Daily photo,  Thoughts

A new camera and the quest for the missed information

LandingConvinced by the hype raised by the review of a well known camera review website I purchased a bridge camera (the brand doesn’t matter), just to be surprised and disappointed at the same time.

The surprise came out when I discovered that the this camera comes – as standard – with a lens hood, does mount filters and has a remote trigger socket. None of these very important issues were addressed in the review I went through seeking advice and that, as always, focused on image quality, body and functionality, sensor performance etc. etc.

Another “non significant” issue has been casually set apart by this review: the 12Mpixel resolution on such a tiny sensor (1/1/7) produces a “grainy” image when magnifying at 100%. When the successor came out, trusting the claims of the same site about an improved image quality, I sold the old camera to get… exactly the same “grainy” image.
Just to be clear: I’m aware of the difference between a (semi)pro DSLR and a bridge camera and by no means I was expecting a “stellar” image quality coming from the new model. Nevertheless, I think that words do have a meaning, and when the manufacturer’s marketing claims that the new sensor promises clear image and less noise, I have the right to expect something “coherent”with these claims.

So, where is the point? The point is that the information I needed were covered by a huge quantity of nonsense spread by uninformed (and/or in bad faith) reviewer.

Of course the problem is not limited to these two models. I’ve used it as and example since I have a first-hand knowledge of the facts. But I’m sure that comparing the real real-world experience of non biased users with the “factual” statements of many “independent” reviewers would provide similar results for a lot of other cameras.