NY Times on New Digitial SLRs

A pretty worthless article as one would expect. I wonder why they choose the K10D instead of the K100D.
 
CDT said:
A pretty worthless article as one would expect. I wonder why they choose the K10D instead of the K100D.
Click to expand...


My guess on the Pentax is the price point. Sub $ 1K with a lot of extra features, and enough used K mount lenses to keep your initial investment to a minimum.
 
Try and remember who drives the market. Clots, that's who. People who know their way around cameras don't contribute 1% to the overall economics of DSLR camera companies. So the article was written for clots. Be glad they spend money like morons.
 
I can't get past 'DSLR' being written as 'digital S.L.R.' The article is very dumbed-down too. "...and may introduce random speckles in the photograph, something the pros call “noise.”" Eeesh! I guess I spend too much time here and at dpreview!

:)
 
NY Times on New Digital SLRs

NY Times on New Digital SLRs

RayPA said:
I can't get past 'DSLR' being written as 'digital S.L.R.' The article is very dumbed-down too. "...and may introduce random speckles in the photograph, something the pros call “noise.”" Eeesh! I guess I spend too much time here and at dpreview!

:)
Click to expand...

RayPA...As a retired New York Times writer, I feel I must remind you that unlike knowledgeable photographers such as yourself, the typical reader of The New York Times [and practically every other newspaper in the world] does not use or understand such technical terms as DSLR or "noise" in his/her digital world -- anymore than you would use or understand technical jargon in fields that you do not know-- say, for example, nuclear physics, knee surgery, bicycle repair or biodiesel performance...Therefore, writers must know enough about their subject to be able to "write it in English'' so that laymen can understand it...

Your breed go to the specialized publications or websites to read these reviews in their own language...
 
Last edited:
bob cole said:
RayPA...As a retired New York Times writer, I feel I must remind you that unlike knowledgeable photographers such as yourself, the typical reader of The New York Times [and practically every other newspaper in the world] does not use or understand such technical terms as DSLR or "noise" in his/her digital world -- anymore than you would use or understand technical jargon in fields that you do not know-- say, for example, nuclear physics, knee surgery, bicycle repair or biodiesel performance...Therefore, writers must know enough about their subject to be able to "write it in English'' so that laymen can understand it...

Your breed go to the specialized publications or websites to read these reviews in their own language...
Click to expand...

There is no reason to repeat 'digital S.L.R.' and to use 'S.L.R.'s' throughout an article. As a retired writer you should know that there are ways around that. Upon the first occurrence of 'digital single lens reflex' the writer can easily write 'digital single lens reflex (DSLR)' and refer to DSLR throughout the article. That serves the readers MUCH better. The article 'looks' cheesy with S.L.R.'s sprinkled throughout, and as a result treats the reader like a ... clot. That I have to be reminded that SLR is an abbreviation and every occurrence needs S . L . R. spelled out is ridiculous. After all we've had SLR cameras for 30+ years!

And you're right, the mantra of all writing is 'know your audience,' and obiviously this writer makes some assumptions about his audience. I'll go out on a limb here and say that this article is way below the level of this board and definitely more fitting to the general NY Times audience. Although, I thought (assumed) the NY Times audience level was considerably higher.

:)
 
I thought it was actually a pretty informative little article. Yes, it's not written for photography nerds but it gave enough info that if I were in the market for a DSLR, I'd know where to start. The Pentax actually sounded like something I might like particularly paired with that little 21mm lens they have. Although I think maybe the k100d would probably be just as good.

Not sure what people are expecting in a general interest newspaper. The Times does a pretty good job with this stuff. Nothing was factually incorrect and as a more sophisticated user you could read between the lines and say, hmm, no "scene" modes, this might be more up my alley.
 
I'll chime in here as another former journalist (for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) in support of what Bob Cole said. There is no big conspiracy here to dumb down newspaper writing. The public is pretty dumbed down already. Newspapers are and have always been written with the 8th to 10th grade graduate (or equivalent intelligence and knowledge) in mind. There's nothing new to see here folks. Now, go about your business.
 
visiondr said:
I'll chime in here as another former journalist (for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) in support of what Bob Cole said. There is no big conspiracy here to dumb down newspaper writing. The public is pretty dumbed down already. Newspapers are and have always been written with the 8th to 10th grade graduate (or equivalent intelligence and knowledge) in mind. There's nothing new to see here folks. Now, go about your business.
Click to expand...

I'm a technical writer by profession, so style guide issues pop out at me. Style guides have little to do with dumbing down and more to do with facilitating the reader comprehension by offering consistency. I find it hard to believe that this article was written following the NY Times style guide. I can't attest to the value of its content, because (as I stated in my first post) I can't get past the style issues. Of course the definition of 'noise' tipped me that this article was not for me. I'm better served by dpreview and disucssions here on RFF.

