> You misunderstand. I'm pulling your chain pretty hard, but not that hard.
Understood. But there is an implication that I've turned into some
hayseed hick because I don't OWN the latest/greatest flavor of the
month. Which, in this case, is certainly not true. Hay gives me the
trots.
> True on the face of it. And not unlike actual experience of reading your
> interesting, informative and sometimes entertaining endless search for the
> perfect, but always theoretical, camera.
Few professional camera reviewers actually own the cameras they are
reviewing. What's the difference? They have their criteria, I have
mine. They qualify their criteria, I qualify mine. For those who
understand and agree with my criteria, they appreciate my "reviews".
Generally speaking, i don't give a full soup-to-nuts review, but what
I do is give an "impressions" review on specific areas that interest
me. Ergonomics being one of the things that I find specifically of
interest. I might be a bit fixated on a few areas, like ergonomics,
but for crying out loud, by this point it should be a perfected
science, not a 6th-grade science project.
> Long term verdict isn't in on µ4/3 yet. The goals of size, weight and
> improved IQ have been met. And I'm sure having
> fun and getting results I like.
I've developed a pretty good gut feel about cameras and how I will
take to them over the long term. With the latest/greatest version of
the E-Px (5 is it?), I could actually be pretty happy with it. The
EM5, while everybody gushed all over it, I felt like it was lacking
something important to me. Turns out that I'm not alone and the EM1 is
the current gush-o-camera and the EM5 is used bird-cage newspaper. Not
that it really is, but it is revealing how fickle we photographers are
when we like a camera because it's the best currently available so we
will overlook the faults until the new one comes out and then suddenly
the faults are totally unmanageable.
> You can dance as fast as you want, your most recent, non-phone camera is a 7
> MP model from 2006. I at least have
> extensive experience with Oly ILCs and a growing amount with GX7.
Well, my BMW is a 2004. It may be old, but it's still twice the
vehicle as a new vehicle twice the price. That's how I feel about the
DMC-L1. It may be "old" and it may have its quirks, but it is still a
remarkable camera. Not all of us fixate on high-ISO performance or
pixels on a pinhead.
> Of course you should have opinions. Perhaps giving them with a disclaimer
> that they are from specs, sample images on the
> web and occasional handling for a few minutes might be useful.
I do. Or if I don't, I will use commonly known and accepted knowledge.
I didn't need to own a YUGO to know that it was a horrible piece of
junk.
> Hold up again! The request was rather specific, a relatively small, light
> camera for a tour of Italy with a tour leader
> who will have everyone moving much of the time. Fool that I am, I assumed
> that meant he didn't feel his existing
> equipment was right for that job.
Of which, I disagree with the entire basic premise. I believe what
Bill is asking for and what he really is going to do is two different
things. I was addressing what I think he'll end up doing.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|