The "Top Picks of the Year" issue of Consumer Reports (CR), November/December 2023, arrived in the mailbox a little while back. I don't subscribe to any paper magazines except The New Yorker, but you get CR as a paper magazine if you pay for access to the website. This issue features full rankings on cooking appliances—oven, ranges, and cooktops—as well as "The Best Cameras from Our Tests."
Cooking appliances did not fare so well. CR looks askance at cooking appliances. Microwaves especially—the pages for microwaves were full of light green (merely good) and yellow (middling or neutral) bars. With few dark green bars (the best rating) to be found. According to CR, the best microwave you can buy, a standout in a sea of mediocrity, is the Panasonic NN-SE7-85S.
So I was almost...well, proud when I came to the Mirrorless Cameras page. Solid dark green bars almost all the way to the bottom, and an unbroken string of those black checkmarks-in-circles that mean "CR Recommended." That's not the only page; there are seven more mirrorless cameras on the page before this one (all CR Recommended) and 13 more on the following page. All of the latter are the lighter green for "good," but even the lowest-rated camera they listed—the Olympus OM-D M10 Mark IV and 14–42mm—did not fall so low as to earn a yellow bar, the meh rating. However, 11 of 13 at the bottom of the list did fail to win the coveted Recommended checkmark.
I know, I know—we don't need no stinkin' CR to choose our cameras. We are way past that. I was just kinda proud, as I say—according to CR, our whole category be boppin'. We strong. They don't like microwaves. They do like cameras.
Top recommendations overall? The Fuji X-T4 (whut? Right, 4) with the 16–80mm OIS lens is No. 1, and the Fuji X-T4 is in second place as well! Paired with the 18–55mm OIS. That seems a little out there, but hey, their house, their rules. The Nikon Z6 with 24–70mm S rounds out the top three (they recommend the plain Z6, but I linked to the Z6II. You can search out a non-II if for some reason you really have to have CR's third-best camera recommendation).
I'm almost right there with them—my top recommendation, for people who do not have a camera at all and want one—which includes virtually not one single person reading this—is a Fuji X-T5 body (Amazon agrees with me; it's their Top Pick too) with the 35mm ƒ/2 Fujicron as a first lens. I'd actually prefer the ƒ/1.4, but that's not a mainstream recommendation any more. I prefer the X-T5 because it has the World's Most Perfect Viewing Screen (IM Hmbl. O) and the 40-MP sensor for great big prints. The X-T4 has the flip-out screen (an anomaly in the X-T[x] line) and the (slightly) older 26-MP sensor which is merely wholly adequate for 99.9% of everything your might ever want or need to do with it. I ought to do an X-T5 vs. Z6II shootout sometime. Who else cares?
But the Fuji X-T4 is the Honda Accord of cameras. Or rather, the Hyundai Santa Fe Hybrid of cameras (that's CR's top pick in vehicles over $30k).
That's random
Oh, and, the weirdest thing the entire issue calls out? Features, even, picture and all? The Kohler Moxie BT showerhead, which they rate highly for its performance as, ahh, well, a showerhead. What makes it weird? It's got a speaker in it. Because naturally. And you thought the folks at CR were all practical and fuddy-duddy and buzzkill! They sing in the shower too.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)
Featured Comments from:
Kirk W.: "That takes me back to about 1983, when, inspired by my uncle Stu with his Minolta SRT-101 and my eighth grade science teacher’s patience with us as we learned how to thread film on to developer tank reels (shout out to Mr. Jacobsen!), I was in search of my first 'real' camera. I dropped my hard-earned berry picking and haying income on the top-rated Consumer Reports camera, the Pentax ME Super. I remember poring over that list for hours, even pre-internet, being dazzled and paralyzed by the range of choices. There were Nikons and Canons and Minoltas and Olympuses of course, but I can still remember some more obscure brands as well, such as Topcon, Konica, and Ricoh. Looking back now, that was not the ideal way to buy into a camera system, but it did work out. The camera still works like new (at least the last time I ran some film through it) after decades of use and abuse. And it will still be ready to go long after my current magic digital cams are obsolete."
robert e: "Actually, I think we camera geeks do need a 'stinkin' CR'...to help us recommend gear suitable for non-geeks (or for when we want a more casual, forgiving or incognito camera)."
Niels: "My parents always selected larger household acquisitions based on the CR equivalent in my country. They chose the best rated item within their budget—and often that meant buying at a lower price than they originally expected. I think it served them well—I never heard them complain about purchases done this way, although they were generally quick at complaining about a lot of other things.
