Consumer Reports does it again SX-50: I can't believe that Consumer Reports has left out completely the SX-50 for the last 2 camera reviews in a row. Not reported good, bad, nothing...

garyrents Loc: Daytona Beach, FL

I can't believe that Consumer Reports has left out completely the SX-50 for the last 2 camera reviews in a row. Not reported good, bad, nothing, zilch. Like it doesn't even exist. I am sure enough were sold in the last year.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

It was tested by them & on the online website you can access the test report (it scored near the top for super zooms) It doesn't appear in the ratings as it is a 2012 model...

garyrents wrote:

I can't believe that Consumer Reports has left out completely the SX-50 for the last 2 camera reviews in a row. Not reported good, bad, nothing, zilch. Like it doesn't even exist. I am sure enough were sold in the last year.

ocbeyer Loc: Baltimore

Screamin Scott wrote:

It was tested by them & on the online website you can access the test report (it scored near the top for super zooms) It doesn't appear in the ratings as it is a 2012 model...

Yes, already obsolete.
:wink:

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

ocbeyer wrote:

Yes, already obsolete.
:wink:

Right! They have to draw the line somewhere, which might give manufacturers incentives to bring out new models. Who wants to buy last year's old stuff? It's like buying the January edition of a magazine at the end of November. People want the latest.

THEMRED7007

jerryc41 wrote:

Right! They have to draw the line somewhere, which might give manufacturers incentives to bring out new models. Who wants to buy last year's old stuff? It's like buying the January edition of a magazine at the end of November. People want the latest.

Are you saying that the January edition has had all of the words read off of it by November , and ain't no good no more ?

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

garyrents wrote:

I can't believe that Consumer Reports has left out completely the SX-50 for the last 2 camera reviews in a row. Not reported good, bad, nothing, zilch. Like it doesn't even exist. I am sure enough were sold in the last year.

Consumer Reports has a pretty consistent record of making almost every camera manufacturer severely unhappy at mistreatment over the years.

but DO have a look at www.dpreview.com for its review of the SX50.
The dpreviews are generally highly regarded and the SX50 comes off quite well when compared with other" superzooms" selling for considerably more!

Dave in SD (who relies on several Sony Alphas for his in-depth photography, but always has the SX50 riding shotgun on any trip!)

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Consumer Reports did test the SX50 & it rated highly. It's just that their ratings only cover the newest cameras.Kinda like looking at the ratings for 2013 cars & expecting to see a 2012 model included. I'd link to the Consumer reports test results for the camera, but it wouldn't show as I am a subscriber & unless the person looking is as well & signed in. they would not be able to view it. As it is, it would be rated 2nd or 3rd highest in the numerical score compared to the 2013 crop of super zooms.score

Uuglypher wrote:

Consumer Reports has a pretty consistent record of... (show quote)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

garyrents wrote:

I can't believe that Consumer Reports has left out completely the SX-50 for the last 2 camera reviews in a row. Not reported good, bad, nothing, zilch. Like it doesn't even exist. I am sure enough were sold in the last year.

Over the years I've discovered that the audience best served by Consumer Reports is one with little or no experience in a particular product category. In those product areas in which I have significant experience and even professional expertise I have found the reviews and the ratings based on limited, incomplete, and sometimes even dubious criteria. I would never depend on Consumers Reports alone to make a purchase decision. Their decision to limit the products in their reviews is based on practical limitations and often superior or competitive products are excluded for a variety of reasons. Their ratings are often based on a set of criteria that knowledgeable people might find amusing. Just look at their DSLR ratings.

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

mwsilvers wrote:

Over the years I've discovered that the audience b... (show quote)

Based on my own experiences with their reviews, if they told me that sh*t stinks, I would be tossing away my can of deodorant and would be smearing it on instead.

Lazy Old Coot Loc: Gainesville, Florida

I just received the Consumer Reports 2014 annual Buying Guide a couple of days ago and they do have the SX50 listed there. However it's listed under the "advanced point and shoot" category, rather than the super Zoom category where you would expect it to be.

The don't rate it very well either. It was 14th out of 19 cameras in that category Image quality, flash photos, viewfinder and video were all rated as just average. Ease of use and LCD quality were both rated as above average.

Nikon Coolpix-A, Fujifilm-X100S, Ricoh-GR and Panasonic- FZ200 received the top four positions in that order.

If anyone is interested I'll copy the whole category and post it. ........ Coot

garyrents wrote:

I can't believe that Consumer Reports has left out completely the SX-50 for the last 2 camera reviews in a row. Not reported good, bad, nothing, zilch. Like it doesn't even exist. I am sure enough were sold in the last year.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Lazy Old Coot wrote:

I just received the Consumer Reports 2014 annual B... (show quote)

These cameras are not even in the same category. It goes to show how screwed up their reviews are.