Sloppy writing
 

I've got this months mag and read the review on the D300s. Did the reviewer actually spend any time with the camera? They say it will shoot 7 jpegs a second but only 2.5 RAW files a second. That should read it will shoot 7fps 12 bit and 2.5fps 14 bit in either jpeg or raw. This is interesting because I dug out my old copy of the review of the D300 and lo it said 6fps jpeg and 2.5fps raw which was also wrong.

It goes on to say that new for the D300s is a 3in LCD with 920,000 dots. New to what? Not the D300, there's no change in that department so how exactly was this review conducted? If the mag gets it wrong consistently how can anybody be expected to take the advice seriously?

Hi Tazzers,

I've spoken with the reviewer of the camera, Geoff Harris, Digital Camera's Acting Editor who had this to say:

Geoff Harris, Acting Editor, replies

“Yes, I confess, I didn’t test the camera at all and wrote everything from the press release, sitting in my office in Bath! That’s how I got the pictures of Thailand you can see in the review. Sorry I am being flippant. Yes, I spent two weeks with the camera and got to know it pretty well. I’ll check on the points you raise, and we’ll print a clarification if necessary. We have to write to tight deadlines and while we strive to check every single spec, errors sometimes slip through. I stand by everything I said in my review though – the points about the video focussing were gleaned while filming my niece’s christening in Kuala Lumpur, if that reassures you.”

Hope that helps,

Thanks,

Amy

[QUOTE=Amy Davies;5207]Hi Tazzers,

I've spoken with the reviewer of the camera, Geoff Harris, Digital Camera's Acting Editor who had this to say:

Geoff Harris, Acting Editor, replies

“Yes, I confess, I didn’t test the camera at all and wrote everything from the press release, sitting in my office in Bath! That’s how I got the pictures of Thailand you can see in the review. Sorry I am being flippant. Yes, I spent two weeks with the camera and got to know it pretty well. I’ll check on the points you raise, and we’ll print a clarification if necessary. We have to write to tight deadlines and while we strive to check every single spec, errors sometimes slip through. I stand by everything I said in my review though – the points about the video focussing were gleaned while filming my niece’s christening in Kuala Lumpur, if that reassures you.”

Hope that helps,

Thanks,

Amy[/QUOTE]

Of course my point has nothing to do with the video focussing issues and I suppose a flippant intruduction deserves a flippant bent to the reply. What I'd like to know though is how can the reviewer get basic information about the fps and the lcd so badly wrong? I nearly stopped reading right there. How can I be sure the rest of the review is not similarly mistaken? Not being funny or ought, I know my subscription is a drop in the ocean to you but it's still my subscription and just lately I have been wondering if it really is worth it.

I think Tazzers, you should step out of your perfect world and realise that mistakes do occur. That is why they put rubbers on the end of pencils after all. Oh and by the way. No one has a gun to your head forcing you to read the magazine. If you have a problem with it then go and buy a magazine on something else. I'm sure we wont miss you and your rants anyway. As for me i love this magazine and cant wait for the next issue to arrive on my door. Keep up the good work DCM Team. Your real fans don't let stupid little details get in the way of a good read.

Thanks
PS, Tazzers........ Get a life !

[QUOTE=Tazzers;5203]I've got this months mag and read the review on the D300s. Did the reviewer actually spend any time with the camera? They say it will shoot 7 jpegs a second but only 2.5 RAW files a second. That should read it will shoot 7fps 12 bit and 2.5fps 14 bit in either jpeg or raw. This is interesting because I dug out my old copy of the review of the D300 and lo it said 6fps jpeg and 2.5fps raw which was also wrong.

It goes on to say that new for the D300s is a 3in LCD with 920,000 dots. New to what? Not the D300, there's no change in that department so how exactly was this review conducted? If the mag gets it wrong consistently how can anybody be expected to take the advice seriously?[/QUOTE]

Reading this I get the impression that you are vertainly a Nikon user and probably contemplating this camera?

