The very premise of the piece is dishonesst. He claims it's a test or a review, yet he hasn't even touched it. He's just reading the press reviews and regurgitating. He's a mindless twit. Get over it. Paul
> It's amazing you call him dishonest for expressing his > opinion. Please search his article and find one > factual error. And I mean a factual error, and not a > point where you disagree with his opinion. > > His site is opinion, it is editorial. Get over it. > > And I do read leica lists all the time because I love > Leica's but try posting anything anti-leica. > > > --- "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Jamie Walling wrote: > > > > >WOW. It's amazing how defensive this list gets. > > For a > > >moment i almost thought I was on a Leica list. > > > > > > > > You obviously don't hang out on the Leica list much. > > > > >It's also amazing how much people here slam Ken > > >Rockwell about not including facts, and then they > > > > > > > > We're not an authority publishing a supposedly hands > > on review. He > > reviewed a camera > > apparently a number of cameras authoritatively > > without ever having seen > > them. That's like > > doing anatomical drawings of an elephant after > > hearing rumors of such a > > beast. Totally > > dishonest. > > > > >themselves do not tell the facts. Some general > > info > > >on Ken's site and this review in general (BTW ... I > > do > > >not know him at all, but have read his site for > > years > > >since I used to use Nikon MF and he has one of the > > >better lens sections on the web) > > > > > > > > For Nikon maybe. If he wrote a glowing review of a > > Nikon product, would I > > believe that either. Probably not. > > > > >He wrote this review BEFORE anyone had access to > > the > > >istDs. It is a preview, not a review. He even > > said > > >his opinion might change if he uses one. > > > > > > > > He slammed it in a preview. He slammed Canon > > cameras in previews. _I > > don't care._ > > The most you can do in a preview is list features > > and give a first > > impression. He went > > a lot farther than that and regularly does so. It > > wasn't billed as a > > preview by the way, > > he bills it as a test review, and I quote: > > > > "**Pentax *ist DS *istDS Test Review"** > > > > He should get a new headline writer. > > Disclaimers on another page don't cut it either. > > > > By the way he now has a disclaimer on the main page > > for this "review" > > due to the "hate" mail > > he's received. It wasn't there before. > > > > >His site is an opinion site, and he goes out of his > > >way to make that perfectly clear. He also makes it > > >perfectly clear what he is looking for in a camera > > and > > >that he is ONLY judging cameras based on what he is > > >looking for in a camera... > > > > > > > > Yes it is an opinion site. That becomes obvious > > when you read it. > > > > >If you read his pages... based on what he is > > looking > > >for, the Pentax istDs does not cut it. > > > > > > > > > > That's not his recommendation. He doesn't dismisses > > it just for > > himself, he dismisses it for everyone. > > Even if they are just starting out and don't have a > > large investment in > > other manufactures lenses. > > Even if I didn't own a bunch of Pentax lenses the > > *ist-Ds would be > > viable competition for the > > Rebel-D and the D70 which don't really cut it by his > > criteria either. > > (Ok, the Nikon cut it because > > it says Nikon on the prism housing, but then he had > > to ignore a lot of > > other things). > > > > > > > >FYI .. he gave the istD a favorable review when it > > was > > >introduced, and personally uses Pentax spot meters. > > > > >Hard to say he is anti pentax. > > > > > > > > I don't think anyone said he was anti Pentax. I > > believe the consensus > > was that he was > > in my words an opinionated idiot, but I'm just being > > judgmental, kind of > > like he is. > > > > >===== > > >Jamie Walling > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >__________________________________ > > >Do you Yahoo!? > > >Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage > > less. > > >http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. > > During a war you get to drive tanks through the > > sides of buildings > > and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually > > frowned on during peacetime. > > --P.J. O'Rourke > > > > > > > ===== > Jamie Walling > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com >
