Buying a camera based on manufacturer's specifications....

[rpcrowe]

Camera manufacturers never lie However, they may stretch the truth a TAD That is why, I would never purchase a camera until it has been distributed and tested by independent testers...

Case in point! The burst speeds of both the Canon EOS R and the Nikon Z-7.

Tony Northrup might not be the final authority on testing cameras but, his test results might be worthwhile investigating. In a YouTube video on which mirrorless camera is best for sports, he asserts that the EOS R does do the claimed burst speed UNLESS the camera needs to adjust focus while shooting (as when following a moving subject). When focus adjust is needed, the camera bogs down terribly,

Apparently the Z-7 MAY have the same slowdown problem, but not to the same degree as the Canon.

I listened to the YouTube video on my car radio as I was driving, so I don't have a URL for the YouTube video. But, if you are considering either of these cameras and expect to shoot some fast action, it might be worthwhile doing some research...

[Shadowman]

Camera manufacturers typically don't tell you under what conditions they tested the camera under, sometimes the fastest fps is achieved when shooting in jpeg mode and for most photographers that's not the shooting mode they prefer. If cameras didn't meet the stated specifications there would be more class action lawsuits then we currently hear about.

[pschlute]

Yes and add in things like lens correction or horizon correction and the speed drops again.

It is a bit like car mpg figures. Only achievable in zero-wind conditions with no passengers; minimal fuel on board; aircon and info-tainment system off.

[Manfred M]

When reading specs, it is always important to understand the conditions that apply to the numbers. In general, they are most meaningful when they are based on something like CIPA (Camera and Imaging Products Association) where the numbers are meaningful when comparing different bodies and different makes, even if the standards are often a bit questionable.

Other numbers are more related to marketing the camera, so one can generally assume those are "best case" values as opposed to being real-world performance numbers. The only thing I would trust here is my own experience.

I don't know anyone who has one of the new Canon or Nikon mirrorless cameras / lenses yet, so I have not been able to borrow one to shoot with. I do know and frequently shoot with people using the high end Sony bodies (the full frame ones) and their comments are consistent. These are great for certain types of photography while much less appropriate for others. If the new Canon and Nikon bodies perform at similar levels to the Sonys, then I would suggest Tony Northrup is repeating what is an open secret in the mirrorless community; these cameras are not ideal for sports photography and the Sony users I know will take their Canon and Nikon DSLR gear along when shooting sports and other action events.

[xpatUSA]

Camera manufacturers never lie However, they may stretch the truth a TAD That is why I would never purchase a camera until it has been distributed and tested by independent testers...

<>

Tony Northrup might not be the final authority on testing cameras

A whole thread about the said gentleman on the DPR Sigma forum where he's called "Tony North" for some reason and is said to have declared μ4/3rds to be dead.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61867272

I still remember my first encounter years ago with the Sigma "10MP" SD9 raw-only camera with it's 3.4MP images. Yes, I do know why.

There's a paper around too that boasts a whopping 64% QE - gained by adding together the individual Foveon layer QE's, not one of which exceeds about 35% in reality. By contrast, Bayer CFA sensors would get way over 100% QE (huh, more electrons out than photons in ?!!) if Canikony used the same arithmetic ...

[Manfred M]

A whole thread about the said gentleman on the DPR Sigma forum where he's called "Tony North" and is said to have declared μ4/3rds to be dead.

Tony Northrup and Ken Rockwell are two of my least favourite "experts" on photography on the internet. Both are 100% wrong in much of the stuff they publish, but have somehow managed to convince their followers that they know what they are on about. Both seem to confuse opinion with fact.

[rpcrowe]

I agree that Northrup and Rockwell are probably not the most reliable reviewers on the Internet...

However I still maintain that there is no way in heck that I would ever buy a camera based only on the manufacturer's specifications before the camera hits the streets...

Reading only Canon's specs on the 6D2, you would think that it is the greatest camera to hit the market when it is actually a pretty marginal piece of gear.

I would still recommend that a prospective purchaser delve into the actual capabilities (beyond what the manufacturers say is the capabilities) of any camera that they purchase...

Although I do like shooting with the mirrorless A6500 (for many reasons) I would still grab my Canon 7D2 or a 1D** or a Nikon DSLR for fast moving action...

I don't shoot sports but, do shoot fast moving subjects quite often and would want my camera to be able to do a good job in doing so.

If I only shot sports or if I were only a fashion photographer or if I only did this or only did that, my camera choice would be predicated on which camera did the best in that field. However, as a generalist photographer, I have to decide which are the most important pluses and least important cons in all venues.