"When I left home, my mother gave me a subscription to the magazine, but I could never use it the way they did. My compulsive behaviour of researching the life out of anything that I plan to purchase prohibits me from just picking from a list, although it could have saved me much energy it seems: for my first full frame mirrorless camera, I ended up buying a Nikon Z6 with the 24–70mm S—and I am very happy with it! I would never have thought my preferred product would be at the top of such a list. Maybe my requirements aren't as special as I think?
"I should possibly revise my behaviour, although I'm afraid it would violate my nature."
David Dyer-Bennet: "My first SLR was chosen largely as a result of the Consumer Reports rating. In 1969 (bought late in December).
"It was a Miranda Sensorex, and it was not a very good choice for me. I largely liked the quirks, like a removable pentaprism, a bottom-weighted meter (the sensor actually on the mirror), and a front-mounted shutter release (it was considerably easier to hold really steady for vertical shots that way) [Burt Keppler of Pop Photo also liked the front-mounted shutter releases. —MJ]. But it didn't have the range of lenses, especially fast telephotos, that Nikon did. I think Pentax or Nikon would have been better choices for me at that time. (With access to hindsight, definitely Nikon.)
"Of course, as I figured out later, they are rating cameras for, gosh, 'Consumers,' as it says on the cover, and even then I was not anything like a normal consumer of cameras.
"They are the only consumer testing outfit I've encountered who have any understanding of statistics and quality control and such (they get multiple samples through normal distribution channels and test those). But the things they choose to measure and the priority they assign to various things is very much consumer-oriented."
"I prefer the X-T5 because it has the World's Most Perfect Viewing Screen (IM Hmbl. O)..."
Yes, stolen from the X-T3, the camera so good I bought it twice, and both will be my last cameras.
Posted by: Albert Smith | Friday, 10 November 2023 at 02:26 PM
Solid dark green bars almost all the way to the bottom, and an unbroken string of those black checkmarks-in-circles that mean "CR Recommended."
Sounds like Lake Wobegon, " ... where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."
Posted by: Speed | Friday, 10 November 2023 at 03:36 PM
What this says to me is that almost whatever mirrorless you like, it’s as good as any of the others. I’d say the difference between a rating of 87 and 81 is likely not much more than the margin of error.
Posted by: Kristine Hinrichs | Friday, 10 November 2023 at 05:45 PM
I'm surprised you didn't mention the Fuji 33mm ƒ/1.4 as the new more mainstream choice. It's got more weather sealing, more autofocus speed, more flare resistance, more contrast, more lack of distortion, more sharpness, more smooth bokeh, more corner brightness, more size, more weight, and it costs more too. That's all the mainstream checkboxes!
Posted by: Yoshi Carroll | Friday, 10 November 2023 at 06:32 PM
To CR: Better keep working on Car Recommendations.
Posted by: Marcelo Guarini | Friday, 10 November 2023 at 07:13 PM
I subscribe, too, sans paper version.
CR's prissy, humorless approach is both useful, and a problem. Their laser focus on defined things leaves others out.
With microwaves, there's only one top choice; they picked it, but partially for the wrong reasons.
Furnaces, A/Cs, fridges, freezers, ovens, etc. operate by alternating full power and off. This is why things microwaved often have crisped/burned edges while the center is not hot, and so on. Pick half power, and the power is on, full blast, 50% of the time.
Panny has a patented design that actually adjusts the amount of microwave power. At 50%, it puts out half power, all the time of cooking.
That's the reason for the good ratings for evenness.
Their second problem is using predicted reliability as part of ratings. Years ago, researching a new car for Mom, my late brother did some stat analysis on the frequency of repair ratings. He concluded that they were useless for choosing a car.
I've had this Panny for ages; not sure how long, but at a guess well over 10 years. When it dies, I'll just buy another one. They are cheap, less than $15/yr for me, and using the best performing one is simply a better way to live.
We just spent seven weeks on the road, used a lot of random microwaves. The Panny is WAY easier to use, too.
BTW, I am the cook here, and use it a LOT. Warms plates, for example, in addition to cooking what goes on them.
Third is over reliance on member ratings. CR readers aren't representative of buyers of stuff as a whole.
