Winsor Crosby wrote:
>Actually I think the "photo rags" have become irrelevant with the
>advent of digital cameras and the growth of web sites which reviewed
>them while they were ignored by the magazines. There are many sites
>that do reviews with quality that put those in the magazines to shame
>and you get them three months earlier.
>
I still think they are useful. Especially since the web review sites
don't do lenses adn the mages still do. I also think their camera
reviews often add a different and useful perspective to the web reviews.
A simple for example is actual measured metering patterns. Most web
reviews are pretty subjective and nonstandardized.
>It is interesting that computer magazines can still be on top of things
>and have feature articles and covers reflecting advances in the last
>few weeks
>
Well, they are getting better, but I don't find their reviews very
useful, and sometimes really off-base. So in their case, timeliness is a
limited virtue.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|