Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: reviewer's obligations  (Read 13587 times)
cgf
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 15, 2006, 05:44:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is really getting tiresome.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85342\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If I can quote a somewhat bizarre but ultimately truthful saying: "Never try to teach a pig to sing"  (it's a waste of time, and extremely frustrating!)

Michael, I would much rather that you spend your time writing about photography, equipment and photo-trips to places I haven't been. The information and knowledge on the LL website is greatly appreciated.

Cheers
Chris
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7463



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 15, 2006, 08:38:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Michael, I would much rather that you spend your time writing about photography, equipment and photo-trips to places I haven't been. The information and knowledge on the LL website is greatly appreciated.

Cheers
Chris
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85379\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hear, hear! Right on!

I happen to prefer Michael's choice of items to review: things that interest him personally. I would be more suspicious if he tried to cover the entire field, give equal time to Nikon and Leaf, etc.

The fact that this forum has a number of very helpful contributors who are knowledgeable about important lines that Michael doesn't personally use balances that aspect of the site very nicely IMHO.

I still say: Thank you, Michael, for a great site!

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Chris_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541


« Reply #22 on: November 15, 2006, 09:04:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Possibly you have never bothered to read this site's front page where the following statement has appeared continiously for the past 7 years...

This site is completely non-commercial. It currently has more than 3,000 pages containing articles, tutorials, product reviews and photographs — all with no commercial advertisements. The site is not affiliated with or beholden to any company or organization.

It's ad hominem attacks like this that drive people wishing to make a contribution to the web community away from it, sometimes for good!

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85145\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My apology for missing this statement, and post was not meant to be personal.
Logged
paulnorheim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 15, 2006, 09:06:32 AM »
ReplyReply

For those of you who are familiar with Luminous Landscape, and the articles and comments from the owner of this site, I think it`s obvious that Michael Reichmann has an ability to integrate several passions into, I would certainly not say ONE passion, but into a particular "practice", or "modus operandi", that you won`t find anywhere else on the net. And this "practice" is, i believe, one source of the recent confusion and doubt, about whether we can trust the reviews at LL, or if they may be influenced by certain companies.
   
   Think about it for a moment. – And Michael Reichmann, I hope you`ll forgive me, when I now talk about someone I do not know personally. The one I am talking about, is not the "real" Michael Reichmann, but the the M.R. that appears on my screen at Luminous Landscape.
That person has a handful of talents:
1) He is a good photographer.
2) He is a good writer.
3) He is curious about some of the latest equipment available.
4) He is a childish pixel peeper with a lot of technical knowledge, and is excited about some very expensive gear (but also a lot of inexpensive gear).
4) He is also intelligent enough, and experienced enough, to know perfectly well that even the worst equipment can become a wonderful tool in the right hands.
5) He is gifted with a certain "social intelligence", and can count a lot of – not only photographers and writers on photography – but also important figures in the hard- and software world, among his friends.
6) He has a pedagogical talent (with a lot of knowledge that he has the passion to share with others – which is the definition of having a pedagogical talent).
   
So - what would you do, if you were in his shoes?
  Let´s say that you`ve allways been dreaming about travelling to a certain destination, to take those fabulous pictures. So why not arrange an expedition, and teach photography to some happy students on the road, at the same time as you`re hunting for those perfect scenes?
   And why not use two brand new cameras while you`re hunting?  
   And why not bring with you some wonderful new lenses, a new tripod and some beta-tested software? Then you can mail pictures while you`re taking them, report on the equipment you used to store your image files while you were on the road, and at the same time write notes for a few articles about the new cameras, lenses, and software, published some days after you`re back.
   And why not use a new Canon camera, since you`ve been using Canon cameras for years? Isn`t this the equipment you`re familiar with, which will give you the opportunity to compare, evaluate and make sound, balanced judgements in your next review on LL, based on years of experience?
    And why not some Adobe software, as you happen to travel with some friends from Adobe? Or why not a Leica camera, since you know their stuff since you started taking pictures with a range finder during the 1960`s?
   Or, since you`re curious, why not something else? Something different? Why not a challenger? What about Aperture for file management and Raw processing? Or a new, promising printer or some high quality paper for output. Or a small company challenging the big ones with a radical new consept? Why not?
   
