Consumer Reports SLR review, what a joke!

[Logan7]

Digital cameras are the cover story of CR this month, so naturally I took a look at my folks' copy of it. Their reviews of p&s stuff is useful enough to your average consumer, but they tried to tackle the SLR end as well. Some of the stuff in their writeup is pretty laughable, as you might expect.

I got a kick out of their tiny little ratings column for various SLR lenses. They compared lenses for Sony, Nikon, Canon, etc cameras all on the same chart, pretty weird. The Sigma 18-50 (no specification as to whether it was the macro version) was ranked a 72/100 overall, with no explanation of the criteria, while the Nikon 18-55 kit lens was ranked a 96/100 overall :rolleyes:. They did list the aperture of the lenses, clearly showing the sigma's 2.8 constant just below the Nikon's 3.5-5.6. Obviously a point for Nikon right there :D

Furthermore, they had a ratings chart of various DSLR bodies. The 30D ranked #1, made me smile of course, but the three attribute ratings they had were: battery life (ok), easy of use (whatever), and IMAGE QUALITY :shock:!!!! They made no mention of the lenses used for this test, the methodology, etc. Lazy, lazy work on their part.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of CR. They are a great place to get info about appliances, phones, used car reliability, etc. However, they pride themselves on being intelligent, objective, and providing quality information. If they were only giving a brief treatment to SLR products, I would understand the lack of sophistication in their reviews. But, by including not only a discussion of the specific advantages SLRs have over p&s cameras, but also reviews of lenses in several different categories, I think they are purporting to be providing information on a level that warrants a more thorough and intelligent discussion of the equipment, terminology, and ranking procedure.

[gooble]

I don't know. I can't imagine using Consumer Reports to educate myself on photographic equipment. Photographic equipment is expensive and technical and deserves in depth research. It would be like them ranking high-end video cards or something. If I want to know something about them I'll go to a source that does in depth reviews of them. For cameras that would be a place like Dpreview or someplace similar.

[Curtis N]

I quit subscribing to CR years ago. When I discovered how clueless they really are about cameras, I realized the rest of their reviews were probably just as bad. From a scientific standpoint, their research methods are often so bogus, it's laughable.

I also realized that my subscription dollars were being used to support their political agenda and I really didn't want to be a part of that, either.

[JCR]

This is why I am grateful to all the pro's and advanced amateurs here, If I need to know something I know exactly where to come.

Magazines are for making profit not education ;)

[Moppie]

I realized the rest of their reviews were probably just as bad.



Yip, if they can't get one subject right, how can they be trusted with any others?



Its sad, but you don't actualy need to know anything about a subject in order to write about it for most magazines, or report on it for the media in general.

[rmford]

I haven't read the magazine, but you gotta remember - we're not the average camera consumer. They're providing a review to a level of expected involvement, we just happen to be involved a bit/lot deeper than that.

Ask an average reader of CR what L glass is, and i'd guess that they wouldn't know. Nor would they care. Because they're consumers, not hobbyists, not professionals. They're not worried about a minute increase in IQ at the expense of a couple hundred dollars. They're not worried about being able to use a sigma 1.4x TC on a 400mm lens.

They're worried about taking snapshots of the kids, and they want to jump on the SLR bandwagon, because the family up the street has one.

[segasaturn]

There's even controversy that they are biased towards particular brands even before they've tested them.

[ChasP505]

I saw the same issue of CR on the newsstand last weekend and I didn't even bother to pick it up and peruse the article. In the 1980s I worked for 6 years literally right next door to the old Consumer Reports headquarters (soon after they built a larger new facility in the next town). I knew several of their employees and I often attended their auction sales where they sold off the tested merchandise to the public.

In the mid-80s I was working as a rep for an international bicycle manufacturer and importer when CR did a report on bicycles. Much like the camera report, when they tested high performance level bicycles they rated them on "performance" criteria so irrelevant to what cycling enthusiasts look for that I was prompted to write a highly critical letter to the editors. Additionally, they often test older obsolete and out of production models against another manufacturer's current models.

CR may be a good place to go if you want to compare the back seat legroom between a Honda Civic and a Toyota Corolla but not the place to learn anything about high performance cameras, electronics, sports equipment and the like.

