Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/digitalcameras/toppicks.htm

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

5/27/2005 6:53:20 PM
RichA <none@none.com> wrote in message
<unjf91hq8f7cna2lch9fl7sc2l3lav1oc7@4ax.com>

> http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/digitalcameras/toppicks.htm


How did the Oly beat out the 350D?

Tim
--
Composed with Newz Crawler 1.7 http://www.newzcrawler.com/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tim S." <123tts1234@cox.net> wrote:

>5/27/2005 6:53:20 PM
>RichA <none@none.com> wrote in message
><unjf91hq8f7cna2lch9fl7sc2l3lav1oc7@4ax.com>
>
>> http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/digitalcameras/toppicks.htm
>
>
>How did the Oly beat out the 350D?


The site is based on user ratings. Obviously there are enough users
who are happy with their cameras to give the E300 an excellent rating
on this site.

Note that the Olympus C-770 Ultra Zoom is right behind the Canon 350D.
That probably tells you more about the profile of the site's users
than it does about the cameras.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tony Polson" wrote
> The site is based on user ratings. Obviously there are enough users
> who are happy with their cameras to give the E300 an excellent rating
> on this site.

The choice was based on editors' ratings, not users'.

Carrigman

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/digitalcameras/toppicks.htm

I don't read about computers in camera magazines, and the reverse is
just as true...


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:50:49 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/digitalcameras/toppicks.htm
>
>I don't read about computers in camera magazines, and the reverse is
>just as true...

I don't know about that. Computer mags have to sell computers,
camera mags if they mention computers would probably be more concerned
with how fast the thing works, which is a valid concern. But
you never know.
-Rich

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news7ab1l$drd$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
> RichA wrote:
>
>> http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/digitalcameras/toppicks.htm
>
> I don't read about computers in camera magazines, and the reverse is just
> as true...

THAT hits the nail squarely on the head!

WW

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I think if you looked at the CNET site you would find that it's far more
than just computers. The best thing in fact is that you can read the review
and then read the users reviews as well. I find this invaluable to 'trend'
issues that users have to assess whether that will be a problem for me.


However, I think it's fair to say that you any review that does not align
with your selected paradigm is instantly derided for one reason or another.
Take the dismissive statement below :

'I don't read about computers in camera magazines and the reverse is just as
true'

What you are implying is that the CNET people know computers and not
cameras, and so their reviews are to be taken with a pinch of salt without
qualifying anything. What about if the editor also did a column for a
leading photographic magazine? Under your rationale, would that make it
instantly more reputable? Is it the publication you object to or the
experience of the people writing for it?

As CNET review just about everything in the consumer space - I doubt whether
they are in anyone's pockets because they review all the manufacturers
across the board. Not only that, they allow VERY negative comments from
their uses to be attached to the reviews - so I doubt there is any
collusion.

Anyway...I think for the top brands like Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus and
dare I say Sigma the difference in picture quality varies only a very small
amount. The bigger difference with photography is what the person
controlling the camera is doing with it.

At the end of the day it's an emotional response from your audience that
you're attempting to extract. no-one but no-one is going to look at a
picture of a monk setting himself on fire outside a embassy and go...it's a
great photo...but I can't help thinking it could have been 2% sharper with a
Nikon/Canon/Sigma/Pentax yada yada yada...




"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news7ab1l$drd$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
> RichA wrote:
>
>> http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/digitalcameras/toppicks.htm
>
> I don't read about computers in camera magazines, and the reverse is just
> as true...
>
>
> --
> -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
> -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
> -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
> -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steve Franklin wrote:
> I think if you looked at the CNET site you would find that it's far
> more than just computers. The best thing in fact is that you can
> read
> the review and then read the users reviews as well. I find this
> invaluable to 'trend' issues that users have to assess whether that
> will be a problem for me.
>
> However, I think it's fair to say that you any review that does not
> align with your selected paradigm is instantly derided for one
> reason
> or another. Take the dismissive statement below :
>
> 'I don't read about computers in camera magazines and the reverse is
> just as true'
>
> What you are implying is that the CNET people know computers and not
> cameras, and so their reviews are to be taken with a pinch of salt
> without qualifying anything. What about if the editor also did a
> column for a leading photographic magazine? Under your rationale,
> would that make it instantly more reputable? Is it the publication
> you object to or the experience of the people writing for it?
>
> As CNET review just about everything in the consumer space - I doubt
> whether they are in anyone's pockets because they review all the
> manufacturers across the board. Not only that, they allow VERY
> negative comments from their uses to be attached to the reviews - so
> I doubt there is any collusion.
>
> Anyway...I think for the top brands like Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
> Olympus and dare I say Sigma the difference in picture quality
> varies
> only a very small amount. The bigger difference with photography is
> what the person controlling the camera is doing with it.
>
> At the end of the day it's an emotional response from your audience
> that you're attempting to extract. no-one but no-one is going to
> look
> at a picture of a monk setting himself on fire outside a embassy and
> go...it's a great photo...but I can't help thinking it could have
> been 2% sharper with a Nikon/Canon/Sigma/Pentax yada yada yada...
>
ON BULLSHIT
Harry G. Frankfurt

© 2005 Princeton University Press
ISBN 0-691-12294-6 (alk. paper)


Dr. Frankfurt illuminates the meaning of "bullshit" by noting that
liars are concerned with the truth or falsity of a matter, but
bullshitters are not; they are only interested in whether or not their
bullshit is effective. Bullshit itself may or may not be true; a
bullshitter doesn't care.

