You're speaking as if this were a mature product, and letting the marketing hype guide you rather than common sense. Which is exactly the error that the reviewer makes in his article. And you're doing it in the absence of actually working with the camera.
I ignore the marketing hype entirely. I didn't buy it because of what they said. I bought it because the concept of the camera is interesting and innovative, and I expect it to have problems on first release, at least until both the firmware and software for it reaches a v1.0 level of release quality. Working with it just the little bit that I did so far, I was surprised by how well it worked rather than appalled by how immature it was. But I don't have enough time using it to make a studied evaluation of it yet. I prefer to let the thing itself guide my expectations, not the marketing hype, and then to derive from that what I think it ought to do that it doesn't. And also to see what it does poorly, and does well. To each their own, I guess. G > On Dec 20, 2017, at 10:32 PM, mike wilson <m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > > I think you're making my point. The camera is on the market with, as I > understand it, no qualifiers other than some slight reservations over the > processing software. The user decided that the inadequacies of the software > were greatly in excess of what he had been lead to expect. He provided pretty > good, to my eyes, evidence for his claims. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
