Whose reviews do trust ?

sevencrossing

'Based in independent DxOMark tests' )

Really? Is that all you got?

We love to rubbish DxOMark and I won't mention KR

So, when you are looking for a new camera, name your top three review sites

PB_PM

User reviews, not review sites which often just get hand picked samples from the manufactures. That in combination with image samples on flickr and other photo hosting sites.

haroldp

Thom Hogan is the best,

DP review is useful if you can glean what matters to you out of a fire hose of information.

Imaging Resource for lenses.

KR is useful if you separate his technical info from his opinions as to what matters (to him, therefore to us all).

DXO is not as useful to me as it once was because everyones potential IQ is now so good that other qualities (like handling, controls, focusing) that might help me approach the potential IQ matter more to me.

.... H

donaldejose

I always check DPReview, Thom Hogan, DxOMark, Moose Peterson, Photography Life and KR to see what they agree upon and disagree upon. They all are good in their own way when used for different purposes and mindful of their limitations. Different things are important to different people so someone may like a camera very much because of one feature and another person may find it unsuitable due to the very same feature. For example, Moose Peterson seems to think a really impressive feature of the new D810 is its ability to shoot unlimited RAW files without filling the buffer. I have not seen another reviewer tout this feature. And KR says he would not buy the Sigma 50mm f1.4, even though he admits it is the sharpest AF 50mm f1.4, simply because he doesn't trust any third part lens to work on a Nikon body coming out in the next two decades. (But won't newer and better lenses also be released over the next two decades which we will want to be using then?) I consider what they all say; but I select what best "fits" my intended use.

It is sort of like I tell people who are looking for a new car: go to Consumer Reports and car magazine comparison tests; note the top five ranked cars in your category; go drive and examine each of those five and then select the one that best "fits" you or most appeals to you.

Whichever camera or car happens to numerically rank at the top in some list may not be the best one for you.

Vipmediastar_JZ

NikonRumorsForum

Golf007sd

Member on NRF, Photography Life, The Camera Store YouTube channel.

heartyfisher

I like data based ones like DXO and photozone.de.. but Thom and more recently photographylife are very good too...

But I read everything I can find and add salt liberally.. Port and sherry is good too...

Photobug

I read the following:
Tom Hogan
Popular Photography detailed review
DxOMark
User reviews on B&H, Adorama and Amazon- again paying attention to negative comments looking for themes as PitchBlack mentioned.

I do look at KR site but only for dimensional information and any technical improvements. Definitely avoiding his personal views/opinions.

I prefer not to flip a coin or get boos involved in these decisions. )

kanuck

Lots of great reviews on Youtube of course. I have been enjoying Steve Huff reviews for years although he has the tendancy to have an ulterior agenda earning income from pushing certain products with links and such. I find his reviews informative and helpful though regardless. Moose Peterson, Outdoor Photographer, and Pop Photo mags are decent as well for Nikon gear.

Bokeh_Hunter

I like Steve Huff (and his reader's articles) - they all really focus on lenses practical uses, Thom, Moose Peterson (I think is the most honest of all of them), Matt Granger, The Camera Store, PhotographyBlog & Photography Bay (for the first to see things), Even Kai at DigitalRev TV is good. Most all of them actually review what is really important - the use of it and end result.

Out of measurements - Imatest is the best lens evaluative program out there but it is expensive and few people are using it. One thing I have seen those who use Imatest, if two different reviewers are using the software, body and lens results are almost identical (small sample variation is normal.) DxO has the cheapest programs to buy, and is severely limited, but does have some good individual tests, but it's scoring and "overview" reviews are a joke. It is also very unclear if they are utilizing multiple copies of lenses for results. I also find it interesting that other companies/magazines (Like PopPhoto) who use DxO's programs rarely ever match results from DxO on the same bodies/lenses.

This is one of the videos I ran across (link bait) today. He goes through the same things I look for when upgrading. Good logical way. Warning though, he does kick Nikon in the nuts on a couple of things.