On thing which many cameras are dinged for is not having a fully articulating LCD screen. You may have problems shooting selfies and shooting BLOG footage without one. Well, I have a fully articulating screen on the 6D2 and have never shot a selfie or a blog. However, I have often shot both the 6D2 and the A6500 with the screen tilted up and down to get higher or lower. So a fully articulating screen is not a plus or minus for me but, a tilting screen is a definite advantage...

Also video quality is a non event for me since I don't shoot video. Of course, if I were a video shooter, the video ability would be very important. I am not saying that video capabilities are not important - it's just that these capabilities are not important TO ME. When I decide on a camera, I have to (unless it is an impulse purchase like the 6D2 was) decide which capabilities are most important TO ME and which cameras have the best of those capabilities within my price range.

I would not switch to Nikon (and if I did, it would be to the D850, not Z-7) since that would mean buying a whole new spectrum of equipment. My delving into the Sony world was not so much a switch from Canon as it was a bit of a detour. I can still use (to one degree or another) most of my Canon lenses and luckily, I can still use my Godox flash equipment by simply purchasing a Godox trigger for the Sony...

And getting back to reviews... I think that there are three distinct types of camera reviews:

First: is simply a rehash of the manufacturer's specs!
Second: is a scare tactic review like "Is the 4/3 system dead?"
Third: Is a balanced review stating the reviewer's perceptions pro and con. This may not be accurate but may have some accurate and some inaccurate points.

[DanK]

Reading only Canon's specs on the 6D2, you would think that it is the greatest camera to hit the market when it is actually a pretty marginal piece of gear.

I agree that I would rarely buy gear--at least expensive gear--without reading reviews of your third type. However, I wonder about your statement above. Of course, manufacturers are all going to praise their products. After all, they want to sell them and make money for their stockholders. So, I take their adjectives with a grain of salt. But did Canon misrepresent any specific aspects of the 6D2's performance in the specs it released? My very vague recollection is that I looked at the specs when it came out and decided on that basis that I wouldn't want one. The one thing I didn't learn from that was the fact that in one sense, the 6D2 sensor underperforms the 6D1 (again, if I recall correctly), but I don't think Canon misrepresented this. They just didn't provide that information. Am I misremembering?

[MrB]

One thing which many cameras are dinged for is not having a fully articulating LCD screen. You may have problems shooting selfies and shooting BLOG footage without one. Well, I have a fully articulating screen on the 6D2 and have never shot a selfie or a blog. However, I have often shot both the 6D2 and the A6500 with the screen tilted up and down to get higher or lower. So a fully articulating screen is not a plus or minus for me but, a tilting screen is a definite advantage....

Richard, as you have raised this point in post #7, it is worth noting the truly useful versatility of a fully articulating screen. It allows the photographer to shoot with the camera in any position and at any orientation from landscape to portrait. A tilting screen is mainly useful only for landscape orientation shots when the camera is higher or lower than the more usual eye-level.

Cheers.
Philip

[Manfred M]

Carefully said, let me disagree with the prevailing opinion in this thread.

I bought (i.e. ordered) my Nikon D800 sight unseen the day it was released and before any reviews came out. I had one of the first models shipped in Canada when it arrived around 3 months later; a move I have never regretted.

When I bought the Panasonic GX7, I did a lot of research and read the reviews from all the top review sites. I even went and checked it out at a bricks & mortar camera store. While the camera was likely the correct choice at the time, the strengths of the camera were overstated by the reviewers and the weaknesses were understated. I suspect that part of the reason for this is that the reviewers are beholden to the camera manufacturers when they do the product reviews. Too harsh a review and the camera manufacturers will not send them the hardware for review and that would put the reviewers out of business overnight. Not a risk worth taking...

When it comes to articulating screens, the people that love them do have a point and they are reasonably good for framing certain types of shots. On the flip side, they are rather fragile and somewhat easy to break, so anyone who does photography in a fairly active environment can end up with a broken and unusable camera fairly quickly. There are work-arounds to no having an articulating screen and on balance I would prefer that direction for my photographic needs than having a screen that snaps off more easily.

[Shadowman]

And getting back to reviews... I think that there are three distinct types of camera reviews:

First: is simply a rehash of the manufacturer's specs!
Second: is a scare tactic review like "Is the 4/3 system dead?"
Third: Is a balanced review stating the reviewer's perceptions pro and con. This may not be accurate but may have some accurate and some inaccurate points.

