Love Before First Sight

If you've ever read personal ads online or in the newspaper - not that I'm saying that I have, mind you - you probably had the good sense not to fall in love until you, at the very least, actually met the author. If everyone was as beautiful and affable as their advertised selves, we'd have a lot of better looking people in this world.

But in an article on the upcoming Canon 50D, it seems to me that the author makes the mistake of becoming infatuated with a camera before they even date. In "An Upgraded Camera that Only Looks Familiar," writer Marty Katz gushes that "is a hot-rod sibling of the year-old 40D. It’s not just a cosmetic makeover. The 50D looks, feels and weighs the same, but the parts under the hood have been replaced with higher-horsepower components."

First of all, I have problems with that lede. It makes no sense. Katz writes that the 50D is "not just a cosmetic makeover," then explains that it looks, feels and weighs the same. If that's true, then it's not a "cosmetic" makeover at all.

But that's just style. I have a bigger issue when Katz goes on to write that the 50D gives you "faster, cleaner images" and that "the processor also focuses lenses a third faster." (Although, just to be bratty, I probably would have left the word "lenses" out of that sentence. What else would it focus? Its attention?)

My problem is: No where in the article is it stated or even suggested that Katz has ever used a 50D, let alone tested it vigorously enough to makes those assertions. My guess is that those claims came from Canon's press releases. So, shouldn't those sentences have started with "Accoding to Canon..." or some such?

This is the friggin' New York Times, people.

In truth, because the 50D crams a lot more megapixels onto a sensor that's the same size as the 40D's, I think the jury is still out on whether or not the new Digic IV processor can achieve what Katz calls "cleaner" images. If it can, more power to Canon. But I'll believe it when we see it in independent testing.

Take a look at the Times piece and tell me if you agree that it's a little too confident in presenting Canon's marketing claims as if they were proven fact.

Comments

[Pat]

"I think the jury is still out on whether or not the new Digic IV processor can achieve what Katz calls "cleaner" images"

Agreed, without SERIOUS processing improvements, smaller sensor sites almost inevitably means more noise. It seems the goal these days is to get as many MP with the SAME noise level, instead of leaving the MP alone and REDUCING the noise! Wouldn't most consumers rather shoot clean low-light photos than make poster-sized prints?

[Cooper Strange]

I feel the same, so much so that I am still shooting my Nikon D100 which came out in 2002, is "only" 6 megapixels, and pretty much loses on any spec sheet comparison with any other camera. I almost have to roll my eyes when I hear about the 20+ MP Sony full frame coming out. Notice the Canon 5D and Nikon D700 are both 12MP. Why? It is not because they cannot cram more on there; it is because it is not really beneficial to do so.

[Josh]

Scott,
I couldn't agree more with your post. The New York Times needs to be held up to higher standards than the garden variety of "review" sites out there. As someone who enjoys reading articles about cameras, I find it very frustrating when authors post commentaries that just rehash what was said in the press release. If I wanted to hear a bunch of unsubstantiated claims, I'd go to straight to the manufacturer to hear it. Similarly, if I want to know how the claims hold up, I go to reviewers who *test* the equipment.
Thanks for pointing out the flaws in this article. Hopefully it will remind us all to be more critical when reading articles like this.

[Joe]

I'll be a bit of a contrarian here: There's no evidence out there yet that the 50D CAN'T do what its advertised as being able to do. Bottom line: until the tests are in from places like PopPhoto and Digital Camera Review, we really don't know. I, for one, hope Canon has licked the issue of more pixels / more noise. They are really sticking their neck out there if they haven't!

[Josh]

Joe,
You are correct to note that there is, in fact, no evidence saying that the camera isn't capable of living up to its claims. The problem is that the NYT article accepts the claims as fact even though independent testing has not yet been performed on the camera. I do hope that Canon is successful at living up to its claims, but I'd like to see the proof in the digital pudding before I accept the claims made by the company's marketing department and regurgitated through a "journalist".