Andrew Fildes wrote:
> Even the incompetent can recognise the bleedin' obvious
At least sometimes.
> and they are blinded by the novelty rather than the ability.
>
Sort of an anti Phil Askey The truth for anyone in particular will
probably lie somewhere between the two extremes.
> For instance, a good DSLR review is one that actually mentions the
> lens - you know, that glass thingy on the front.
>
Hardly anybody out there in digital review land seems to pay any
attention to the glass. Did anybody else notice that the dpreview
comparisons of the E-330 to the Can*n 350D and S*ny DSC-R1 used the DZ
50/2 macro on the Oly and the EF 50/1.4 on the 350D? Are we just to
assume that the anti-alias filter will render all lenses down to a level
below what they are truly capable of - so it doesn't matter what you
use? Certainly the results speak well for the fixed zoom on the S*ny.
The EF 50/1.4 is a pretty decent lens, but how is it fair to compare an
older, fast, general purpose design that has to cover FF 35mm with a new
macro design tailored to the smaller sensor format?
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|