Dpreview's reviews "Highly Recommended" is highly questionable

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 30, 2009.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Both cameras got "highly recommended." Evidently, it's a highly
    flexible attribution.
    E-P1 versus D300

    Olympus E-P1:

    Conclusion - Pros (14)
    Excellent resolution, tons of detail in the shots
    Appealing, bright and punchy out of camera results and well optimized
    JPEGs
    Very clever collapsible kit lens that's small, but offers decent
    quality
    Unique retro design puts SLR quality into a compact body
    Good high ISO performance up to ISO 3200 and lots of control over
    noise reduction
    Superb build quality
    Decent handling
    Dual control dials - unusual design that works well
    Lots of external control, easy access to photographic functions
    Comprehensive feature set and impressive level of customization
    Reliable metering and white balance (in natural light)
    Lots of stuff to play with; art filters, aspect ratios, multi-exposure
    and level gauge
    In body image stabilization
    Easy to use, high quality video mode

    Conclusion - Cons (10)
    Slow focus requires a more considered approach to shooting
    Some highlight clipping (and poor dynamic range at ISO 100)
    Low resolution screen that's hard to see in bright light
    No viewfinder
    No built-in flash (and the optional flash is expensive and pretty
    basic)
    Complicated menu system not that easy to navigate
    Preview image brightness doesn't always match the captured image
    brightness
    Poor focus, slow lens and jerky live view image make shooting in very
    low light frustrating, to say the least
    No AF illuminator
    The most interesting Art Filters slow down operation (and make the
    movie mode virtually useless)

    Nikon D300:
    Conclusion - Pros (30)

    * Very good resolution and detail without looking over-processed,
    even up to ISO 1600
    * Better balanced noise reduction than most; more chroma NR, less
    luminance NR
    * High ISO 3200 perfectly usable (if slightly softer due to NR),
    ISO 6400 usable for small output
    * Highly configurable Auto ISO function (can set maximum ISO and
    minimum shutter speed)
    * Conservative approach to image processing (slightly lower
    sharpening) helps to avoid 'digital' artifacts
    * Excellent dynamic range from ISO 200 - 800 (good highlight
    'reach'), typical at ISO 1600
    * Seldom mentioned built-in chromatic aberration reduction is very
    effective (JPEG, RAWs through NX)
    * Compact, solid body design with environmental sealing
    * Quality glass pentaprism viewfinder (bright, large view) with
    electronic grid lines
    * Professional in-use performance (instant power-up, short shutter
    lag and short viewfinder black-out)
    * Improved auto-focus module (Multi-CAM3500DX) delivers fast and
    accurate AF lock even in low light
    * Auto-focus fine-tuning by body or per lens
    * Nikon's excellent 1005 pixel RGB metering sensor
    * Numerous 'hidden' designed-in features; AF tracking by color,
    scene recognition system
    * High speed continuous shooting (6 fps) can be boosted to 8 fps
    with grip & battery
    * 150,000 exposure shutter life
    * Now Nikon standard range of image parameter presets, addition of
    brightness adjustment
    * Superb large, high resolution LCD (delivers full-color VGA;
    640xRGB x 480)
    * Live view with up to 1:1 pixel view, contrast detect AF as well
    as passive (mirror flip) AF
    * HDMI video output (up to 1080i)
    * Compact Flash UDMA support, very fast throughput overall
    * Menu system is a pleasure to use, attractive, logical and built-
    in help
    * Easy to use playback with very logical delete system (press
    delete button twice)
    * Highly configurable via custom functions (6 configurable hard
    buttons / dials)
    * Sophisticated interval timer feature
    * Unique in-camera features: Overlay, Multiple exposures
    * GPS data recording feature (requires optional cable, NMEA
    compatible)
    * Built-in AF assist lamp (white light)
    * Probably the best battery information display in the business (%
    charge, shots, aging)
    * Optional wireless WiFi transmitter (802.11 b/g)

    Conclusion - Cons (3)