Enough. But you see my point? A method of combining passions, talents, equipment, curiosity, knowledge and experience into something that both pays the bills and makes Luminous Landscapes into something that simply wouldn`t be there if Michael Reichmann wasn`t there. Working hard, and probably having an interesting time while he`s working.
   And the result?
   Something bigger than M.R.: Luminous Landscape, with all the contributing photographers, in ways that he is not able, and perhaps not willing to control.
   
Me think that M.R. has succeded in making peace with a lot of contradictions within himselfs: a passion for art, and a passion for teaching; a passion for art (again), and a passion for equipment that goes beyond what someone need for their art; a critical eye, and a passion for independence in writing, and also plenty of friends connected to big companies. Etc. Etc.
   And it isn`t surprising that this modus operandi is a permanent source of reactions, pointing in a lot of directions: from admiration to envy, from enthusiasm to suspicion, anger and hostility, and often a mixture of all of them.
   I don`t think that Michael Reichmann is perfect. But I have no reason to think that he`s in the pocket of a certain company. Basically, I think he´ve found certain ways of combining his interests and passions, that will never become 100 % transparent for anybody (not even himself or his friends!), because his method, his drive and (perhaps a bit pretentiously said:) the whole eco-system that we call Michael Reichmann (and Luminous Landscape) is rather idiosyncratic.  
   
Like most of the members and readers of L.L. – from those who defend M.R. as a God, to those seeing him as someone involved in The Big Conspiracy. And the rest of us, who are somewhere in the middle, blaming or defending him on a more human scale. But who, at the same time, can share an astonishing amount of knowledge and experience with each other.
   Perhaps time will tell if Michael Reichmann is a great photographer or not. Or perhaps time will not tell anything about that, because what we call "time" is an abstraction, containing a lot of historical, ideological, economical, and other idiosyncrasies and temporary circumstanses. And because we all witness a flood of images, floating into the net and the galleries, and nobody knows which images will be remembered, and which will sink and be forgotten. Perhaps he would be a better photographer, or writer, if he concentrated on one thing at the time? Who can tell? My point is that MR skillfully manage to combine his many talents (which to a certain degree, at least for a most of us, contradict each other), into what I called a certain "practice". And when some future historican looks into the transition from film to digital, Luminous Landscape will be a valuable source.
   And for us? I would suggest that we should continue to praise and blame him on a human scale. And use Luminious Landscape as a source of knowledge, human experience and expertice. There is no other place like this one.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2006, 10:21:04 PM by paulnorheim » Logged

paul norheim
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #24 on: November 15, 2006, 03:24:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is not DPReview. I have no mandate (either self imposed or otherwise) to review any particular product. I review what interests me. I review the products that I either purchse myself or that companies send me for testing.

No mystery to it. No hidden agendas. Personal interest and availability are the sole drivers.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85342\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Anyone who is interested in quality control and statistical analysis knows that sampling error can compromise the value of any test. If the camera or lens being tested is not representative of the the norm for that instrument, the test can be misleading.

Consumer Reports tests only items that they have bought on the open market by anonymous buyers in an attempt to get a representative sample. Of course, they don't test the cameras that are being discussed here. If Leica sends a camera to Michael for review, you can be sure that they will not send him a camera that is not up to spec. Furthermore, if a reviewer pans a product supplied free of charge for testing, the probability of him/her receiving subsequent samples is diminished. On the other hand, reviewers that never pan a bad product will not gain the trust of their readers. There is a proper balance, and I think that Michael's account of what transpired with the M8 is entirely reasonable, and those who impugn his credibility are out of line.

With complex equipment such as lenses and digital sensors, there will always be sample to sample variations and one should test several samples to determine what is representative. Of course, one can hardly expect Michael to purchase several samples for a report that is provided free of charge to the user. After spending thousands of dollars for a camera, it is prudent for the buyer to check his own sample to be certain that it meets his expectations. That M8 users are stuck with a lemon because of a misleading review is not credible.

Finally, DPReview does not really help that much in the selection of a camera. They give an exhaustive description of the controls and specifications. The resolution test is not helpful since it is from a JPEG, usually with default settings, and the reported resolution is nearly always about 80% of Nyquist. Why even bother to perform the test.  The noise performance is also from a JPEG with default NR, which can also obscure image detail. Often ergonomics and personal preference are more critical in one's choice.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2006, 03:27:54 PM by bjanes » Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #25 on: November 15, 2006, 03:46:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Anyone who is interested in quality control and statistical analysis knows that sampling error can compromise the value of any test. If the camera or lens being tested is not representative of the the norm for that instrument, the test can be misleading.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85483\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

An absolute essential for a random test is a random sample.  Maybe there is no "sampling error."  Better than a random sample might be an average sample.

Send me your hand selected "random" sample camera (or lens), and I can tell you how it performs.  How that sample of one compares with what you get from B&H is any body's guess.

There have been many discussions about sample (of one) variations of Canon lenses here.  Surely, Canon (maybe even Leica) knows these things and can feed me a lens or camera that will test good, bad, or average.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2006, 03:48:48 PM by howiesmith » Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603



WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 15, 2006, 04:21:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Finally, DPReview does not really help that much in the selection of a camera. They give an exhaustive description of the controls and specifications. The resolution test is not helpful since it is from a JPEG, usually with default settings, and the reported resolution is nearly always about 80% of Nyquist. Why even bother to perform the test.  The noise performance is also from a JPEG with default NR, which can also obscure image detail. Often ergonomics and personal preference are more critical in one's choice.
I suppose you haven't been reading DPReview for a while (at least since their review of the 5D last November), since what you're stating about noise performance testing is patently false.

DPReview have also been doing resolution comparisons with raw files a bit longer, too, if you see their raw software comparison, as well as their studio scene comparisons.

Raw conversion comparison, EOS 400D
Noise performance, JPEG vs. raw, EOS 400D
Dynamic range performance, including JPEG vs. raw, EOS 400D
Studio scene comparison, EOS 400D vs. D80, raw
Studio scene comparison, EOS 400D vs. DSLR-A100, raw

Apart from this technical nitpicking, I agree that DPReview is oriented towards a more clinical and neutral review methodology, and that it mostly forms a solid basis before looking to more subjective reviews who perhaps share the reader's personal tastes in cameras.
Logged

Jan
Gandalf
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


« Reply #27 on: November 15, 2006, 04:50:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the obligations of a reviewer are honest, impartial, accurate, timely and complete. Fun to read is a bonus. On the whole I think Michael does a pretty darn good job. If the reviewer is not personally interested in the product they are reviewing, it shows and results in a lack of perspective.
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #28 on: November 15, 2006, 04:52:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I suppose you haven't been reading DPReview for a while (at least since their review of the 5D last November), since what you're stating about noise performance testing is patently false.

DPReview have also been doing resolution comparisons with raw files a bit longer, too, if you see their raw software comparison, as well as their studio scene comparisons.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, I did not read that review since I shoot Nikon. I am glad to see that they are finally doing some raw testing. However, in their D80 review they did JPEG noise testing only and made some comparisons with Canon which are misleading.

[a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page18.asp[/url]

Nikon NR is done entirely in software (except for dark current) and can not be completely disabled with JPEGs. This NR degrades image detail. You only see the Nikon noise in full with RAW conversion.

On the other hand, Canon also does on chip NR which does not degrade image detail. This is done for both RAW and JPEG. Those JPEG noise graphs make the D80 look better than it is, and the degradation of image detail is not taken into account. If you want, you can look at the detail in the image of the Queen on a coin, but good luck in coming to any objective conclusion.

I did not mention DR, but I am glad to see that they are testing raw. However, their DR for the D80 is the same for ISO 100 and ISO 1600, and does not take into account that a reasonable noise floor severely limits DR with high ISO.

Resolution is not improved much with RAW, but in any case, the extinction resolution correlates poorly with perceived image sharpness and is uniformly 80% of Nyquist. MTF at 50% contrast is a better measure of perceived image sharpness, as done with Imitest (for example).
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2718



« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2006, 05:02:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
An absolute essential for a random test is a random sample.  Maybe there is no "sampling error."  Better than a random sample might be an average sample.

Send me your hand selected "random" sample camera (or lens), and I can tell you how it performs.  How that sample of one compares with what you get from B&H is any body's guess.

