Given that I do this stuff there's definitely the idea in the back of
your mind that you don't want to piss off the advertisers. When
another (pro-photog) reviewer gave the 5D a not terribly good review,
Canon were bothered and the editor himself wrote a second, far more
favorable (and still honest) review in in the form of a feature about
full frame vs. reduced format. That soothed them.
Frankly, anything that's likely to get less than 70% rating I think
we'd just say politely to the maker/agent that we'd rather not review
it.
Given that, the companies do spend a lot of time in development,
usually with some particular idea or demographic in mind so that most
cameras are usually good at something, even if it's just looking
pretty and it's necessary to say so - you try for balance.
I could nitpick the M8 for instance all day but what's the bloody
point. If you are going to spend that kind of money are you really
bothered by my opinion that the battery charger is too big and
inconvenient? It's annoying but so what? The IR problem was important
but I think overblown - possibly because someone like Tom Abramsson
(sp?) who is respected first played with it out of the box under
tungsten light (as you do) and saw it immediately. Then a problem
takes on a life of it's own.
Incidentally, those of you who used to twitter over the shutter noise
of the OM would lerv the M8 - they've managed to make a vertical
metal shutter sound like a proper horizontal cloth shutter! It must
be augmented electronically - sexy as hell.
Andrew Fildes
(who once puked while falling drunk down a flight of stairs and
scored 9.3 for the near-perfect inflight projectile arc).
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 12/07/2007, at 10:49 AM, Moose wrote:
> 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.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|