Well I just don't expect perfection from any review site or reviewer I guess. Sure there are flaws in testing methodologies. Yes there are opinions given. It's still far better than walking in to Ritz, Wolf, substitute store name here, Camera and talking to the salesperson.
Frankly, I'd venture to say that if dpreview.com gave Pentax undiluted adulation and praise, instead of 85% adulation and praise along with some negative aspects to consider, that few here would have a negative thing to say about dpreview. Tom C. >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >Subject: Re: Amazon buys dpreview.com >Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:57:36 -0700 > >No one forces me to read DPReview. Or Imaging-Resource, or Steve's >Digicams, or Photo-I, or PhotoZone, or any of the other dozen or two >product review sites I frequent. > >That's perfectly true and completely irrelevant. > >However, the analyses and opinions voiced on DPReview.com have an >untoward and, to my view, often negative influence on the readers who >believe they are factual rather than opinion. They are neither level >or objective, and the testing methodologies/supporting intent is >questionable and contradictory. For that reason, I consider them >misinformation. > >Even worse, several other review test sites with less resources read >the DPReview.com review and 'inherit' some of the exact same opinion. >I've seen Phil Askey's opinions relayed almost verbatim on several >other sites. That's bad, it reinforces an undeserved impression that >what is being opined is fact. > >I don't need a lot of reviewers' opinion. I need good, objective data >and informative explanatory information regards a camera/lens/ >whatever and its operation. I can form my own opinions from that, and >from going to a dealer and evaluating the item in question first >hand. I read the specs and test data from the review sites as they >are a useful resource for that, and ignore the BS. > >G > > >On May 15, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Tom C wrote: > > > Godfrey, > > > > No one forces you in particular to read dpreview. Is that not true? > > > > I looked at www.photozone.de . Thanks. The reviews look good. It > > seems > > they reach much the same conclusions (at least with regard to the > > K10D) that > > are listed on dpreview.com. There are FAR fewer reviews of DLSR's on > > photozone. > > > > I think dpreview is a pretty useful resource for most people that > > have an > > interest in pre-shopping before they purchase or walk into a retail > > store. > > > > Tom C. > > > > > >> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > >> Subject: Re: Amazon buys dpreview.com > >> Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 08:49:08 -0700 > >> > >> I don't care one whit about "most people". That's the equivalent of > >> the Fox InfoTainment Service "Some People Say..." bullshit: that is, > >> it says "we know best, won't quote sources or tell you how we know, > >> but will tell you what the truth is and you should believe it". Utter > >> nonsense. > >> > >> I'm talking to what I would hope are informed photographers on this > >> list, not to "most people". Perhaps I'm wrong about that. > >> > >> I go to review sites to obtain the specifications and any data > >> acquired by testing about the cameas, as well as see detailed > >> photographs of the item in question. I want to know the testing > >> methodologies in detail. I don't bother reading 'informed opinions > >> translating for laymen', or walking through 26 stupid screen shots of > >> menus that are all well detailed in the downloadable instruction > >> manual, it's a waste of my time. > >> > >> As both test data and informed opinion goes, Klaus at > >> www.photozone.de has done an excellent job. > >> > >> G > >> > >> > >> > >> On May 15, 2007, at 8:18 AM, Tom C wrote: > >> > >>> Then point me to where there is anything better. The same can be > >>> said for > >>> virtually any news or information source. Most people, being > >>> woefully > >>> uninformed to begin, with require a laymen's interpretation of the > >>> data > >>> which I think the site does a pretty good job of. > >>> > >>> Tom C. > >>> > >>> > >>>> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > >>>> Subject: Re: Amazon buys dpreview.com > >>>> Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 17:28:43 -0700 > >>>> > >>>> DPReview.com's review data is pretty good on specifications and > >>>> features but his tests and judgments are of questionable > >>>> credibility. > >>>> > >>>> Many people take what's said in the tests as being hard fact, which > >>>> is misinformed. > >>>> > >>>> Thus it is a source of misinformation. > >>>> > >>>> G > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On May 14, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Tom C wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> That's my point. I find dpreview to be among the best sites out > >>>>> there for > >>>>> camera reviews and comparing features. At times some may disagree > >>>>> with the > >>>>> conclusions that are reached, but in terms of kinds of tests, > >>>>> quality of > >>>>> tests, it's far more exhaustive than any of us are with our own > >>>>> cameras. > >>>>> > >>>>> Hence my disagreement about it being a source of misinformation. > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