There have been many discussions about sample (of one) variations of Canon lenses here.  Surely, Canon (maybe even Leica) knows these things and can feed me a lens or camera that will test good, bad, or average.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Howie,

I agree entirely. Most likely, a sample from B&H would be more or less random, while cherry picked specimens sent for review are most likely not random. There is quite a bit of variation with Nikon lenses too. I've read many reports of poor performance for the expensive 17-55mm f/2.8 DX zoom, but it gets rave reviews when tested. For what they charge, I would hope that Leica would have better quality control and would have fewer lenses not meeting spec, but who knows.

Bill
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2006, 05:02:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think the obligations of a reviewer are honest, impartial, accurate, timely and complete. Fun to read is a bonus. On the whole I think Michael does a pretty darn good job. If the reviewer is not personally interested in the product they are reviewing, it shows and results in a lack of perspective.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85509\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Would you add "knows what he is reviewing" to your list?

"If the reviewer is not personally interested in the product they are reviewing, it shows and results in a lack of perspective."  Can't agree with that from experience.

Interest and perspective can introduce bias, either intentionally or accidently.  If the reviewer is introducing bias, he should acknowledge that.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603



WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2006, 05:11:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Interest and perspective can introduce bias, either intentionally or accidently.  If the reviewer is introducing bias, he should acknowledge that.
It is impossible to be without bias. That should be implicit in the reading of any review.

An example:

If I were to review anything, my bias would be as a fairly skilled, technically inclined person. I can try to set aside that bias, but that in itself introduces a new bias.
Logged

Jan
stevenrk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 15, 2006, 08:15:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For those of you who are familiar with Luminous Landscape, and the articles and comments from the owner of this site, I think it`s obvious that Michael Reichmann has an ability to integrate several passions into, I would certainly not say ONE passion, but into a particular "practice", or "modus operandi", that you won`t find anywhere else on the net....

And use Luminious Landscape as a source of knowledge, human experience and expertice. There is no other place like this one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Paul thank you for stating it so well.  And specifically, Micheal's article on the M8 was particularly thoughful and thought provoking.  Absolutely clear in terms of what it was and what it was not.  Reaching to describe a brand new type of photographic instrument that paints a strong image and allows you to connect with your subject in a way, at least in digital, that was not possible before.  

And I'm someone who purchased the M8, used it, and returned it because of the IR issue -- and only that.  So clearly, I disagree with Micheal's view of the importance of the problem or the likelyhood of a satisfactory solution (two bright red dots on one camera are one too many for me, even if you can cover one up with gaffer's tape -- unfortunately not the mirrored one.  And that is even assuming that the IR cut filter/profile produced an acceptable result on the many tones, including skin tones, impacted by IR, in its many and unpredictable forms).  

My difference of opinion with Micheal's discussion about IR, as I experienced in images, is expressed by my decision to return the M8.  But that is exactly what Micheal's site is about, and you describe so well.  We are adults and photographers.  And Michael's articles respect and speak to both.

Steven
« Last Edit: November 15, 2006, 08:56:11 PM by stevenrk » Logged
paulnorheim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 15, 2006, 09:45:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Steven,
 
sorry to hear about your experiences. I hope that Leica can fix the issue one way or the other, and that you in the end will get a camera that you can trust – hopefully a Leica M8 again, if that was what you really wanted!
   
I also agreed totally with you, when you praised the approach of Sean Reid in his reviews. (By the way: it looks as if you`ve deleted that part of your last post, while I was writing this response, but that doesn`t matter, as I would be happy to use any opportunity to mention the critical essays and reviews of Sean Reid on the net.) I haven`t gone back to see whether he has "compromised" himselfs on the Leica-issue, as several people have claimed –  and frankly, I do not consider myself competent to make judgements on the issue (but at least I have read his articles, in contrast to certain people on the net who has got the idea that this person called "Sean" must be a corrupt and horrible person!).
   
My experience with Sean Reid as a reviewer, both on LL, and now on his own site, is of someone who takes his time, when he is testing a new camera or some lenses, and allthough he can get it wrong, like everybody else, I dont`have any doubts about his moral integrity or intellectual standards so far.
   Some of Sean Reids reflections on lenses – the way they "draw" or "paint" a scene – or the differenses between how the small sensors of compact cameras capture a scene (with their large depth of field and lack of detail), and how the full frame digital (and medium format film) cameras capture the same scene, with their abilities to render details, trancends anything else I have read on the net, or elsewhere, on this subject.
   Sein Reids slow, balanced and serious way of approaching any issue he is discussing, is so far beyond what you read in almost any popular photo magazine (the ones some people assume are "less corrupt", because they get more money from their readers and the advertising companies!), that I prefer to listen to his voice on the net, much more than most of these glossy paper magazines.
   Anyhow, I hope things eventually get sorted out, and that you end up with a really nice camera!

Cheers!

Paul
« Last Edit: May 15, 2007, 02:38:16 PM by paulnorheim » Logged

paul norheim
williamrohr
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 16, 2006, 01:47:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Knowing that I invite the plague of a thousand locusts for what I am about to say .. I just can't ignore this any longer ..... one man's humble opinion ... this angst is directed at the wrong issue ... the review is not the issue.  The review is Michael's opinion and he's entitled to that opinion and the way he derives it.  I for one am delighted to have the benefit of Michael's expertise but at the end of the day it's my money and I am solely responsible for how I spend (or waste) it.  To me the critical issue is what has happened to this industry/market that a company of Leica's historically impecable engineering and reputation brings a product to market before its ready. I own an M6 and an M7 and I KNOW I can can shoot with either of them in rain or shine, hot or cold, dust or otherwise and the only limitation will be my personal creativity .. not the camera ... and when I'm dead and gone ... my grandson will be able to use that same camera to the limits of his ability (assuming film is still available) ... such was Leica quality. I'm not sure any of us need a shutter that will outlive us, but for a price Leica provided it. How they could have released a product with so many obvious issues is "mind numbing". They are not alone though, my H1 had to go back for three firmware "upgrades" before it was right.  My fear is that the camera industry (like many other tech industries) has come under the control of the marketing types and the bean counters ... not the engineers ... and that's what keeps me awake at night.  In the meantime ... thank you Michael ... for spending the time and effort to keep me abreast of the issues  Bill
Logged
danm628
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2006, 09:24:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I find this to be a very odd thread, it's just hard to believe people think Michael would have some hidden agenda.  I've known Michael for a long time (20+ years ago my company wrote a word processor for his company).  I had lost contact with him for most of that period until I ran into him here.  He's gone back to photography and I work at a really big silicon company.  (Just trying to avoid being part of the great conspiracy and disclose everything.)

About 2 years ago I decided to get back into cameras and ran across LL while looking at reviews.  All of the reviews I read praised the camera I was thinking about (high end digi-cam).  Michael didn't like it.  He complained about the ergonomics of the camera; it took good pictures but was a pain to use.  Part way through the review I realized that I knew the guy writing it, a very strange feeling.  

Looking though LL and Michael's reviews I decided to get a Minolta A2 (ended up with an A200).  Michael said I would like using it and he was right.  For the 8 months I had it I loved the camera, unfortunately my home was robbed on a business trip and I lost it.

Michael doesn't do the technical analysis of the camera shot.  He reports on how easy or hard it is to use.  He talks about the ergonomics.  He doesn't pixel peep the pictures (at least not much), he shows "art" (what ever that means to different people) taken with the camera.  All of which is very subjective.  And very important.

I've taken a lot of Michael's advice on cameras.  Partly due to him I've given Canon a very large pile of money this year.  And loved every minute of it.  I have also bought a lot of things that are not what Michael suggested, I use Aperture since it "feels" better to me than Lightroom.  

Michael is a great guy with lots of opinions.  He has toys I wish I could afford (or justify owning -- I would never use a MF camera enough to make it worth it).  

And most importantly he shares his opinions with us.  

I'm sure Michael's only goal is to have fun.  And I thank him for sharing his fun with us.

     -- Dan

PS And I'm thinking about getting an M8 next year.  It looks like fun.  Expensive fun.  But fun none the less.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2006, 09:25:30 PM by danm628 » Logged
drm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 20, 2006, 03:57:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps in your locale, but there are magazines (like Chasseur d'Image in France) that have proven their independance again and again.


