Digital cameras are becoming more and more popular lately, and as a result, companies are constantly developing new cameras. In addition, the average price of digital cameras has been steadily declining as manufacturers come up with more efficient production standards. In fact, digital cameras have become so widely used that they have replaced 35mm cameras for many people. Each new camera boasts high resolution images and offers new features that are designed to make the experience more pleasant and rewarding for the user. Thus, we decided it was time to step in and offer some realistic reviews about these cameras. We are going to examine them in an efficient manner and provide you with the results of our experiences.

This guide is intended to provide you with some insight into the way we approach digital camera reviews. We define some important photography terms, outline our format, and describe our testing procedures for both camera performance and image quality. We look forward to giving you accurate and helpful reviews in the future.



View All Comments

  • GOSHARKS - Thursday, July 8, 2004 - link

    ianmills - heavily biased? i have yet to see any sort of bias on the largest and most popular digican review sites (dpreview, dcresource, imaging resource, steves digicams,, etc) Reply
  • ianmills - Wednesday, July 7, 2004 - link

    Most sites that review digital cameras are HEAVILY BIASED. Let's hope Anandtech can be more objective than the other sites in their reviews.

    I just skimmed the article quickly (so you may have already included this), but I WOULD LIKE TO SEE a test of how long you need to wait between each picture that is taken. I have a a Canon A300 and it takes almost 10s between each picture when the flash is used ><
    Unfortunately none of the camera review sites mentioned this flaw (but otherwise the camera is good ^^)
  • PrinceGaz - Monday, July 5, 2004 - link

    I've got to agree with those who wonder what AT can add to the already well catered for online digial-photography sector. Sites like and others mentioned in earlier comments have many in-depth reviews every month so that they cover pretty much every digital camera available. They specialise in nothing but digital photography and everyone involved with the site is an expert in it, who knows about every product available together with its strengths and weaknesses and together can give an informed opinion.

    AT is a site which covers computers and the people who do the reviews here are all experts on computers in much the same way. Thats what makes this site one of the top PC hardware sites on the net.

    Although digital photography using computer equipment may make it seem like the two are similar and can be covered together, doing so is a bit like a site which specialises in cars deciding to look at a few caravans as well. Yes you need a car to pull a caravan, but the two are used for quite different purposes and need to be considered entirely seperately, except for a mention of what power of car is needed to tow a particular caravan.

    Unless AT is prepared to create what will need to be at least as equally large a site as the existing AT covering nothing but cameras, something like for instance, the camera reviews will be of very little value. I'm sorry to sound pessimistic about this new part of AT, but its just far too large a field to hope to cover without more than doubling in size. Theres a real danger of being seen as a jack of all trades...
  • shuttleboi - Monday, July 5, 2004 - link

    I doubt a gadget website like Anandtech has anything of value to add over the content found in and others, but just in case the author(s) are working in earnest: One test that needs to be added is a luminance test to show a digicam's noise sensitivity to higher ISO. Such a test will reveal how digital SLRs like the Canon 300d/10d and Nikon d70/d100 stand out from point-and-shoot cameras and even mid-range cameras like the Sony 828. The light sensors in digital SLRs are much larger than those found in smaller digicams, thereby allowing users to dial up higher ISO without nearly as much noise. For example, by going from ISO 100 to 800, you've gained 3 stops of overexposure, so you can reduce your shutter speed by 3 stops, which is invaluable when you're in low-light situations. Digital SLRs have little noise at ISO 800, whereas cameras with smaller sensors (even the Sony 828 or Canon PowerShot Pro1) produce fairly noisy images even at ISO 200. Even at ISO 1600, my Canon 300d produces acceptable results not much worse than the grainy slide film in my old film SLR. Reply
  • jliechty - Monday, July 5, 2004 - link

    Hmm, it looks like the new system is chopping off extra paragraphs in commments. There should be a second paragraph to this comment.
  • jliechty - Monday, July 5, 2004 - link

    #1 - I don't know for sure, but it will be interesting to see what they come up with.
  • LX - Monday, July 5, 2004 - link

    Between full-time digicam review sites like,,, and what can you add to the mix? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now