I like that too. One thing that perplexed me was when he just
asserted in one review that one model had sharpening added by the
maker without saying why he thought so and proceeded to add
sharpening to the images from the comparison model. Because it was
uncharacteristic of the maker of the tested model to do that I pulled
a couple of the images into Photoshop and added sharpening in small
increments until they haloed. The images he had sharpened haloed in
about two steps. The untouched ones he said were sharpened by the
manufacturer took 7 or 8 steps before they haloed. I think he tries
to be very fair and honest but do wonder occasionally what he is doing.
Some of the fun extras in some of his reviews have been the graphic
representation of the light fall off of a full frame sensor or a
comparison of different raw converter results.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Mar 25, 2006, at 1:08 AM, Moose wrote:
> I do much appreciate his recent move toward adding RAW comparisons.
> All
> those detailed noise, resolution, etc. comparisons based on JPEGs
> never
> have meant much to me, as I shoot almost excluively RAW. The extra
> info
> is certainly useful in the D200 review.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|