[mtngal]

I'm not sure just how many people take CR as the "end-all" answer. I certainly don't, and haven't since they gave White Rain Shampoo a best buy rating many years ago. I tried it and hated the stuff.

[stewart_photo]

But CU is a Non-Profit organization.

Non-profit applies to the distribution of profits to owners or shareholders. But even non-profits depend on profits for wages, salaries, transportation, work environments, facilities, benefits, retirement funds, advertising, self-promotion, advocacy, and so on.

I don't follow your logic: how does trashing something justify one's existence?

Then you're not trying very hard to follow. How useful would Consumer Reports be if they gave the exact same rating (excellent) for every product in a report? The very premise of a comparison report is to point out minor differences (and they are indeed minor when looking at high-end products) and then judge those differences as either good or bad. Some products have to lose just as much as some products have to win.

stewart

[fevbusch]

You really can't take "Consumer Reports" seriously. They use very shallow
guidelines with few parameters. Although I subscribe to it I view it as a very
cursory evaluation that is somewhat helpful in my decision making as a consumer.
We really shouldn't see them is being experts in all fields. How could they be with
such a broad focus. Rating cameras and lenses should be the province of qualified
people who virtually live with cameras and lenses. This forum, for example, is far
more capable of educating us to the complexities and capabilities of photo gear. Freddy

[LV Dan]

I used to be a subscriber to Consumer Reports 20+ years ago (they have been around since the 30s). I should pick up a few issues and see if they have changed.

I think you will find they have changed a lot. They do not include nearly the technical level review that they once wrote. And the look and descriptions, at least on the cover, are more like a tabloid magazine than it used to be. To get the meat of the reviews, one must subscribe to the CU website to get those details.

The written portions of the reviews are now more about "how to purchase" than what the technical merits of the product are. Despite my overall favor of Consumer Reports, I don't think it is as good as it used to be in the old days. But I am a very technical minded person and most people are not interested in the technical details so I think they are writing to a broader audience these days.

I still think they are the best in terms of unbiased reviews since they still do not take advertising, they buy their test subjects from retail outlets (even expensive items like cars), and they test far greater than any one person could afford to test on their own. That is a lot more than can be said about other review magazines! Unlike CU's Consumer Reports, some magazines actually sell their "Pick" awards!

I, for one, appreciate where CU is attempting to be an advocate for the consumer.

[Finn]

The DSLR review is under the heading "Big Cameras" on the website. 'Nuff said.

[Singinman]

You can go to your favorite bookstore and read the DSLR review in about 5 minutes.

One thing I noticed is that in the features comparison grid there is no dot in the K-10 row for shake reduction. That flat missed one of the K10's major features. The D40 gets a higher rating.

[MikePerham]

Some years ago I purchased a Suzuki Grand Vitara. While researching that vehicle I came across an article about CR's contention that the Suzuki Samari was prone to flip. Certainly the car had a short wheel base and was relativly tall, which caused the original supposition of it's propensity to flip. However, it took their professionall driver over 40 deliberate attempts to flip the vehicle before he succedded.

I wonder how many other cars were subjected to that same effort to flip ...not many if any I suspect.

[The View]

Consumer Reports repeatedly proves they have no idea of the products they are testing. I remember the disastrous tests of video camcorders - their results were far off anything anybody who works with digital video knows.

They also think a Honda Accord is a better car than a Mercedes, post three vacuum cleaner reviews per year, and two or three paint reviews (they obviously like to watch paint dry).

Their method of "rating" gives high points for ease of use, manuals, so only a relatively small percentage is left for the main thing: the quality of the product.

I cancelled this pennywise and poundfoolish magazine, and they still took money out of my credit card account without authorization. (they had to give it back, of course).

Forget those guys. Their claim of not-for-profit is not to be taken seriously. (IKEA, for example, is also a not-for-profit company, "dedicated to the improvement of interior design" - if you don't believe it, google it).

So I wouldn't worry about their test results. They are meaningless.

[feronovak]

So Pentax k10d is not good enough!!!

Funnily enough it WON American Photo 2007 Advanced DSLR camera of the year, TIPA Best Expert DSLR and Japanese Camera Grand Prix 2007 ... What a rubbish camera !!!

[storm]

You can go to your favorite bookstore and read the DSLR review in about 5 minutes.

One thing I noticed is that in the features comparison grid there is no dot in the K-10 row for shake reduction. That flat missed one of the K10's major features. The D40 gets a higher rating.

They also gave the 18-55 DA lens a bad rating compared to the Sigma, Nikon, and Canon lenses of similar focal length. No idea what body the Sigma was tested on. Curiously, they list the aperture as 3.5-4.5 or something like that, not the 3.5-5.6 that it really is (just like all the other 18-55 lenses there).

[bjsmith]

It's Consumer Reports. A lot of times things boil down to surveys and subjective comparisons. As such, surveys tend to be brand or model "popularity" contests, especially between makes. It shows up with cars quite a bit, with some horrendously poor models doing well, and some wholly undervalued models doing poor.

I'm an engineer and nothing gets me riled up when I see statements in Consumer Reports that just seem contradictory. Like one reviewer complaining about the turn radius in a Toyota Rav4, but then (pun) turning around (pun) and saying the Honda CRV, with an even worse turn radius (especially from even previous years) having no issue.

They lack consistency and baseline, which is why their reviews can't be trusted -- except maybe within the same model series or possibly make. I.e., Pentax model v. Pentax model, Canon model v. Canon model, etc... But not between makes.

[wlachan]

You really can't take "Consumer Reports" seriously. They use very shallow guidelines with few parameters. Freddy

I think that's the problem. I don't know how they tested the products, or did they actually? Just happened I checked out the latest issue (never read CR before) and was surprised by the shallow reports and then the conclusions. They were like being written up after comparsing the spec sheets only. Practices like this hurt small players like Pentax big time as the majority of consumers don't have a clue. When the myths being circulating long and often enough, people took them as commandments.

[benjikan]

I think that's the problem. I don't know how they tested the products, or did they actually? Just happened I checked out the latest issue (never read CR before) and was surprised by the shallow reports and then the conclusions. They were like being written up after comparsing the spec sheets only. Practices like this hurt small players like Pentax big time as the majority of consumers don't have a clue. When the myths being circulating long and often enough, people took them as commandments.

Rather than picking up the camera for about thirty minutes, why don't they survey long term users of the camera and add that to their criteria and assessment. That would give their analysis a more credible and profound basis for their conclusions. Someone with very little experience with any tool needs an orientation period and extended usage to draw credible conclusions.

[bjsmith]

Rather than picking up the camera for about thirty minutes, why don't they survey long term users of the camera and add that to their criteria and assessment. That would give their analysis a more credible and profound basis for their conclusions. Someone with very little experience with any tool needs an orientation period and extended usage to draw credible conclusions.

The problem is that surveys tend to have results that favor the ignorant masses. Surveys only work when you are selective.

But I agree, surveying long term users would help drastically, and remove the ignorant masses aspect. That would include removing someone like myself.

[Briman]

Once upon a time, I bought a Consumer Reports top rated printer. It was the worst printer I have ever owned.