic enough in product reviews so as not to lose credibility with subscribers, while pandering to their primary revenue stream, the manufacturers.
Of course, no one is 'non-biased'; it's rather a matter of what kind of bias is present, and whether it's intentional or not.
I don't own a 50D, nor have I handled one, but I've heard it's a fine camera, from what others have said. I'm not certain that the job of a magazine's product reviewer is to rate existing cameras upon the standard of expectation of features and performance future cameras could theoretically provide. They have to rate the cameras in their hand against other cameras existing in the present moment. It's a comparative review, not an absolute against some theoretical standard, like the sort of cameras we here on RFF dream about.
~Joe
The business model of periodicals is to raise revenue by selling advertisements, which is predicated upon selling magazines over the counter and via subscriptions. These two activities - advertisement revenue and selling magazines - can be at cross purposes when the purchaser of the magazine expects a non-biased product review, while the product review itself, if realistic, may affect the magazine's relationship to the advertiser who manufactures said camera. So they have to tread the fine line of being realistic enough in product reviews so as not to lose credibility with subscribers, while pandering to their primary revenue stream, the manufacturers.
Of course, no one is 'non-biased'; it's rather a matter of what kind of bias is present, and whether it's intentional or not.
I don't own a 50D, nor have I handled one, but I've heard it's a fine camera, from what others have said. I'm not certain that the job of a magazine's product reviewer is to rate existing cameras upon the standard of expectation of features and performance future cameras could theoretically provide. They have to rate the cameras in their hand against other cameras existing in the present moment. It's a comparative review, not an absolute against some theoretical standard, like the sort of cameras we here on RFF dream about.
~Joe
peter_n
Veteran
I think that B&W Photography is less rubbish than most. If you want to see truly rubbish versions of it, go back a couple of years to when David Corfield was the editor. Then it was really terrible. I've seen really bad reviews of rangefinder gear in that magazine, I mean they were seriously pathetic, but luckily I didn't cancel my subscription and the person no longer appears to be reviewing. It's actually not a bad magazine these days.
g12
Too much stuff
I should clarify (again) that the magazine in question is 'Black+White Photography', a UK publication, not 'B&W', a US publication.
@mfunnell: it's the review, hance the title containing the word 'Journalism'. I have nothing against SLRs aside from the ergonomics of modern versions, they are vulgar to my eye and boring.
I suppose that this sort of thing makes me wonder if I can trust this magazine. That can be important but is not a killer when it comes to buying something. I no longer trust Private Eye after their MMR nonsense, but I continue to buy as I know that if anything truly outrages me I can do my own research. It could just be the reviewer liking Canon gear, but I'd be amazed if the review didn't float past the editor before publication. Therefore it's endorsed by the person who controls the whole thing... or the editor doesn't know how to edit. How can I read anything in it anymore without a part of me thinking 'are they endorsing fixer X because they advertise here?' ?
@mfunnell: it's the review, hance the title containing the word 'Journalism'. I have nothing against SLRs aside from the ergonomics of modern versions, they are vulgar to my eye and boring.
I suppose that this sort of thing makes me wonder if I can trust this magazine. That can be important but is not a killer when it comes to buying something. I no longer trust Private Eye after their MMR nonsense, but I continue to buy as I know that if anything truly outrages me I can do my own research. It could just be the reviewer liking Canon gear, but I'd be amazed if the review didn't float past the editor before publication. Therefore it's endorsed by the person who controls the whole thing... or the editor doesn't know how to edit. How can I read anything in it anymore without a part of me thinking 'are they endorsing fixer X because they advertise here?' ?
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
What I think is amazing is not the review, (which I read because I like most of what I get out of my subscription) nor the fact that the magazine doesn't appeal to some, but the way people get their knickers in a knot about silly little things they really should just let go through to the 'keeper.
g12
Too much stuff
You mean when people can't help themselves from replying to threads like this even though they have nothing valid to say...?
Leigh Youdale
Well-known
g12
Too much stuff
Curious, I consider having personal standards in things to be non-trivial, and when a publication I take prints something which makes me think it is either corrupt or incompetent I am slightly offended. I do aplogize for wasting your time, but thanks for your incredibly useful insights.
gavinlg
Veteran
I personally think the canon control and ergos are pretty far up there in DSLRs... My 5d is about as simple as a modern DSLR gets and nothing with the interface gets in the way of a shot. AF of the 50d is meant to be quite good.... better than my 5d and I don't have problems with that, even in the dark.
dfoo
Well-known
I dislike the 5d interface compared with, say, the Nikon D200. I much much prefer two job wheels for aperture and shutter speed control rather the idiotic canon design.
larmarv916
Well-known
I would say I buy the "black & white" magazine from the UK every now and then. I would say that it looks like the reviewer is as we say " in the tank" for Canon. We see this most commonly with car magazines..I think it's call "pay for play". Car magazines get advertising because it's tied to editorial control of what are unbiased "drive reviews" such is the case with this Canon 50D story. Sad but true..I read the story myself.
ZeissFan
Veteran
I totally reject the "pay for play" argument.
I just think the reviewer is very enthusiastic about Canon gear, in much the same way that Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and others have their followers.
And it is the fifth incarnation of this camera. You'd think Canon could get it right by now after five cameras and numerous firmware upgrades, including some that disabled the camera, as I recall.
I just think the reviewer is very enthusiastic about Canon gear, in much the same way that Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax and others have their followers.
And it is the fifth incarnation of this camera. You'd think Canon could get it right by now after five cameras and numerous firmware upgrades, including some that disabled the camera, as I recall.
gavinlg
Veteran
Ahhh yeah I'm pretty sure you got the wrong end of the stick there.
If you're thinking canons only have 1 wheel and a button for the aperture like the lower end 450d/xsi etc, you're right, but so does every other low end dslr on the market.
The 5d has both front and rear jog dials just like the nikons but the rear is located differently. I prefer it there over nikon placement, but I prefer olympus's dial placement over both nikon and canons. Something weird with nikon cameras is that front dial on the grip is so far recessed into the rubber it makes it hard to turn without smudging your finger on the rubber too..
To add to that, the nikon d300 I had was a freakin techno wonder. The menu was so confusing that I actually had to spend good tens of seconds digging for things I needed. Too many things to adjust.
Last edited: