khen lim wrote:
> Exactly my point. During the Eighties when I had a stint working at Michaels
> in Melbourne, we meet up with all sorts of photographers - serious amateurs,
> club users and working pros. No one brought lupes to look at negs or slides
> or prints.
They did where I was during the 60s and 70s, for good or ill.
> No one check out at 100X magnification. These days teepee-revue in my mind is
> sacriligeous
And here it comes. Your argument is essentially religious. You have a
point of view which you would like to impose on others by silencing a
source of differing opinion. I understand your position as a zealous
advocate for Oly products, and DSLRs in particular. Nonetheless, I find
you almost rabid attack on a source of reviews that hasn't generally
found them outstanding - "sacriligeous", "technicalities", "too
sensational", "hype" - to be unrealistic advocacy that goes too far in
the other direction.
Any time someone resorts to attacks like that, and thinly disguised
potty attacks, "teepee revue" (Dancing toilet paper?), my first thought
is that they are working on their own, emotional stuff, and certainly
nothing about unbiased, thoughtful criticism. The lack of any specifics
in the attack just reinforces my opinion.
> in the way they have become overly obsessed with
> over-engineered technicalities that are too sensational for normal readers
> to even understand.
I don't know, and frankly don't care, about "normal readers", by which I
assume you mean "brainless fools who will be easily swayed to the dark
side." I do care a lot about careful, detailed reviews that provide more
hard information than any others I know of. I don't always agree with
their conclusions, but usually find the information I need to draw my
own from them.
Their reviews have been an important source of information, although not
the only one, for every purchase of a digital camera that I have made. I
am of the firm belief that they helped me make better decisions than I
might otherwise have made. And they have certainly kept me from making
some mistakes. I have yet to buy one that performed in a way that didn't
meet my expectations based on those reviews. Except my first digicam,
which performed much better than I had expected. But that's simply
because I had as yet no experience and was concerned by the then dire,
and, as it turned out, overblown, warnings about the limitations of digital.
> And in the end, that's what people hype about.
What people? The nuts who people the dpreview forums? You apparently
care how your precious icons are viewed publically. I believe you would
do well to ignore those forums, which are a tiny group of equipment
and/or chatter obsessed folks who have little or no real impact on the
success or failure of cameras.
> There are actually BETTER and MORE PRACTICAL/PrAGMATIC reviews elsewhere that
> I
> believe do a more realistic job at reviewing a camera.
>
Reviewing it for what purpose? There are so many kinds of photography
and image presentation. Are you qualified to speak for all? Pragmatic in
what way? "High resolution and low noise beyond a certain point that I
, the expert, can decide for you, just aren't important, just get
something middle of the road, don't enlarge or crop too much. And you
know, If it gets too dark, just use flash, or forget the picture, you
didn't really want it, anyway."
I simply disagree with you. dpreview provides the detail and examples to
allow me to make informed decisions based on my own criteria and needs.
Again, you rant, but provide no examples of better review sources. I
read dcresource, steve's digicams, Pop Photography and imaging resource,
and while generally useful, none of them provide the wealth of material
dpreview does. With that, I can weigh the comparative strengths and
weaknesses of cameras against my own needs and make an informed choice.
I'm not just blowing smoke here. When I decided I wanted an intermediate
camera with monger zoom range than the F30, but still small enough that
I would actually carry it, I took the studio images from dpreview and
superimposed them as layers in PS, so I could actually see the
differences first hand. I wan'ted so much for the Panny TZ3 to be the
answer, since it hit all other points, that I tested what could be done
to clean up its images.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/ImageNoise/TZ-3/
In the end, I decided that I'd rather have a bit more apparent noise and
make my own choices about the trade-off of noise and fine detail than
live with Panny's smeary NR. so I bought something else. I USE those
reviews. I bought what I still think is the best of a limited IQ lot,
and it does what I expected.
Oly is finally making a DSLR that might be of interest to me with the
E-510, and the review of the E-410 makes that clear in ways that I can
rely on, for both the good news and the limitations. If I had bought an
earlier Oly, I know from what I've done with my Canyons and what I've
seen from Olys, I would not have been happy. Now that may be just me,
and my quirky ways, but I don't see how flim-flamming me into buying an
Oly by suppressing "over-engineered technicalities" and my being unhappy
with it would advance anybody's purposes in any constructive way.
I have quite a few images I value that couldn't be taken with nearly as
good results with any Oly DSLR yet made. And I paid a lot more for my 5D
than any Oly, but that's my business; I got what I wanted and feel it
was a good deal.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|