Msmoto

Reviewers have interesting characteristics which can fairly easily be read if one has any experience as a profiler, or psychological training. I am fascinated by the ones who seem to love to hear themselves talk….. like Narcissus looking at his reflection in the water…LOL.

Then others who give opinions like they have special abilities, when their opinion is simply a blind man describing color.

And, the OCD types, full of data, yet not as understandable as one might like.

Overall, I will look at what is written, attempt to combine what appears to be rational from the large amount of chaff, and arrive at my own opinion based upon this.

framer

Since the dawn of the digital photo age I tend to look and listen to all the reviews that have been mentioned here. Then check out the items at my local camera store or borrow it if able. After I save up enough to get it wait to the next generation IE D2h get the D2hs, D3 get D3s, D800E get the D810. I try to skip the beta models.

Trust no one, check and verify.

framer

sevencrossing

when their opinion is simply a blind man describing color.

.

Some Blind people do "see" colour and they tend to see the world through rose tinted glasses
When / if their vision is restored, they can become depressed by how grubby everything appears

Ironheart

Rodger @ lensrentals.com. I would trust him with my firstborn, and when he gets around to testing something he tests like 482 copies.
Nasim @ photography life is great as well.
I get a kick out of Fro knows photo :-)

kenadams

I was a bit surprised with the Fro lately. His youtube rant on why you should shoot raw as opposed to "getting it right in camera" aka Ken Rockwell is hilarious, but especially someone who wears t-shirts reading "I shoot raw" I'd expect to notice the catch in Nikon's sRaw format though which apparently he hasn't yet.

I remember thinking "how the hell is that supposed to work??" when I read about it, and pretty much everyone has said ever since how sRaw is a load of crap.

But that's why you're supposed to read more than just one review ;-)

tcole1983

I read lots of different places. If they all seem pretty positive and samples look good then I usually take that as a good thing. Flickr surfing for the specific product lens or body is usually helpful. KR is useful for the technical information for each item and he usually has a little comparison chart of features that can be handy.

Maybe slightly off topic but you just have to take some reviews on the level of which you are looking at equipment. I was searching something on here and found old topics from the old forum about what kind of equipment people were using. People recommended stuff that no one would really recommend now because of the changing dynamics of equipment. The D90 was the in DX body where as now many have moved up to an FX body...on here at least. I just saw another comment on something where someone said I wish they would get rid of that DX junk. Obviously anything less to this person wouldn't be acceptable. I saw this as I looked around at DX bodies to buy recently. Is a D5XXX a D800...nope...is it junk. I don't think so.

WestEndBoy

I agree tcole1983. I don't think I would characterize any DSLR in the Nikon line as junk. For every price point, it is either the best or second best option (and that is a matter of opinion).

Even my Nikon 1 camera, which is really my 8 year old son's. I would not have bought it if it was junk. It is a great camera for an 8 year old (who will inherit my D800 and 50mm 1.4G in four years when I buy the D830 and have the D820 and DFx as backup).

WestEndBoy

This is one of the videos I ran across (link bait) today. He goes through the same things I look for when upgrading. Good logical way. Warning though, he does kick Nikon in the nuts on a couple of things.

Interesting video. I think he is bang on comparing the lens camera combinations using DXO's perceptual megapixel test. Argue all you want on whether this is relevant or not, but the 50 mm comparison thread would be meaningless if it did not matter. I see this issue every day on my D800 with the lenses in my signature. There is nobody else in the market doing this sort of rigorous testing on this subject. So until someone else comes along with better testing, I find it really difficult to fault DXO Mark on this.........

I object to his recommendation of Canon over Nikon for portrait photography based on their performance with the 70-200 2.8 lenses. If I was a really serious portrait photographer, I would have 3 D810s with an 85 1.4, 135 2.0 and 200 2.0 or longer. I know that lot's do use the zooms and I think they are a logical choice for event photography, but I think he has dismissed a significant segment of photography as irrelevant.

