Chris Barker wrote:
> I agree, Ken.
>
> It was early this morning when I sent the post, otherwise I might
> have added more of my conjecture.
>
> I am concerned about the perceived lack of dynamic range, but the
> reviewer's summary seems to contradict the body of the text -- have a
> look at the scan of that page, link below. I have provided 2 sizes,
> the smaller for ease of download as it is an A4 page, the larger in
> case the smaller is too difficult to read on your monitor etc ...
>
> Reviewers always seem to have missed the point of the Spot metering
> with Highlight and Shadow on the OM3/4/T/Ti, and it might be the case
> with the E-400. And you might be right about this button-pressing
> business ...
>
> Chris
>
>
I've always been a bit surprised at the response of AP to the various
Olympus offerings, ranging from bemusement at the feature set to
astonishment that anyone would buy one (rather than a penconitax). The
odd platitude offered in Olympus' favour by one or other reviewer
(usually on discontinuation of a model); they just don't get it.
So I guess my interest in asking you about it (didn't manage to source a
copy) was fuelled by my suspicion that, being an Olympus, they can't get
their heads around it.
I'd like to see a decent review. Sometimes the DPReview samples are a
bit unfortunate, I'd prefer it if they went to the same place all the
time and took similar shots. I remember they did most of one review's
shots at an ice hockey game; hardly typical.
I'm surprised they're not reviewing it; all those shots of London, it's
very parochial of them, in reverse..!
D.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|