In the interests of comparing like with like the reviewer was right to say that the camera can only shoot 2.5fps comparing that with the Canon 7D 8fps - it's pointless to say that the Nikon can shoot at 7fps in 12 bit because the Canon has no need of reducing the image quality to improve its performance. What does rankle are reviews which do this the other way around, comparing the Nikon at 7fps without ever mentioning that it needs to do this at 12bit in an attempt to make the camera appear more competetive than it really is or to justify a biased review. I've even seen fps quoted in 12 bit with the battery grip attached in order to show a point which in reality is a lie!

Just because an LCD retains the same number of pixels it doesn't mean that it's not a new design, after all how many 10MP sensors are there on the market? They aren't all the same just because they're 10MP. Many things can be different on an LCD such as colours, contrast, viewing angle etc.

Just because someone doesn't present the camera in the very best possible way (a la DPreview) doesn't mean it's a sloppy review, reading this I'd say he actually got it right rather than wrong because the quoted specs are comparable with other products, whereas often they are quoted in isolation with intention of deceit.

[QUOTE=flake;5357]Reading this I get the impression that you are vertainly a Nikon user and probably contemplating this camera?

In the interests of comparing like with like the reviewer was right to say that the camera can only shoot 2.5fps comparing that with the Canon 7D 8fps - it's pointless to say that the Nikon can shoot at 7fps in 12 bit because the Canon has no need of reducing the image quality to improve its performance. What does rankle are reviews which do this the other way around, comparing the Nikon at 7fps without ever mentioning that it needs to do this at 12bit in an attempt to make the camera appear more competetive than it really is or to justify a biased review. I've even seen fps quoted in 12 bit with the battery grip attached in order to show a point which in reality is a lie!

Just because an LCD retains the same number of pixels it doesn't mean that it's not a new design, after all how many 10MP sensors are there on the market? They aren't all the same just because they're 10MP. Many things can be different on an LCD such as colours, contrast, viewing angle etc.

Just because someone doesn't present the camera in the very best possible way (a la DPreview) doesn't mean it's a sloppy review, reading this I'd say he actually got it right rather than wrong because the quoted specs are comparable with other products, whereas often they are quoted in isolation with intention of deceit.[/QUOTE]

And reading this I get the impression you don't like Nikon! :eek:

I love the way these threads become a "which manufacturer do you love/hate more" argument.

[quote=chris-p;5382]I love the way these threads become a "which manufacturer do you love/hate more" argument.[/quote]


wonder if they have the same on Bikeradar?


my Ducati is better than your Honda !!

yes but I only paid £5 for mine

Ed

[QUOTE=OldBoy;5373]And reading this I get the impression you don't like Nikon! :eek:[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, I really like the build quality of Nikon which is better than Canon, and most of their cameras have a better focus system.

Please don't mistake my pointing out that one party is distorting facts to paint a better picture as partisanship it's not. I dislike people being misled by reviewers who do have a bias, such as DPreview who never even bother to mention that they aren't comparing like with like.

I'm also as likely to criticise Canon when they're falling behind, pehaps you might remember the posts when I was considering the Nikon 14 - 24 f/2.8 due to Canons inability to make a decent wide angle lens?

Nikon currently have a weakness in the Expeed image processor, it simply can't hold a candle to Canons Digic IV and is in my belief letting them down badly. It's this component which means the Nikon camera cannot record true HD video, and have poor frame rates compared to the competition. Once they get the image processor sorted the cameras will be very good indeed.

[QUOTE=Amy Davies;5207]Hi Tazzers,

I've spoken with the reviewer of the camera, Geoff Harris, Digital Camera's Acting Editor who had this to say:

Geoff Harris, Acting Editor, replies

“Yes, I confess, I didn’t test the camera at all and wrote everything from the press release, sitting in my office in Bath! That’s how I got the pictures of Thailand you can see in the review. Sorry I am being flippant. Yes, I spent two weeks with the camera and got to know it pretty well. I’ll check on the points you raise, and we’ll print a clarification if necessary. We have to write to tight deadlines and while we strive to check every single spec, errors sometimes slip through. I stand by everything I said in my review though – the points about the video focussing were gleaned while filming my niece’s christening in Kuala Lumpur, if that reassures you.”

Hope that helps,

Thanks,

Amy[/QUOTE]

What happened t the customer is always right ........come on Geoff if you make a mistake accept it, put the mistake right, move on and never ever have a go at one of your customers