I hope this topic doesn't descend into a flame war. Lex wrote:
Roger has forgotten more about photography than I'll ever know.
That may be true, and I'm not suggesting that Roger Hicks knows nothing.
What I am saying (and I think Frank is too) is that you shouldn't assume his
enthusiastic writing is necessarily backed up by objective test results. I
like reading his articles, but that doesn't mean he is the most rigorous
tester of photographic equipment and materials. Therefore, his conclusions
are his own, and are no more valid than yours or mine.
I happen to think it's easier to finesse the whole question by >replacing
celebrity endorsement with objective tests and the >scientific method.
Frank has a point here. I would trust Gary Reese's tests first, because he
exposes his methods, and thereby admits any limitations. While photography
as practice is a mix of art and science, if you are devoting yourself to
scientific endeavour (e.g. lens tests) then scientific means are what one
should use.
Far too many journalists make a living from filling pages with
advertiser-friendly copy - I see it in the photographic, motorcycling and
outdoor magazines I read. If these publications are prepared to mollify
their advertisers this way they are not independent and are only a
mouthpiece for manufacturers. While I don't always trust what I read on the
internet (especially in newsgroups), there is plenty of good material in
between the junk. If you look long and hard you'll eventually work out whose
claims have substance and whose are all puff.
Simon E.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|