[BTBeilke]

In addition to the other concerns expressed here already, another problem I had/have with CR is that their ratings tend to be heavily weighted toward their perception of "value". I always wished they would publish two sets of rankings - one ranking that listed items from best quality to worst quality regardless of price and another for their "best-bang-for-the-buck" rankings. Of course, if their testing criteria is insufficient from the start, neither sets of rankings are worth the paper on which they are printed.

[tsaraleksi]

I knew that there was a problem when several CR issues listed the "Powershot 30D."

[jr_senator]

There was a review by CR in an issue maybe 30 some odd years ago on 35mm SLRs. Now, I'm not knocking Minolta, but they rated it above Nikon, Canon and Pentax. That was a joke too.

[KirkHMB]

The last time I read a CR camera review, they talked about how when a lens "zoomed", it emitted a puff of air from the viewfinder, which could blow dust into a user's eye, and thus they rated that camera low. Time to chuckle and move to the internet for camera information.

[Glenn NK]

The results may not be surprising - the newbies coming here and asking questions that may raise an eyebrow or two from those of us with experience, likely know as much about cameras and photography than magazine writers.

At least the the newbies soon will.;)

[lungdoc]

There was a review by CR in an issue maybe 30 some odd years ago on 35mm SLRs. Now, I'm not knocking Minolta, but they rated it above Nikon, Canon and Pentax. That was a joke too.

Hey, I bought my Minolta XG-7 based on that report! It was a damn good camera (though I'm sure the others were great as well), there reports do seem to have gone downhill since in detail and objectivity.

[jr_senator]

Hey, I bought my Minolta XG-7 based on that report! It was a damn good camera (though I'm sure the others were great as well), there reports do seem to have gone downhill since in detail and objectivity.

Again, I'm not knocking Minolta. I have owned 5 Minolta SLR cameras myself, 2 XE-7s, A 202 (black body), a something 570 and the 110 SLR (the first one). But, they were not in the Nikon class if one put top of the line aginst top of the line, which CR did.

[Croasdail]

CR is not intend for fanatics of any group.... less alone photography. If your a serious photographer and your reading that mag for camera reviews, the problem is with you, not the magazine. You are not it's intended audience. Just as I don't read them for my car selections either... I want excitement, not practicality. But for my mom, dad, sister, and most of my friends, their advice applies well to them well.

[CoolToolGuy]

As mentioned above, Consumer Reports is not intended for enthusiasts of any product or industry. BITD they downgraded the Porsche 914 because it had a 'rough ride' - Come on, its a spors car! They consistently ignored testing of Empire phono cartridges, even though they were a leading brand. Even though I have known their bias for many years, I'm still occasionally miffed at their findings. They're not an authority for most of the things I want.

Have Fun,

[SuzyView]

Okay, I subscribe to CR and have for many years. I don't take everything they write as gospel because really, they don't have the manpower or the money to test every product out there, especially electronics. Gadgets move so fast, come out so fast, there is no comparing because they review and new stuff is out on the market before the magazine issue gets published, but other than that, I find some of the reviews helpful. Still, not gospel by any stretch, but a guide. CR tested a few DSLR's under $1300 range to get a feel for what's out there that people are buying. It is not meant for enthusiasts, they know we have our own methods of review. But for someone just wanting something easy to understand, it's fine.

There is a little after-thought section in that same issue about zoom lenses and they rate them. I don't really know with what or who did the reviews, but CR did not spend a lot of time, just wide range zooms. So, the reviews were pretty lame. That I will complain about when I write to them, mainly because they don't know what the heck they are talking about.

[Tom W]

As dismal as CR's car reviews are, I can't imagine that their camera testing is any better.

[BobbyT]

Threads similar to this spring up on the home audio forums when CR reviews speakers or amps.

[JeffreyG]

I think maybe this is a little unfair. Here you have a group of photography enthusiasts bashing a generalist magazine for not catering to them.

Maybe consumer reports was out of their depth trying to rate dSLR's (I did read the article and it was useless) but I'd be shocked if they could explain anything to 99% of the people here.

I'm a photography enthusiast so I skip them for camera advice. I'm not a dishwasher enthusiast, so I might be willing to see what they think about that.

[Moppie]

I think maybe this is a little unfair. Here you have a group of photography enthusiasts bashing a generalist magazine for not catering to them.


Heres the problem,
Its a generalist magazine giving specialist advice.

And they get away with because none of thier readers can be a specialist in all thier subjects, so while someone might rubish thier camera revies they might apluad thier audio and vacuum cleaner reviews.

