Larry wrote:
> <big snip>
> Pop photo liked both but seems to like everything, and bigger
> advertisers are liked a bit more.
>
I semi-disagree with that. There is a sort of upbeat quality to the
writing in much of the descriptive material in PP, and although not as
much in the reviews, it does creep in there, as well.
And you may well be right about the effort not to upset advertisers.
On the other hand, I have been reading them regularly for a long time,
and I see differences that do show some discernment on the part of the
reviewers. For one thing, they have a set of standard measurements that
are published for all the reviews, not enough, perhaps, but apparently
honestly standardized.
They have certainly followed the path of so many rating systems. In some
judged sports, it appears that the ostensible 10 point rating system has
completely abandoned the bottom part of the scale. Stagger out to the
balance beam, fall across it, puke on the mat and fall into a coma -
5.5, maybe higher, depending on the quality of the stagger. Likewise
photo equipment grading and so many other such measures in life. PP is
sort of like that; a mediocre test subject gets upbeat sounding lukewarm
comments. There's also the "It's really nice, and will please most users
who don't care about sharp enlargements, but inclusion of higher
resolution capability would may it better suited for...." lines.
For lenses, there is also that chart. I"m not sure exactly what it
means, but it does seem to be standardized. So, for example, the 14-42
does quite well, but not as well as the Leica IS lens.
So, my opinion that they really liked the E-510 and the performance of
the 14-42, is based on that sort of reading. They really do, or have in
the not distant past, panned products, it just doesn't sound like it if
you skim the review casually.
Now all I have to do is figure out how the Sony H9 got such a positive
review for resolution after having read the negatives from dpreview. But
that's not unusual. Steve's digicams likes the IQ of the Panny TZ3 a lot
better than does dpreview. Taking the standard studio shots from it and
other cameras in the same general class, put them in layers on top of
each other in PS and pixel peeping seriously, the TZ3's smeary NR really
does lose detail that's still there with other cameras. On the other
hand, used on a screen and, I'm sure, printed up to at least 8x10, it
makes quite pleasing images.
I suppose something similar is going on with the differing opinions of
the H9. Even completely honest reviewers are bound to differ in their
weighting of various aspects of performance.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|