It is an inescapeable fact of commerce. The magazines depend on
advertising and can't afford to do it any other way. If we got a real
dog of a camera, we'd have to send it back and decline to review it
for that reason. One reviewer got canned effectively because he did a
less than glowing review of the Canon 5D - admittedly he was a bit
subjective but he is a pro photog an his comments certainly fell
within the realm of fair comment. Canon got a bit huffy and the
review was 'revisited.'
A 70% was awarded recently to the little Oly 600 - but the reviewer
pointed out that it was the runt of the litter, that the other models
in that range were excellent. He's a store clerk so he access to them
all for comparative purposes.
Organisations like dPreview become so important and powerful that
they can say whatever they like. the rest have to be much more
circumspect.
AndrewF
On 02/03/2006, at 11:23 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> But your point about "less than 70" is the whole point: of what use
> is a scale of which 70% (or more, really) is unusable?
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|