Hello,
I honestly think it's time to revise the rating system a bit. It's virtually unheard of these days for a camera to receive anything lower than "recommended," which doesn't really help... To think that a "recommended" is one rating above the "above average" really makes no sense anymore, because that would imply that everything is above, say, the 70th percentile or so. Clearly, the definition of what is average needs to be revised.
For instance, having read the review for the Sony A380 that was just posted, I don't understand why the camera should get a "recommended" rating, or even an "above average." As you point out in the "Conclusion" page, "all of the competitors in the entry-level segment have inevitably moved on and not only caught up with the Sony but overtaken it quite clearly." This statement alone is enough evidence to show that, in your opinion, the camera is distinctly below par.
So why recommend it at all? "The Final Word" states, "If you shoot mainly at base ISO, in live view and Auto mode the Sony DSLR-A380 is worth a closer look," but that's like saying, "I recommend this car if you never drive faster than 40mph, or at night, or when it rains." You just wouldn't because there are other products out there that can do just that, and more. It's not like the Sony's image quality at base ISO is significantly better than the competition. It is merely average at that point, and everywhere else, it is below average.
You can't continue to recommend everything that lands on your desk. Granted, the Sony may not be horrific, but the overall impression I got from the review was generally negative. Consumers aren't looking for justifications for buying something they found interesting (which, on paper, the Sony might be perceived to be). What consumers want is genuine advice as to which is best in its class. It doesn't help one bit to say, "we recommend all of them."
No comments:
Post a Comment