Bob, I'm sorry too. I didn't mean to get under your skin.
I'm happy that everyone appears to be enjoying their K10D's. I think we have a mixed messages going on. I wasn't faulting the K10D really, but Pentax for their seeming obtuseness or lack of prescience when it comes to what will be said from reviewers. I suspect... only suspect... that they were under pressure to get the camera to the public before XMAS and therefore did not have/take the time to fine tune the .jpg output. I am disappointed that the 22-bit ADC benefits may not really be all it was cracked up to be. Anyway... Peace. Tom C. >From: "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: K10D review online >Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:04:03 -0600 > >Tom, > >Sorry, but I'm just tired of your constant drumbeating that there is >something wrong with the K10D. I'm sure it has many faults, but is >also giving many us enjoyment to use it. Can't you see that and stop >calling us names for praising Pentax. > >You should assume that we can all read here, and that we can read the >reviews if we so desire. Some of us have taken it one step further, >from reading to DOING with the camera and draw our positive experience >from that. > >Regards, Bob S. > >On 12/15/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Many of the people on this stinking PDML are not qualified. They have a > > narcissistic relationship with the Pentax brand. Nor do they actually >LOOK > > at the output they get. > > > > A good 50% of the photos displayed here are nothing more than stinking > > street shots of homeless people or mere snapshots with very little if >any > > consideration given to composition. Don't tell me you or all most anyone > > that posts here is qualified to give anything nore than a subjective, > > unscientific review. Some are... but don't criticize me because I >comment on > > one, if not the most exhaustive review available. If you have something >that > > meets a higher scientific standard, than the review I commented on, then >I > > invite you to present it and I'll look at it with an open mind. > > > > Bob, I am qualified to say what I said, because I qualified my >statements by > > saying I was disappointed in the *results of the review*, not my own > > personal review of the camera. Do you require me to spend close to a >$1000 > > to expess an opinion on a review? > > > > It's a fact that many people consult reviews, consider 2nd or 3rd party > > opinions and results, because they do not have the time, ability, or >desire > > to spend the time > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > > > >From: "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > > >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> > > >Subject: Re: K10D review online > > >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:21:23 -0600 > > > > > >Tom, > > >YOU Haven't GOT the F*cking Camera and all you can say is negative > > >things based on what you've managed to scrounge up on the internet. > > >GIVE IT A REST... You're not qualified to say anything about the > > >K10D. > > >Regards, Bob S. > > > > > > > > >On 12/15/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It's amazing that you're amazed really. Hey this reminds me of the > > >title of > > > > my favorite song... > > > > > > > > I forthrightly acknowledged that I do not have a K10D, so what is >the > > >point > > > > of your redundant restatement of it? > > > > > > > > I am disappointed that a reviewer with far more photogrpahic and > > >technical > > > > knowledge than myself, along with far more capacity to perform at >least > > > > pseduo-scientific tests, finds that the camera (at least his sample >of > > >it) > > > > is nothing really special compared to the competition in the way we >were > > > > lead to believe it would stand out, which was greater dynamic range. > > > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > > > > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > > > > >Subject: Re: K10D review online > > > > >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:56:51 -0800 > > > > > > > > > >It's amazing how you can be disappointed with something that you >have > > > > >absolutely no experience using. Are you always disappointed with > > > > >life? Try the alternatives ... > > > > > > > > > >G > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Dec 15, 2006, at 1:29 PM, Tom C wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ... While I don't have the camera in hand, I'm very disappointed > > > > > > with the > > > > > > advertising hype regarding both the 22-bit and the PRIME engine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > > >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > > >[email protected] > > > > >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > >-- > > >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >[email protected] > > >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
