Which may point out the major difference between the internet and print media. Print
is one way,
only your view gets seen. The internet is many way if your view is shit, fifty or a
hundred counter
views will be expressed. No one appears omniknownent on the internet and that peeves
some writers.
--graywolf
P�l Jensen wrote:
>
> Rob wrote:
>
> > He is obviously still rather upset that we didnt agree with him, and
> > still misses the point regarding build quality which was second only to
> > the sloping top plate in Pentax design goals for the MZ-S.
>
> He indeed misses the point again. However, the point is totally irrelevant. The
>person in question feel hurt because (Pentax) people don't listen to his opinions.
>The fact that he didn't do his job in the first place is irrelevant as well. This
>gives me a sense of deja vu; a few years ago we had a similar discussion on a
>Norwegian audio group about magazine reviews. A few issues later there was a long
>editorial criticising the "Internet Mafia". However, this editorial one sided
>"discussion" conveniently left out the main argument from the readers.
> ----------------
> Quote:
> "In a review of the Monolta Dynax 5, he says:
>
> "In a recent test I commented that a particular camera was
> underspecified. The replies of some readers went along the lines of,
> 'Of course it is, as the manufacturer was trying to make the camera
> small, light and portable'. Well here is a camera that is smaller and
> lighter than others in its class, but still manages to knock out three
> focused frames in a second of a moving subject. That is quite some
> achievement."
> "
>
> Are the Dynaxx 5 and the MZ-S built along the same tolerances? Its easy to boost the
>FPS rate if durability benchmark is reduced. Its pretty meaningless to compare non
>comparable parameters in this manner. This particular reviewer should find himself
>another job. Funny enough, I recently found opinion on UK magazines in one of the
>photo newsgroup. About Amateur Photographer it was said that they had a reviewer who
>obviously didn't read the manuals. This was about a recent test of a Minolta (if
>memory serves me right) where there were some obvious errors.
> Fortunately, most if not all other tests of the MZ-S make an issue of its built
>quality and find that its generally worth its price when built is taken into
>consideration.
> It is nevertheless amazing that a reviewer again and again fail to adress the main
>design parameter behind a camera. Its fine to find the priorities questionable but
>not mentioning them is unforgivable in a review.
> Its best to ignore these kinds of reviews and fortunately more and more people do
>due to the advent of internet where manufacturers specifications and users opinion
>are easily accessible.
>
> P�l
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
--
Tom "Graywolf" Rittenhouse
Graywolf Photo, Charlotte, NC, USA
------------------------------------------
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
