Ever the iconoclast, I'm going to say that I quite like this
approach. Note that he insists that it's for P&S compacts only and
the buyers of those have different priorities to us. Extreme image
sharpness may not be one while crisp flash shots will. I've been
trying to convince my editor that image quality may be less important
than sexy design to some of our readers but he keeps threatening to
have me burned as a heretic.
I disagreed with some points - 'dedicated batteries' is worth more
off than two points dammit and a hot shoe is of no real interest to
most users of these while a good flash is worth more than two points.
However he makes a fair point that a camera with a crap lens will
fall down elsewhere too. It will be wrong in lots of ways and would
not score 90%.
Perhaps there should be a 10 point scale for 'did I like it' - too
many sites are trying to be totally objective and that's impossible.
It is an opinion, backed by evidence - no more.
What is important is the recognition that no camera is going to
review much below 80% - they do after all do the job. There is a
compression at the top end for this reason and because no magazine
wants to annoy potential advertisers. We here should be looking for
the 95% and up and they are as few on the ground as the great wines
he mentions.
AndrewF
On 02/03/2006, at 5:02 AM, ScottGee1 wrote:
>
> Must be a slow rant week . . .
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1931767,00.asp
>
> ScottGee1
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|