[You just reviewed the reviewers. That's cool. When I asked Oren Grad if he would review a photo paper, back in the '90s, he sent back a thorough, very honest, but perhaps slightly too critical review of himself as a reviewer. I told him that if he did as good a job reviewing the paper as he did reviewing himself, he'd be fine. And he was. --Mike]
Posted by: Moose | Friday, 10 November 2023 at 08:00 PM
Well, I love my X-T4.
: )
Posted by: SteveW | Friday, 10 November 2023 at 10:13 PM
The problem with Consumer Reports ratings is that (I believe) they give highest ratings to what some consumer-obsessed efficiency expert would buy, not an enthusiast or a professional. The very best cameras don't get the very best ratings, because, you know, *they're not really necessary* to make very high-quality photos. We all know that, but we still buy the camera with the best performance we can afford, even if the difference between that and other cameras is miniscule. A Porsche 911 will never get the top ratings in cars because you can't get a six-cubic-foot box into it. They're not rating cars based on what the buyers probably want, or the use they'll put them to, but on what's good for the mythical "average" consumer. And the mythical average consumer doesn't care too much about 0-60 in 4.3 I'm also a subscriber, but I take everything with a large grain of salt -- CR reports have their uses, but only if filtered through what you actually want. One thing I noticed long ago is that when you look at initial car problems, some cars (like Range Rovers) may have twice the initial problems of other cars (like Subarus.) And I believe that. But I also believe that when you look at the raw numbers on these things, the number of initial problems is low enough that you very likely won't have one. So after you look at a CR rating, you then have to kind of check around to see what the rating really means.
Posted by: John Camp | Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 02:09 AM
For nikon I use mainly z9. But for reasons, I actually bought 3 nikon in the list z50, z30 and Zfc with the 16-50 kit lens. They were fun and nice to use. And v cheap.
Posted by: Dennis Ng | Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 10:51 AM
I get full access to CR online through my local library. Might be worth checking your local library. Saves a subscription fee.
Posted by: Aaron | Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 11:33 AM
I generally ignore CR. The four or five times I succumbed to its recommendations I ended up being regretful (kitchen appliances and lawn maintenance machines).
Posted by: Bob Rosinsky | Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 02:06 PM
Perhaps I should have, in my . . . review of reviewers, mentioned my beloved car. In 1995, CR had a list of Cars Not to Buy. The Olds Cutlass Supreme was on that list.
My Cutlass Supreme convertible just turned 28. Yes, things have gone wrong, but no more so, it seems, than other cars. I just had the whole front brakes, calipers, rotors, pads, brake flex lines, fluid, replaced as a safety precaution. Although they worked, in a panic situation when a car pulled out across in front of me, stopping inches from collision, I feel more secure now.
I've occasionally looked at new convertibles; none of them have a trunk that's any use. We rented a Camaro in S. Utah in 2019. Fun car, perfect for the scenery. But — we could put the top down and our luggage in the back seat, or top up and luggage in the trunk.
The ancient Olds has a real trunk, and 3.4L, DOHC 24 valve motor . . .
Posted by: Moose | Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 02:31 PM
I haven't bought a new camera in a number of years and I was sticker-shocked! My micro 4/3 Olympus camera bit the dust and I am thinking about a replacement. I enjoy reading what others think of the ratings.
Posted by: Lisa S. Gorrell | Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 03:41 PM
I remember when CR gave the Nikon F2 a "not recommended" because the viewfinder showed 100% of the image, some of which would be obscured by the slide mount or cropped by the photo lab on machine prints.
On the other hand, I always liked the Modern Photography camera reviews where among other things they would completely disassemble the camera and rate the quality of the parts. I recall that they were horrified by the cost cuts in the Leica M4-p For example the frame counter dial viewed through a glass window was made of black plastic rather than chemically blackened brass!
Posted by: hugh crawford | Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 04:35 PM
I used to subscribe to CR (I don’t any more) and found their reviews very useful. However, the key to making use of them was to carefully read the review and not be lazy and rely only on the numerical score. First off, the difference between (say) 86 and 81 is usually not significant (which they themselves make clear). Second, they rate items based on their very specific criteria, which may not match your own preferences. So when they rate the Nikon F2 “not recommended” because the viewfinder shows the entire frame, you need to read the text and decide if that feature is an advantage for you or not.
Like some others, I found their ratings less useful for items I was knowledgeable about (i.e. cameras) and more useful for those where I had no expertise (i.e. refrigerators). In particular, I found their reliability ratings and occasional safety warnings very useful.
Posted by: Scott | Monday, 13 November 2023 at 04:46 PM