I was viewing a YouTube channel on photography and the host said that some manufacturers will loan "experts" new gear but will also send along "talking points" they want discussed when the item is reviewed. The host of the program said that less than glowing reviews resulted in fewer invitations to trade shows and fewer offers to test new cameras sent directly from the manufacturer. Reminds me of a comment a salesman once shared with me, "you never tell a customer their product sucks; just as you wouldn't tell a parent their baby is ugly". Regarding the "talking points" comment, it sort of makes sense as I've noticed that even movie critics seem to parrot the same comments about a new movie, I was starting to question whether or not these critics were plagiarizing their columns/broadcasts as every one seemed to use the same phrases and examples.

[DanK]

I don't think this is any different than deciding on any other purchase. Manufacturers need to sell their products. Consider cars. In most countries, we trust that the specs provided are reasonably accurate--hence the appropriate furor over the Volkswagen/Audi diesel scandal. We don't trust that the manufacturers' glowing descriptions are measured. So, many of us look for reviews we can trust--reviews that focus on features that are important to us and that we trust. These reviews are often somewhat inconsistent (particularly now, when anyone can post anything on the internet), so one has to look at a bunch and try to see the signal through the noise. Cameras are no different. I've owned 5 digital bodies, and the manufacturers' specs seemed to be accurate for all of them. I paid virtually no attention to the advertising text.

Internet consumer reviews have made sorting this out much more difficult. People write negative reviews because they ordered the wrong size, because they didn't read the instructions, and so on. This weekend I was shopping online for bunk beds for grandchildren. One reviewer of a bed I thought would be good gave it a very low rating because he found that the top bunk was too close to a ceiling fan he had in that room. And some unscrupulous companies post lots of fake positive reviews of their own products or fake negative reviews of competitors'.

[Manfred M]

One reviewer of a bed I thought would be good gave it a very low review because he found that the top bunk was too close to a ceiling fan he had in that room. .

I am always amazed at the number of people who post product reviews and end up doing little more than demonstrating either their incompetence or stupidity to the rest of the world.

[Caldrive]

So how do you know which points of specs are ok? Not all are from CIPA.
What if you need exact number of mpx or burst?

DO you use websites like https://productz.com ?

[Shadowman]

So how do you know which points of specs are ok? Not all are from CIPA.
What if you need exact number of mpx or burst?

Depends on what mpix means to you and your photography, the value is an estimate so if the manufacturer states 24 mpix, you might get between 23.5 to 24.5 actual pixels. Regarding burst, the #s stated are usually obtainable but under what circumstances the ad won't say. Usually some 3rd party tech guru or company will eventually do a comparison of the item based on industry standards and you'll get your information.

[Caldrive]

Depends on what mpix means to you and your photography, the value is an estimate so if the manufacturer states 24 mpix, you might get between 23.5 to 24.5 actual pixels. Regarding burst, the #s stated are usually obtainable but under what circumstances the ad won't say. Usually some 3rd party tech guru or company will eventually do a comparison of the item based on industry standards and you'll get your information.

So not 100% spec but trusted reviews?

[Shadowman]

So not 100% spec but trusted reviews?

Afraid so, doesn't mean the manufacturer is being deceiving (for the most part_, just means that industry standards give them some leeway on what's allowed. For instance with megapixels, what you see in advertisements (rounded #s) is totally different from what you'll see on the manufacturer's website or owner's manual (actual numbers).

[Caldrive]

Afraid so, doesn't mean the manufacturer is being deceiving (for the most part_, just means that industry standards give them some leeway on what's allowed. For instance with megapixels, what you see in advertisements (rounded #s) is totally different from what you'll see on the manufacturer's website or owner's manual (actual numbers).

That is really helpful as I'm working on a website that crawls the web for products specs and data like (links to) reviews, photos, social media stuff and for some use cases e.g. "photos made with that camera/lens".
Would you help me out? I need feedback. I'm also an photographer so this category for me is the most important.

The goal is to built something like wikipedia with crawlers (and some moderation) to get all info in one place. Standardized every camera and lens ever made.

[Shadowman]

That is really helpful as I'm working on a website that crawls the web for products specs and data like (links to) reviews, photos, social media stuff and for some use cases e.g. "photos made with that camera/lens".
Would you help me out? I need feedback. I'm also an photographer so this category for me is the most important.

The goal is to built something like wikipedia with crawlers (and some moderation) to get all info in one place. Standardized every camera and lens ever made.

Sure, there are already some websites that offer some of what you plan to populate your site with so I can point you towards those as well.

[Caldrive]

Sure, there are already some websites that offer some of what you plan to populate your site with so I can point you towards those as well.

It's not a topic about my website so I'll PM you.

thanks!