Winsor Crosby wrote:
> I think Askey does try to match them as best he can with what he gets
> and what lenses he already owns. I think he shoots mostly Canon. But
> it is true that 50 mm is sometimes not a match to 50 mm. What bothers
> me is that he uses default settings and draws conclusions. I know
> that optimizing, trying to get the best image possible, out of a test
> camera is fraught with potential subjectivity, but I would accept
> that. Different makers have different goals for their line as well as
> for particular cameras in their line. Default state for a low priced
> DSLR is usually crisp, contrasty, and colorful straight out of the
> camera, while the pro cameras have default settings that do
> everything possible to preserve all the information in the image even
> though it may require post processing to get everything out of it.
> Occasionally, Askey makes an exception to his usual practice and then
> you scratch your head and wonder why. It probably results in a lot of
> abusive mail when he does that.
>
I think it's whatever questions come up in his mind at the time. Unlike
an old fashioned magazine with a set formula for the review process,
it's Phil's show and he can pursue what interests him.
It's interesting that he rather disliked the E-330, at least at the
price point, which has a lot to do with his ratings, but went to all the
trouble of running RAW tests to show how it does at high isos without
the overkill NR.
I do much appreciate his recent move toward adding RAW comparisons. All
those detailed noise, resolution, etc. comparisons based on JPEGs never
have meant much to me, as I shoot almost excluively RAW. The extra info
is certainly useful in the D200 review.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|