    * No timed mirror lock-up function (could be automatic with self-
    timer)
    * Non-articulating LCD (increases the usefulness of Live View
    considerably)
    * Average automatic white balance performance, still very poor
    under incandescent light
    RichA, Jul 30, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA wrote:
    > Both cameras got "highly recommended." Evidently, it's a highly
    > flexible attribution.
    > E-P1 versus D300
    >
    > Olympus E-P1:
    >
    > Conclusion - Pros (14)
    > Excellent resolution, tons of detail in the shots
    > Appealing, bright and punchy out of camera results and well optimized
    > JPEGs
    > Very clever collapsible kit lens that's small, but offers decent
    > quality
    > Unique retro design puts SLR quality into a compact body
    > Good high ISO performance up to ISO 3200 and lots of control over
    > noise reduction
    > Superb build quality
    > Decent handling
    > Dual control dials - unusual design that works well
    > Lots of external control, easy access to photographic functions
    > Comprehensive feature set and impressive level of customization
    > Reliable metering and white balance (in natural light)
    > Lots of stuff to play with; art filters, aspect ratios, multi-exposure
    > and level gauge
    > In body image stabilization
    > Easy to use, high quality video mode
    >
    > Conclusion - Cons (10)
    > Slow focus requires a more considered approach to shooting
    > Some highlight clipping (and poor dynamic range at ISO 100)
    > Low resolution screen that's hard to see in bright light
    > No viewfinder
    > No built-in flash (and the optional flash is expensive and pretty
    > basic)
    > Complicated menu system not that easy to navigate
    > Preview image brightness doesn't always match the captured image
    > brightness
    > Poor focus, slow lens and jerky live view image make shooting in very
    > low light frustrating, to say the least
    > No AF illuminator
    > The most interesting Art Filters slow down operation (and make the
    > movie mode virtually useless)
    >
    > Nikon D300:
    > Conclusion - Pros (30)
    >
    > * Very good resolution and detail without looking over-processed,
    > even up to ISO 1600
    > * Better balanced noise reduction than most; more chroma NR, less
    > luminance NR
    > * High ISO 3200 perfectly usable (if slightly softer due to NR),
    > ISO 6400 usable for small output
    > * Highly configurable Auto ISO function (can set maximum ISO and
    > minimum shutter speed)
    > * Conservative approach to image processing (slightly lower
    > sharpening) helps to avoid 'digital' artifacts
    > * Excellent dynamic range from ISO 200 - 800 (good highlight
    > 'reach'), typical at ISO 1600
    > * Seldom mentioned built-in chromatic aberration reduction is very
    > effective (JPEG, RAWs through NX)
    > * Compact, solid body design with environmental sealing
    > * Quality glass pentaprism viewfinder (bright, large view) with
    > electronic grid lines
    > * Professional in-use performance (instant power-up, short shutter
    > lag and short viewfinder black-out)
    > * Improved auto-focus module (Multi-CAM3500DX) delivers fast and
    > accurate AF lock even in low light
    > * Auto-focus fine-tuning by body or per lens
    > * Nikon's excellent 1005 pixel RGB metering sensor
    > * Numerous 'hidden' designed-in features; AF tracking by color,
    > scene recognition system
    > * High speed continuous shooting (6 fps) can be boosted to 8 fps
    > with grip & battery
    > * 150,000 exposure shutter life
    > * Now Nikon standard range of image parameter presets, addition of
    > brightness adjustment
    > * Superb large, high resolution LCD (delivers full-color VGA;
    > 640xRGB x 480)
    > * Live view with up to 1:1 pixel view, contrast detect AF as well
    > as passive (mirror flip) AF
    > * HDMI video output (up to 1080i)
    > * Compact Flash UDMA support, very fast throughput overall
    > * Menu system is a pleasure to use, attractive, logical and built-
    > in help
    > * Easy to use playback with very logical delete system (press
    > delete button twice)
    > * Highly configurable via custom functions (6 configurable hard
    > buttons / dials)
    > * Sophisticated interval timer feature
    > * Unique in-camera features: Overlay, Multiple exposures
    > * GPS data recording feature (requires optional cable, NMEA
    > compatible)
    > * Built-in AF assist lamp (white light)
    > * Probably the best battery information display in the business (%
    > charge, shots, aging)
    > * Optional wireless WiFi transmitter (802.11 b/g)
    >
    > Conclusion - Cons (3)
    >
    > * No timed mirror lock-up function (could be automatic with self-
    > timer)
    > * Non-articulating LCD (increases the usefulness of Live View
    > considerably)
    > * Average automatic white balance performance, still very poor
    > under incandescent light
    >