Possibly in the past, but compare & contrast their current issue: the Olympus E-400 review, which finds as many faults as possible with the camera, invents others, and complains about the price (1100 Euro list for the twin lens kit, fercrissakes - difficult to to improve on that!), then goes on to positively gush all over the M8 (5000 Euro body only), without any mention of the current issues. They are clearly aware of them, because in a little corner, hidden away, they mention that an IR filter would be a good idea... and in any case, they are always very quick to pour scorn on the Internet forums, especially ones that don't speaak French. To be honest, C d'I, in my opinion, is way overdue a bit of fresh blood in the editorial staff.  It isn't just because the reviews are long and full of diagrams that they're any good.  Reponses Photo is a far better magazine these days - written by photographers, not tired old geeks, and it shows.

ps - Example: on the E-400 side, they complain that the dust shaker can't be turned off on startup, and that the EOS 400D, which runs its SSWF clone on power off is far better. Yeah. When is dust likely to get in the camera ? When you change a lens. What do you do after you change a lens ? Turn the camera on. Alors ?  And by the time you get it up to your eye, it is ready to shoot. Measurement Geeks 1, Photography 0.
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7525



WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 20, 2006, 04:40:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Possibly in the past, but compare & contrast their current issue: the Olympus E-400 review, which finds as many faults as possible with the camera, invents others, and complains about the price (1100 Euro list for the twin lens kit, fercrissakes - difficult to to improve on that!), then goes on to positively gush all over the M8 (5000 Euro body only), without any mention of the current issues. They are clearly aware of them, because in a little corner, hidden away, they mention that an IR filter would be a good idea... and in any case, they are always very quick to pour scorn on the Internet forums, especially ones that don't speaak French. To be honest, C d'I, in my opinion, is way overdue a bit of fresh blood in the editorial staff.  It isn't just because the reviews are long and full of diagrams that they're any good.  Reponses Photo is a far better magazine these days - written by photographers, not tired old geeks, and it shows.

ps - Example: on the E-400 side, they complain that the dust shaker can't be turned off on startup, and that the EOS 400D, which runs its SSWF clone on power off is far better. Yeah. When is dust likely to get in the camera ? When you change a lens. What do you do after you change a lens ? Turn the camera on. Alors ?  And by the time you get it up to your eye, it is ready to shoot. Measurement Geeks 1, Photography 0.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi David,

Having given up on my CDI subsciption a few months ago, I haven't had the chance to read this article on the Olympus. About the Leica, they had probably missed the problem like everybody else and could only afford to add one last minute comment when they read about the issue just before going to press, if they did.

I agree with you that CDI is not as interesting as it used to be, but I still find their write ups to be overall objective. My post was only about that, it was never meant to be a blind praise of CDI. Had you had the chance to read the letter I sent them a few months ago (to which I got no response unfortunately - which caused the non renewal of my subscription), you would know that I find a lot to criticize.

Reponse Photo is indeed one of the best magazines I have come accross recently.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: November 20, 2006, 07:45:19 AM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4731



« Reply #38 on: November 20, 2006, 07:42:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Dan,

Small world, huh?

Good to see you here, and thanks for the kind words.

Contact me off-forum. It would be fun to catch up.

Michael
Logged
gochugogi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 80



WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 23, 2006, 02:25:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The passion, energy, anger and moralism, and the general atmosphere of witch hunt, paranoia and conspiracy, reminded me of the big ideological controverses in history, like when communism was the big subject ("The God that failed") in Europe during the Stalin era, or the McCarthy era in the US, or, for that matter, the recent anger surrounding the danish caricatures portraiting Muhammed, or the current controversies in US politics.
Magenta in some pictures? The torture of TWO WEEKS waiting time for a clarification from Leica? A reviewer explaining, five or six times, that he regrets omitting some issues that wasn`t clear for him when he discovered them, BUT HOW COULD HE! On and on. And on. And on.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85158\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And how brother! It's a pity but there are some people here with absolutely no grasp on the important things in life. I think the old cliché "get a life" is an apt expression here. MR has done a great job on this site. And has stated upfront in every review he his intentions and goals. He picks and chooses the gear he reviews and imparts a shooter's subjective experience. It's simple, effective and works. If the reader wants more--and I bet they want it free--they can go elsewhere.
Logged

[span style='font-family:Impact']I'm tryin' to think but nuttin' happens  -The Three Stooges
Ma Blessed Digs 'o Net[/span]
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad