What do you think of the camera reviews here? Our goal was to make them as all-inclusive as possible, which also means they're long. We've constructed them as single long pages, to make it easier to print them out for later reference. (Bring along to the store with you, etc.) This also means they take a long time to load. Would you prefer them in shorter, faster-loading pieces that took several steps to print, or is the current format fine?

Thanks for you feedback!

-- Dave Etchells (web@imaging-resource.com), March 21, 1998

Answers

Zoro- Thanks for the kind words! Sony is currently in the middle of a promotion cycle, so probably nothing from them here until early summer. We should be getting some info posted on Agfa cameras in the next ~4 weeks though - stay tuned. (Also hopefully the new Nikons, in a similar time-frame.)

Stone- You're right: Some of the images are shot of high-res posters (House and Musicians shots). Others are "real" - Davebox test target, and the model shots indoors/outdoors. Testing like this involves a lot of tradeoffs, and we've tried to play all sides of the issues. On the one hand, we want things to be representative of "real" results, on the other hand, we want them 100% equivalent. The poster shots won't show the dynamic range capabilities of the cameras, but give an excellent idea of how they handle detail and what color balance looks like for different subjects. The posters are great for the detail, since you can look at the same spot on the House picture taken with two different cameras, and see *exactly* what each captured, without worrying about whether the trees had grown, foliage moved, etc.

I'll be posting a detailed discussion of the rationale behind our tests someday Real Soon Now ;-) (Actually, we'd hoped to have this done by the time we were out of Beta, but we're getting so many devices to test that we haven't caught up yet - Testing takes a LONG time!)

As to the Polaroid/Oly, yeah the Oly 600 looks (and I think is) a bit sharper. The PDC-3000 does take unsharp masking *very* well in Photoshop though, and works very well in a production-studio environment. Hopefully, some of what will come out of the reviews is how different cameras fit different needs...

Thanks for your interest and comments!

-- Dave Etchells (web@imaging-resource.com), April 04, 1998.

Ben-

Thanks for your corrections, comments, and feedback. We *really* appreciate the time you've taken to send us edits, "catches", etc!

As to the issue of posters vs "real" shots, we really need to get the page written that discusses how we went about setting up the camera tests, and decided on the standard test targets. Hopefully that will clarify the content of the subjects and how to interpret them.

It's always a compromise: We can't test everything under all conditions. What's more, it's a real challenge to try to keep things sufficiently consistent to be meaningful. The purpose of the poster shots is to provide images that are guaranteed to be *identical* for every camera. Anything less wouldn't be fair, as we'd end up comparing apples to watermelons. ;-) I'm even a little uncomfortable with the amount of variation in the model shots, just with different color casts in the outdoor sunlight in varying seasons & weather conditions, but that's life...

The problem with using a *real* house shot, is that the variations get really out of hand, with one camera's picture taken in summer with flowers in bloom, leaves on the trees, a song in the heart..., and another camera's picture showing a bleak scene with brown grass, no leaves, and (maybe) dull sky. I can imagine the screams we'd get from mfrs whose cameras were shot with the "winter" scene. Most viewers wouldn't be sufficiently sophisticated to separate the issue of resolution from the overall emotional impact of the image.

Your point is well taken though, that we don't have any far-field tests of optics that would show performance at "infinity" - I'll see what we might do to add something in this area.

As to whether the tone of the reviews needs to be harsher, I have three feelings:

1) I've personally gotten very tired of reviewers who rant about devices' shortcomings without telling me what the products are *good* for. A lot of times, an editor will focus on one trivial detail of a product that perhaps has no relevance to my needs, and down-rate the product as a whole as a result. We concentrate on describing *in detail* how the devices function, point out particular capabilities, and let the reader decide if they fit their needs.

2) There's no universal standard of goodness - I may care more about having time-lapse exposure, not worry so much about resolution, and the next guy may be different. Our take is that the best thing to do is let users see what the cameras do in various circumstances, and let them make up their own minds, which leads to:

3) Regardless of what we say in our reviews, I believe the cameras largely stand or fall on their own, based on the pictures they take.

All that said, we'll take your input into account in future reviews, maybe have more of an eye toward what might constitute limitations for various users or applications. I think we've in all cases presented the cameras' functions accurately (except for the few goofs you've kindly pointed out), maybe all you're asking for is a bit more editorializing as to what it all means, or the significance of various features or lack thereof.

Thanks again for your interest and support!

-- Dave Etchells (web@imaging-resource.com), April 28, 1998.

I read the page on the 500L, which I own, and thought it was excellent! I think the format is fine the way it is. I learned things I never read in the olympus hand book, or anywhere else, and will get more use from my camera. Thanks!

-- Rodger Rinker (rinker@telusplanet.net), March 23, 1998.

Dave - I am very impressed with the reviews on this site. I've spent countless hours trying to research a digital camera to purchase but 98% of the reviews only scratch the surface. I've read only 3 of your reviews and find them very complete. I plan on reading all of them. My only input would be to add a few more. Especially the Sony and Agfa. Keep up the good work!

-- Zoro Zing (zoro@oz.net), April 04, 1998.

Hi, I find your reviews quite complete with much more info than I can generally find. I would like to see them continue as is for now. I have a question on the method you use for the test photos. Are these images taken of a printed picture? They must be as the musician pictures I downloaded and printed have the same pose with each camera. Do you feel this still allows a legitimate test of what the test camera can do in a "real life" situation? I found the OLy 600 pictures sharper than the Polaroid 3000 with its additonal 600,000 pixels. I thought that was interesting. Look forward to future visits to your site.

Good Luck!!

-- Stone (Stone@mindspring.com), April 04, 1998.

I've sent some specific accuracy comments, but in general I like the site and I hope it continues to be well maintained.

I'm extremely disappointed to find out the house is a poster shot. That's really unacceptable when a real outdoor shot of a house would expose strengths and weaknesses of the individual cameras. How will a buyer feel when they buy a Kodak DC210 for shooting real-estate only to find out that in REAL life when you shoot something like that the focus is much softer?

I think the reviews would do well to take a harsher stance on ALL of the cameras. Although you don't give a quantitative rating, I have the feeling after having read most of them that you'd give every camera an A with the occasional A+ or A-. The most direct comments about the shortcomings of digital cameras are found in the vagaries of supporting comments in other reviews, such as, "The Specific Cam takes great pictures in low light, which is a weakness with many digital cameras," despite the fact that reviews of these "many digital cameras" don't mention that.

-- Ben Jackson (ben@ben.com), April 28, 1998.