The magazine (like all comsumer groups) takes advantage of peoples ingorance of single topics and expliots them to make money.
Its a very unethical practice.

[Jubilee32]

Having called on a major manufacturer of water heaters, I learned that their "name store" brand was rated highest and their "hardware store" brand only acceptable by CR. When I asked them the difference between the two I was told it was ONLY the vinyl name label, nothong else at all. Makes you wonder how carefully they run their testing or how closely the read the name on the label.

[freddyco]

I didn't realize people still purchase print magazines... I wondered why they were still for sale... Amusing!

[Tom W]

Having called on a major manufacturer of water heaters, I learned that their "name store" brand was rated highest and their "hardware store" brand only acceptable by CR. When I asked them the difference between the two I was told it was ONLY the vinyl name label, nothong else at all. Makes you wonder how carefully they run their testing or how closely the read the name on the label.

I really don't trust CR - they don't show all their measurements and often rely on subjective opinions instead, they tend to favor certain brands, and they tend to interject politics into their publication. If I were looking for a dishwasher, I'd want to read a publication that presents solid, measurable, repeatable results.

[BobbyT]

You see how they come up with the camera ratings. Do they do a better job on dishwashers?

Agreed. Look at anything they review that you or someone you know is an enthusiast of. And see how their ratings stack up to the enthusiast's.

[Mike R]

They're engineers, not photographers.

[Moppie]

They're engineers, not photographers.


I doubt they are even that........

Opionated Journalists more likely, trying to pass thier opinion off as fact.

[Mike R]

I doubt they are even that........

Opionated Journalists more likely, trying to pass thier opinion off as fact.

:lol: :lol:
You may be right.
Hey! I took some pictures at a wedding, I must be a Wedding Photographer.

[BTBeilke]

They're engineers, not photographers.

Hey! I'm an engineer! You take that back right now! ;)

[Mike R]

Engineer and Photographer? Sorry you're over qualified to work for CR. Apply at Canon, just think of the cool toys they'll let you play with.

[Logan7]

I understand CR isn't meant to be a serious, technical source of information about anything. However, as I stated in my OP, they included "ratings" of lenses with their article, which obviously betrays an intention to appear as a thorough technical review, at least compared to their typical digital camera reivews. We all know this is bull****, yet a lot of people have been bashing consumer reports in general in this thread, which I definitely object to. They are a GREAT source of information if you're buying a grill, blender, washing machine, or any other practical device without much subjective relevance. I was only trying to point out their sillyness in attempting to review something so complex when they obviously must know better. After all, it's not like they're taking product shots of those shiny new blenders with a P&S, right? :D

[sando]

The clue's in the same "CONSUMER..." :)

[Tom W]

The clue's in the same "CONSUMER..." :)

I think that the problem with CR is that they tend to write "down" to the reader - that is, they write as though the reader is dumber than a fence post and could care less about the somewhat technical capabilities of the appliance that they are buying. They just don't present enough hard numbers to support their assertion in many cases.

[bmwE30]

Concumer Reports is great for looking up a washing machine, toaster oven or blender. But when it comes to expensive, high-tech items I usually am left gasping in despair. I remember a test of sports cars about 2 years ago where the BMW M3 was not recommended because it had 'below-average' reliability. What constitutes 'average'? not to mention the M3 has been regarded as the best sports coupe on the planet by nearly every automotive journalist and enthusiast since 1988 :) Also, a few months ago, they gave Busch Light there 'best buy' award for light beers, because it was 'relatively' good and cheap. Cow **** may be very cheap by the pound, but that doesn't mean i'd rather eat it than a steak.

[Wilt]

CR is good for finding out about repair histories from actual owners. As for choosing new products, suck on the Great Salt Lake before reading!

As for bmsE30's comment about M3 repairs...I have been a BMW owner now for 30 years. One of them was almost a lemon; all the others have been supremely reliable, including my E30 that lasted 210,000 before I got rid of it with bad idle (air leak that would be too expensive to find and fix!) If M3's are bad on repair history according to CR, it is probably a justified rating; I have participated in CR polls and reported on my own experience with the car during the past year and what problems I encountered. Their repair histories are simply objective tallies of responses from thousands of readers, not subjective opinions (like their new product ratings tend to be)

CR characterization probably fails to realize the M3 owners are street racing the things around on the highways and streets so they are stressed more, too. Kind of like the death statistics at hospitals who specialize in difficult cases being higher than the community hospital that sends them elsewhere!