I do agree with his approach that it is the lenses that really count. I just wished he didn't ignore where the quality really is, the expensive primes. I don't think that is too much to ask considering that he reviewed the best cameras in the respective lineups.

kanuck

Good video link! I did't like how he used Tamron and Sigma lens to judge mp output on the pro bodies. He uses DXO as do many others, but I like to cross reference their findings with other sources as well to make sure it is not just one person's opinion. I agree that Moose Peterson is one of the best at reviewing gear especially lenses. I find that I can identify exactly with what he is saying like the limitations of using certain lenses in the field such as with the 70-300mm VR, or Nikkor 200-400mm VR.

Bokeh_Hunter

Interesting video. I think he is bang on comparing the lens camera combinations using DXO's perceptual megapixel test. Argue all you want on whether this is relevant or not, but the 50 mm comparison thread would be meaningless if it did not matter. I see this issue every day on my D800 with the lenses in my signature. There is nobody else in the market doing this sort of rigorous testing on this subject. So until someone else comes along with better testing, I find it really difficult to fault DXO Mark on this.........

DxO's relevance has never been in question - accuracy though, is very much so. Just because people use a free use site a lot, does not mean it is the best, it just means it's free. Imatest is the probably the best that is "available" but their software runs in the $10k+ range. That is why it isn't seen as much - someone has to buy it to use it. There are reviewers out there who do, but they have a hefty charge for the use of the information and you can not re-post their results. Imatest and the better software titles are designed for optical and sensor designers where accuracy is paramount. Their customers are Businesses that have the money and also demand perfection. DxO's can be had for under $1k and is free for everyone to look at. Their tests were made to write their software from, which inherently has a far greater leeway in how accurate it has to be. The scoring metrics they use are arbitrary as are the "colors" they use - they are just human subjective choices. Note they never publish the raw numbers - if you are not scared of your metrics, you publish the raw results. I used to design Metrics for companies for a living, I do know exactly what they are and how they are created - it's not a science. There are far better testing programs out there - but none market themselves like DxO or post testing results for lenses and bodies. DxO writes software to try to correct for every lens/body combination and sell it to consumers so they have existing test data. That is the only thing DxO is better at - posting their existing test data. The "tests" are just loose guides for software design and the scores are nothing more than a marketing gimmick to boost their name and sell software - which honestly isn't that great.

The machine that LensRentals has is the industry standard for real lens testing. If I recall that is in the $30k+ range. Reviewers are not making that kind of money to cover the expense for the higher end stuff unfortunately so they use what is free. I'll say it again - Just because people use and refer to a free site a lot, does not mean it is the best, it just means it's free.

DXO's perceptual megapixel metric is an absolute joke and bogus modified math in the "results" (output MP) - the only thing you can pull from it is that one lens is bit sharper and where at in the field. Their Mp scores and color levels are atrociously made up. The way they are calculating it, it will eventually show higher MP than the sensor can actually show. The measurement has an absolute limit of the sensor MPs. That means they have a "boost" in there that probably was put in as a Normalizing factor. The rationalization for that is probably when they had the actual results, they were probably only 25% of the sensor capability and they felt they people would criticize them. So they added it and then added "perceptual" in the nave to cover their butts. Worked great when MP counts were below 20mp and before the newest batch of lenses but it broke when the D800 and the Otus came out. If you truly understand the math, it doesn't line up with reality at all. Sad part is, someone like the photog in the video takes their lens results as real - and thinks they are loosing 3, 4, 10mp's worth of data - which is absolutely false. There will probably be a 16% gain in reality - which is how much more true resolution (it is an "area" calculation) gain a 36mp sensor has over a 24mp sensor.

snakebunk

I trust all but if I had to pick one it would be photozone.

