Actually, I saw it when first published. See my previous posts regarding
video and its appearance on live tv.
Bill Pearce
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 7:38 PM
Subject: [OM] Re: New Base for OM Lenses
> bs.pearce@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>><http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml>
>>
>> First, I would hardly call Luminous Landscape an impartial wource.
>> Although
>> there is a lot of good info there, he is a tireless promoter of Canon
>> digital.
>>
>> I've not compared results of the 1Ds, but I have with the 20, and it is a
>> fine camera. Just don't depend on it to resolve fine detail.
>>
>> Again, I refer you to Steve Troy's previous posts on this subject. For
>> those
>> of us that don't shoot people, there remains room for improvement. For
>> weddings, protraits, events, etc. those cameras are fine. To suggest the
>> 20D
>> betters film is hard to stand behind.
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> I understand full well that Reichmann is often a Canon mouthpiece. But
> I don't believe that extends to falsification of the images presented.
> I accept the test results for what they are. And if anyone would
> actually bother to read from the link I have posted you will see that
> the subject material is a detailed architectural shot and not a portrait.
>
> If the results presented are not accurate and do not prove the case for
> resolution (at least) what is wrong with them? Why is the test invalid?
>
> Chuck Norcutt
> http://www.chucknorcutt.com
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|