I appreciate that you pointed us to the article, Bob.

:)
 
nightfly said:
I thought it was actually a pretty informative little article. Yes, it's not written for photography nerds but it gave enough info that if I were in the market for a DSLR, I'd know where to start. The Pentax actually sounded like something I might like particularly paired with that little 21mm lens they have. Although I think maybe the k100d would probably be just as good.

Not sure what people are expecting in a general interest newspaper. The Times does a pretty good job with this stuff. Nothing was factually incorrect and as a more sophisticated user you could read between the lines and say, hmm, no "scene" modes, this might be more up my alley.
Click to expand...
Same here, for an article written for the mass, it is concise, to the point, and highlights the strength quite nicely of each cameras reviewed. And I sure can appreciate it's not always easy to write that way ;)

Edit: forgot to say, thanks Bob for the link!
 
I read that piece, too, and thought it was somewhat below-standard for Pogue (who I generally like, although he sometimes gets a bit too cutesy for his own good). I do find it amusing that even the most stripped-down/dumbed-down dSLR would be considered so much more desirable than a well-appointed fixed-lens digicam, but that's the perception/reality thing for you, I guess. Yes, it is a newspaper article for general consumption, and not a specialist piece, and with tight deadlines, etc., but I hold the Newspaper of Record to a slightly higher standard than the other rags in this town (and much higher than one in particular – yeah, Rupe, I'm talkin' to you!), so I would have preferred an article written with a bit more polish. (His previous column, on noise-canceling headphones, however, was spot-on, IMO.)


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
shadowfox said:
Same here, for an article written for the mass, it is concise, to the point, and highlights the strength quite nicely of each cameras reviewed. And I sure can appreciate it's not always easy to write that way ;)

Edit: forgot to say, thanks Bob for the link!
Click to expand...
---------------------------
To give just one example of how The New York Times tries very hard to reach the reader in understandable language -- as bright as that reader might be -- The Times science reporting staff has long included an M.D. named Lawrence K. Altman who covers medical issues...

I don't recall if he covered the recent crash of a speeding car carrying Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey, who was not wearing a seat belt and was badly injured... But that is the kind of story that must inform the reader of the Governor's injuries in laymen language and at the same time keep in mind the sensibilities that people are reading The Times at the breakfast table... It has to be written in a way that doctors don't generally talk among themselves but that they recognize to be an article written by someone who knows what he's talking about...Altman's byline does not generally add that he's an M.D.

And thanks for the plaudits...
 
why would anyone use the NY Times as a source for digital camera review? It's like trying to order burgers from an high-end establishments... get ya burgers from McDonalds who knows how to make burgers.
 
It gives you a basic heads up to something for the non-photogeek. It's the perfect level of info for my ex-wife. She's a doctor, might be interested in taking pictures and knows nothing about anything photographic. It's a starting point for the non-savy. Clearly presented information, important points for the target reader. For us, perhaps not a lot new, but for the audience, dead on good info.

I love the Times for giving me a reasonable level of info on stuff that I am not an expert. It used to wet my interest enough to find out more, or skip it.

B2 (;->
 
NY Times on New Digital SLRs

NY Times on New Digital SLRs

ywenz said:
why would anyone use the NY Times as a source for digital camera review? It's like trying to order burgers from an high-end establishments... get ya burgers from McDonalds who knows how to make burgers.
Click to expand...
----------------------

This discussion is much like a dog chasing its tail...

Where should your Mom, your sister, your kid brother or your Uncle Harry go to read about this subject or, let's say, the best hamburgers in town, the new State Department rules about passports or a product recall on frozen french fries -- to a newspaper like The New York Times and dozens of other fine newspapers across America... Once you discover what The Times says, you go to other sources for more information -- if you need to... It ain't the last word; it's usually enough but for people who want more, there are lots of other places you can look...

Have you ever noticed that news you hear on tonight's TV was in this morning's major newspapers? Without the newspaper, TV editors and most blogs would have to find things out for themselves...
 
I agree with you Bob about the need to write articles for a wide audiance however M.D. is used regularly to identify Altman. I worked there [NY Times] for 18 years.
 
MikeCassidy said:
I agree with you Bob about the need to write articles for a wide audiance however M.D. is used regularly to identify Altman. I worked there [NY Times] for 18 years.
Click to expand...


-----------

I stand corrected, Mike...
 
I actually quite liked this article - punchy and to the point. I did love the Nikon quote on dust as well... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom