I haven't bought, read, looked at, even lined the bottom of the birdcage with
pages from Popular Photography, Modern Photography, Petersens, etc., in more
than two decades. I subscribe to Shutterbug just to kind of keep up with
what's new and take everything in it with a grain of salt, a beer and a healthy
dose of skepticism. Most of these rags are whores to their advertisers. It's
caveat emptor right down the line. They know which bread their side is
buttered on. I mean which butter their bread is.. Ah, hell, you know what I
mean.
Walt
>
> I just looked at the current newstand issue and was appalled by the
> lack of substance. I was interested in their digital reviews which were
> terrible. They implied that the new 5 MP 2/3" sensor Leica was the new
> digital M camera and said it had a superior sensor that captures more
> detail ignoring real tests that have shown it to be just average. The
> most technical thing in their D70 "test" was a comparison of finder
> magnifications. Either they are not even trying or they are doing what
> they have always done, but I have gotten spoiled by the meaty reviews
> on the internet. Considering that the majority of new cameras sold are
> digital, concentration on film cameras for a general interest photo
> magazine seems doomed to failure. They had better reinvent themselves,
> quickly.
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California
> USA
> On May 26, 2004, at 1:25 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
>
> > I also notice that Popular Photography is back to talking more about
> > film
> > than 6 months ago. Perhaps they realise there's more to talk about
> > with film,
> > and they need to keep selling their magazine.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|