(Page 63)
"Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances require someone to
talk without knowing what he is talking about. Thus the production of
bullshit is stimulated whenever a person's obligations or
opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the
facts that are relevant to that
topic. This discrepancy is common in public life, where people are
frequently impelled—whether by
their own propensities or by the demands of others—to speak
extensively about matters of which they are to some degree ignorant.
Closely related instances arise from the widespread conviction that it
is the responsibility of a citizen in a democracy to have opinions
about everything, or at least everything that pertains to the conduct
of his country's affairs. The lack of any significant
connection between a person's opinions and his apprehension of reality
will be even more severe,
needless to say, for someone who believes it is his responsibility, as
a conscious moral agent, to
evaluate events and conditions in all parts of the world.

"The contemorary proliferation of bullshit also has deeper
sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have
any reliable access to an objective reality, and which
therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are.
These antirealist doctrines
undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to
determine what is true and what is false, and even in the
intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry. One response to
this loss
of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by
dedication to the ideal of
_correctness_ to a quite different sort of discipline, which is
imposed by pursuit of an alternative
ideal of _sincerity_. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at
accurate representations of a common
world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest
representation of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent
nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, he
devotes himself to being true to his own nature. It is as though he
decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts,
he must therefore try instead to be true to himself ... "

" ... Our natures are, indeed, elusively
insubstantial—notoriously less stable and less inherent than the
natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity
itself is bullshit."


Sincerely,

--
Frank ess

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steve Franklin" <honkey@lips.com> wrote in message
news:42992635@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>I think if you looked at the CNET site you would find that it's far more
>than just computers. The best thing in fact is that you can read the review
>and then read the users reviews as well. I find this invaluable to 'trend'
>issues that users have to assess whether that will be a problem for me.

The last place I look for reviews, on anything, is CNET. Actually, it's not
even 'the last place', I never look there...period. I did some years
ago...but that was then and this is now. Of course YMMV. If you like their
information...fill your boots.

WW

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Thanks Frank for the insightful cut and paste...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steve Franklin wrote:

> However, I think it's fair to say that you any review that does not align
> with your selected paradigm is instantly derided for one reason or another.
> Take the dismissive statement below :
>
> 'I don't read about computers in camera magazines and the reverse is just as
> true'
>
> What you are implying is that the CNET people know computers and not
> cameras, and so their reviews are to be taken with a pinch of salt without
> qualifying anything. What about if the editor also did a column for a
> leading photographic magazine? Under your rationale, would that make it
> instantly more reputable? Is it the publication you object to or the
> experience of the people writing for it?

Don't get your knickers in a twist. There are a variety of photographic
resources that evaluate cameras, lenses and peripherals. The magazines
about cameras, photography and photographers are where I'll get my info.

I don't have anything specifically against CNET, it's just not a
photographic resource AFAIAC.

http://www.cnet.co.uk/misc/team.htm are the "editors" doing the picking.
Any "photographers" there? The "Reviews" editor is:

"Mary Lojkine
Reviews Editor
Mary Lojkine has been writing about computers and technology since 1992.
She remembers the bad old days when RAM was measured in kilobytes, hard
drive sizes were measured in megabytes and people wanted to know how
many angels could dance on the head of a processor. Mary has written
many magazine articles and several books, mostly about the Internet. In
the brave new world of user-friendly consumer electronics, her main
interests are digital imaging and mobile connectivity. She spent 2004 in
Cairns, Australia, working as an underwater videographer."

eg: Writing "mostly about the internet", "user friendly consumer
electronics", "her main interests are in digital imaging and mobile
connectivity", and whole summer!!!!! as an "underwater videographer".

That's not a photographer,

that's a "Jill of all trades, Mistress of none."

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

*untwists y-fronts*

<snip>
>
> Don't get your knickers in a twist. There are a variety of photographic
> resources that evaluate cameras, lenses and peripherals. The magazines
> about cameras, photography and photographers are where I'll get my info.
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I think if you read the reviews they are not meant for people who know
everything. Rather, they seem to be a guide for the next level down,
people prepared to spend the time and the money to know their
technology but who need some help. The user reviews should redress any
editorial outrageousness over a longer period of time.

But what they've done well I think is features - optmising your photos
here: http://digitalliving.cnet.co.uk/weekendproject/ and good use of
video in reviews -
http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/laptops/ [...] 448,00.htm

Be fair to them - they are covering 16 different product categories for
reviews. They are not going to employ 16 specialists, though Guy Cocker
is probably the best plasma TV reviewer in the UK and has been for a
couple of years.

Given the quality of "gadget" sites out there, for a two week old
website I think this is a great site and will cause some magazines
(Stuff, T3) a few worries.

Woody




> eg: Writing "mostly about the internet", "user friendly consumer
> electronics", "her main interests are in digital imaging and mobile
> connectivity", and whole summer!!!!! as an "underwater videographer".
>
> That's not a photographer,
>
> that's a "Jill of all trades, Mistress of none."
>
> Cheers,
> Alan