Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Reviews [was Olympus announces new lens, list member continues to t

Subject: [OM] Reviews [was Olympus announces new lens, list member continues to toss coins in jar . . .]
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:49:15 -0700
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
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz