Forum AlphaDxD

Kurt a écrit :Go check out the biased review of the Nikon D3000 at Dpreview. They make some comparisons to the Sony A230. I guess Nikon must be paying reviewers more than Sony. To see what I'm talking about, look at the RAW noise comps, page 13, Sony is clearly the best at RAW high ISOs, but the reviewer makes excuses for Nikon like--- By golly, all you have to do is some careful post-capture sharpening and noise reduction...then they go on with; Sony is using noise reduction past ISO 800 etc, well look at the comps, which image would you rather have? Also see the the resolution chart comparison JPEG, page 24, where Sony is clearly the winner, but more excuses. The reviewer seems unable to reconcile the differences between the comps and text he posted for some reason.

I've been critical of Sony for (IMHO) poor noise reduction methods in the past, but this time Nikon (of all people) seems to have done a worse job, and some poor office review slug is being told to give them a pass, which leads me to the opening line.

Despite the Nikon D3000 over-exposing too much, massive high ISO noise, Moire, bad white balance in artificial light, and being a crippled camera, (will not support auto-focus with many non DX lenses), it gets a "highly recommended" rating. Dpreview has yet to review the Sony A230. Do you think the A230 would get a "highly recommended" rating? See the third sentence in the first paragraph.

rascal a écrit :value n'est pas la note moyenne. c'est le positionnement prix

Xapi a écrit :On avait déjà eu la même avec l'A550 mis en face du 500D, ce n'est que dans la continuité des choses

Ce qui est bien c'est que les tests incluent des critères objectifs (taille exacte du viseur, prise de photos comparatives), ce qui l'est moins c'est que les commentaires d'appréciation sont un peu en décalage de ces critères objectifs.