Winsor Crosby wrote:
> I like that too. One thing that perplexed me...... I think he tries
> to be very fair and honest but do wonder occasionally what he is doing.
>
> Some of the fun extras in some of his reviews have been the graphic
> representation of the light fall off of a full frame sensor or a
> comparison of different raw converter results.
>
I agree, he is occasionally inconsistent or off somewhere weird on a
particular part of a review, and that is sometimes frustrating,
sometimes illuminating. On he other hand, he actually cares about the
cameras and is throughly engaged in the process of evaluating them,
which is a plus. And he also provides much more info than anyone else.
And I think he really tries to be fair, whether it always looks like it
from out here or not.
Compared to the rigidly formatted and very brief reviews in Pop Photo
that never show how they came to their conclusions and the drivel in PC
Mag, he seems perfect. And way too much of the word content of other web
review sites seems to come directly from the manufacturers' promotional
material. Not to say they don't have useful info as well, but they
aren't up to dpreview.
I just wish there were more and better lens reviews.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|