"I don’t know how to say this politely, so I’ll just put it on the table. Make of it what you will. When the better automotive magazines review a new model, sure — they write about horsepower and the technology of the latest Sat-Nav system. But for the most part they address the issue of how well the car performs its intended role. If it’s a sports model, how quick is it on the track, and how’s the handling? If it’s a new SUV, how does it do in the mud and snow. And, minivans are rated on how many kids and shopping bags can be carried in comfort.
Unfortunately the same paradigm is not usually applied to camera reviews, at least not by some of the reviewers currently writing on the Net. They focus their attention on the things that can be readily observed and compared with other models; things like resolution, noise characteristics and the regurgitation of a laundry list of the manufacturer’s specs.
But those are not the core issues, are they? What should really matter in a review is the suitability of the product for its intended task based on the reviewer’s experience as a photographer. And this is where the interests of what have been called the pixel peepers and these reviewers go hand-in-glove, but I believe, to the determent of the broader community of photographers."
What a fantastic article! This is especially poignant to me after having just finished the
Shuttle ST62K review and almost falling into the trap of expecting it to be everything to every one. Evaluating a product more on it's ability to allow you to do what you want rather than technical specifications is a good lesson for all reviewers, and even consumers, to learn.
The Luminous Landscape: "Digital Bridge Cameras and Cognitive Dissonance"
Linear Mode