WestEndBoy

Bokeh Hunter, I do generally agree with you, though I would not go "quite as far" as to call DXO's test a joke. Until someone produces data with Imatest as comprehensively as DXO has done, DXO is all that we have got despite the likely superiority of a comprehensive Imatest if somebody undertook it.

However, I do think that the DXO perceptual megapixel test does illustrate a few points relevant to photographers that care about the technical side:

1.
A lens is part of a system that includes a camera, so image quality evaluation cannot be based on a lens or camera alone, but must be based on the system.
2.
There will come a point where additional megapixels in a camera do not produce additional image quality because the lens is the limiting factor. For the lenses in my signature, which are for the most part professional grade lenses, I think I have reached that point at wide apertures with my D800. However, I am not so sure if I have reached that point at the sharpest apertures (say 5.6 to 8.0) with my D800. This is simply because the images are sharper stopped down - an observation that is made nearly daily by various users on this site.

So I think that it is debatable whether the actual number that DXO comes up with provides useful information. However, given the above two points and comparing DXO scores across the different combinations that they have tested, I think that there is useful information to be gleaned, albeit taken with healthy skepticism.

NSXTypeR

I can't listen to Tony Northrup. I don't know why, something from him oozes condescending to me. I mean, if you really wanted to get a 200mm focal length, from Nikon, get the 200mm F2. Yeah it's not cheap, but if you make good photos, it would pay for itself.

And the Nikon 50mm 1.8 is vastly superior to the Canon 50mm 1.8. The autofocus issue is a non-issue. Anyone wanting a 50mm equivalent lens for crop sensors is going to get the 35mm DX anyway. All the FX bodies AF with AF-D lenses anyway. I'm not sure why he made it such a big deal.

JonMcGuffin

The video was very good, but honestly had quite a few flaws in it. Probably one of the biggest of them being his assertion that the 70-200 isn't really a 70-200mm. In reality, it's only during very close focusing that the focus breathing aspect comes into play. It really is a 70-200 at very regular usage distances. To his defense, he does state he likes to get in tight with his portrait work and in that case, it may come into play however he did not do a very fair job of pointing that this limited focal range is in fact only at or near the minimum focus distance. That's huge because he's spreading the thought that this isn't really a 70-200mm and it is.

I think Tony does a really nice job and I really do think much of what he said makes a lot of sense but like others here, he never mentions the use of any primes for those portraits such as the 135 F2, 85 1.4, etc. Comparing the 50mm and saying people need a $100 lens and that's a huge advantage to Canon in my view is disingenuous because (no offense to Canon) but that "nifty-50" is a pile of crap. Optically it's fine, but it's built terribly and falls a part easily (has happened to a friend). The Nikon version is optically superior (Tony states this) and yes it does cost twice as much but is built much better. He states Nikon's AF-D lens that is $100 won't focus on Nikon bodies but that's not true either. It'll focus on everything with a motor mount and that's D7100.

JonMcGuffin

By the way, I stand behind what many have said here.. Here would be my personal order..

Lenses & Bodies
www.bythom.com - Thom Hogan
www.photographylife.com - Nasim & Crew
www.photozone.de - Just too well laid out of a site and simple and easy to get apples to apples scores.
www.nikonrumors.com - Of course! This is a fabulous place, but you have to dig a bit.
www.stevehuffphoto.com - He's a mirrorless and high end junkie, but I think shoots from the heart and tells it like he see's it.

Badger

There is some excellent advice here, especially the advice about reading several reviews of the same gear/equipment.

I'd like to add one site to the already comprehensive list of reviewers; namely Ming Thein's blog.
blog.mingthein.com

Granted, he (also) reviews some high-end gear that mere mortals (like myself) probably will never be able to afford (and much less get approval from the missus), unless I win the lottery,...

...but Ming Thein is brutally honest in his reviews, as you can read in his review of the Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G - where he compares it with the substantially more expensive AF-S 85mm f/1.4 G.
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/11/23/nikon-85-18g/