Strange review in Digital Camera magazine

[welly]

Just picked up a copy of Digital Camera magazine and have been having a thumb through - clearly they're sponsored by Canon as the 5D Mk 2 beat the D700 :thumbsdown: But they did a comparison of 50mm prime lenses - Canon vs. Nikon vs. Sigma vs. Sony. The Canon 50mm was their winner.

Perhaps I'm missing the point but as a Nikon user, that review was most pretty pointless. Firstly, I can't use a Canon lens and secondly I can't use a Sony lens. So, to what end were they comparing Canon v Nikon v Sony? I'm not sure how they could possibly pick out a winner. The Canon and Sony are clearly the worst choice out of the 4 for me as a Nikon user and likewise the Canon and Nikon for Sony users. Just seemed a really bizarre test. Their 5D vs D700 vs A900 came down to "The D700 is only 12 megapixels thus it's not as good as the 5D or A900 but it would be a good backup for the D3." Hang about, the D3 is only 12 megapixels too.

 

[candlestick]

I made a similar post about Amateur Photographer a while back where they seemed ever so slightly Nikon biased. I am less than convinced that any of these magazines are truly 'independent'

 

[BadgerLover]

But they did a comparison of 50mm prime lenses - Canon vs. Nikon vs. Sigma vs. Sony. The Canon 50mm was their winner

Out of interest, which of Canon 50mm lenses? The 1.8 II, 1.4, 1.2 or 2.5 macro? Which Nikon and Sony lenses did they test it against?

I agree that they've probably spent a lot of time on a completely pointless exercise. Great that Canon (apparently) make a superior 50mm lens to Sigma, Nikon and Sony but what good does that do for Nikon and Sony users? It's like comparing gearboxes from different car manufacturers.

George.

 

[welly]

Out of interest, which of Canon 50mm lenses? The 1.8 II, 1.4, 1.2 or 2.5 macro? Which Nikon and Sony lenses did they test it against?

I agree that they've probably spent a lot of time on a completely pointless exercise. Great that Canon (apparently) make a superior 50mm lens to Sigma, Nikon and Sony but what good does that do for Nikon and Sony users? It's like comparing gearboxes from different car manufacturers.

George.

It was all the f1.4 lenses. It said "It was the Canon that stood out, delivering quite exceptional sharpness, even wide open and at a good price".

Well, I'd better get myself one ordered then!

Oh..

 

[arclight]

I take all magazine reviews with a large pinch of salt mine.

You can never be sure there is not bias for one reason or another and it's not just in photo mags either.

 

[wack61]

It was all the f1.4 lenses. It said "It was the Canon that stood out, delivering quite exceptional sharpness, even wide open and at a good price".

Did they mention if it was still as sharp when gaffer taped to a D300

 

[Matt]

i thought the lens comparison was a little pointless too...liked the camera comparison though, clearly they think (using photos to compare)that the 5dII is the better camera...a couple of years ago I remember that Digital Photo was always featuring and praising Canon, then they started to have Nikons on the front cover and praising them...mind you, that year i finished in the top 10 for their POTY so it was a strange year..

 

[tbm]

Does seem a bit pointless..

I think pretty much all "enthusiast / hobby" mags have an agenda due to the revenue generated from advertising.

Certainly with photographic mags I find their reviews scant and subjective at best when compared to what's avalable online.

Sad as it is the interweb must be destroying magazine sales, and they're probably not doing much to help themselves either

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Was it Digital Photo last year whose awards went something like-

Best Bricks and Mortar Retailer:Jessops
Best online retailer: Warehouse Express

Must have just been a coincidence that they were the sponsors of the awards......

 

[Sparkles33]

i thought the lens comparison was a little pointless too...liked the camera comparison though, clearly they think (using photos to compare)that the 5dII is the better camera...a couple of years ago I remember that Digital Photo was always featuring and praising Canon, then they started to have Nikons on the front cover and praising them...mind you, that year i finished in the top 10 for their POTY so it was a strange year..

I thought the sony had the sharpest image in the sharpness test TBH, so did DH

Honestly though, i'm happy with what I've got, it does what I want and then a little bit more. If YOU'RE happy with your setup, isn't that what matters? Not what a canon orientated mag says - also, have you noticed, canon seem to have the monopoly on the mags market ATM (or at least what I can find anyway)

 

[tikkathreebarrel]

I am less than convinced that any of these magazines are truly 'independent'

My guess is that they're reliant on the various importers (etc) to provide them with test equipment.

I recall the publisher of a gun magazine telling me that if they printed what they really thought, that'd be the end of kit from that maker/importer.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

My guess is that they're reliant on the various importers (etc) to provide them with test equipment.

I recall the publisher of a gun magazine telling me that if they printed what they really thought, that'd be the end of kit from that maker/importer.

Like Vauxhall refusing to supply any cars for review to Top Gear after the launch of the Vectra in 1995, when Clarkson's "test" of it was just him standing looking at it for 10 minutes at the end of which he just shook his head and walked away

 

[Matt]

Like Vauxhall refusing to supply any cars for review to Top Gear after the launch of the Vectra in 1995, when Clarkson's "test" of it was just him standing looking at it for 10 minutes at the end of which he just shook his head and walked away

it was a good review. accurate too. what a shed. lol

 

[POAH]

not altogether pointless

Just picked up a copy of Digital Camera magazine and have been having a thumb through - clearly they're sponsored by Canon as the 5D Mk 2 beat the D700 :thumbsdown: But they did a comparison of 50mm prime lenses - Canon vs. Nikon vs. Sigma vs. Sony. The Canon 50mm was their winner.

Perhaps I'm missing the point but as a Nikon user, that review was most pretty pointless. Firstly, I can't use a Canon lens and secondly I can't use a Sony lens. So, to what end were they comparing Canon v Nikon v Sony? I'm not sure how they could possibly pick out a winner. The Canon and Sony are clearly the worst choice out of the 4 for me as a Nikon user and likewise the Canon and Nikon for Sony users. Just seemed a really bizarre test. Their 5D vs D700 vs A900 came down to "The D700 is only 12 megapixels thus it's not as good as the 5D or A900 but it would be a good backup for the D3." Hang about, the D3 is only 12 megapixels too.

 

[treeman]

I presume the same is true today, but many years ago when working for a photo mag, it was common knowledge that they didn't want to upset their main advertisers, consequently reviews were not worth the paper they were written on.

I would never trust a review of anything other than from the end user, who paid for the item with their own money.

 

[mikeward]

tbh all magazines on any topic will be the same i used to buy a few computer magazines a few years ago and by just looking at the adverts in the magazine you could see which they was going too find was the best.

The good one they usually do is compare 3-4 cameras from different makers but have one nearly double the cost of the others and say that one is much better.

 

[david1701]

I occaisionally pick up a mag if it has interesting looking techniques but v rarely

only one I get on a regular basis is GQ and that has no cameras in it :O

 

[Arkady]

I simply don't read any of them any more as most of the writers are prats...the articles have little to recommend them to anyone with even a basic understanding of photography and the images usually fall into the 'could have done better myself' or 'what a waste of film/pixels that was'...
Reviews are only of interest to those starting out TBH as those who've been in the game for a bit made their decisions years ago and are either tied to a marque because of previous financial outlay, or have all the kit they'll ever need...like me...