    It's horses for courses stuff.
    For those contemplating a camera in the D300's price and
    purpose range It's a highly recommended choice. I agree with
    it too, incidentally.

    As for the Oly? The EP1 is in no way, shape or form a choice
    likely to be considered by someone shopping in the D300 market
    place. For someone who is looking for a highly portable camera
    that will pretty much fit in a shirt pocket whilst delivering
    good quality images... The EP1 is a highly recommended choice.

    In the 60's when I used Olympus cameras and their very
    excellent lenses, I used to look at the pens and wonder if
    they were likely to be useful to me. They weren't and I never
    owned one but there in lies the difference in cameras.

    I owned several OM1 cameras and a multitude of lenses for
    them. The Pen then - as it is now, was a travel camera and
    promoted as one - as it is now being promoted.

    How many people Rich, do you suppose would pack a D300, flash,
    grip and lenses for a weekend away at some beachside resort? I
    know... You would but that 's not the point. For a travel or
    happy snaps camera you probably couldn't go past an EP1.

    For wedding photography and the occasional wild life
    expedition into the wilds of Toronto... the D300 is absolutely
    a better "highly recommended choice".

    --

    I'm coming back as a Pelican...
    Watch out because I'm staying the worlds biggest ass-hole!
    The pixel Bandit, Jul 30, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 29, 8:01 pm, The pixel Bandit <> wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    > > Both cameras got "highly recommended."  Evidently, it's a highly
    > > flexible attribution.
    > > E-P1 versus D300

    >
    > > Olympus E-P1:

    >
    > > Conclusion - Pros  (14)
    > > Excellent resolution, tons of detail in the shots
    > > Appealing, bright and punchy out of camera results and well optimized
    > > JPEGs
    > > Very clever collapsible kit lens that's small, but offers decent
    > > quality
    > > Unique retro design puts SLR quality into a compact body
    > > Good high ISO performance up to ISO 3200 and lots of control over
    > > noise reduction
    > > Superb build quality
    > > Decent handling
    > > Dual control dials - unusual design that works well
    > > Lots of external control, easy access to photographic functions
    > > Comprehensive feature set and impressive level of customization
    > > Reliable metering and white balance (in natural light)
    > > Lots of stuff to play with; art filters, aspect ratios, multi-exposure
    > > and level gauge
    > > In body image stabilization
    > > Easy to use, high quality video mode

    >
    > > Conclusion - Cons (10)
    > > Slow focus requires a more considered approach to shooting
    > > Some highlight clipping (and poor dynamic range at ISO 100)
    > > Low resolution screen that's hard to see in bright light
    > > No viewfinder
    > > No built-in flash (and the optional flash is expensive and pretty
    > > basic)
    > > Complicated menu system not that easy to navigate
    > > Preview image brightness doesn't always match the captured image
    > > brightness
    > > Poor focus, slow lens and jerky live view image make shooting in very
    > > low light frustrating, to say the least
    > > No AF illuminator
    > > The most interesting Art Filters slow down operation (and make the
    > > movie mode virtually useless)

    >
    > > Nikon D300:
    > >  Conclusion - Pros (30)

    >
    > >     * Very good resolution and detail without looking over-processed,
    > > even up to ISO 1600
    > >     * Better balanced noise reduction than most; more chroma NR, less
    > > luminance NR
    > >     * High ISO 3200 perfectly usable (if slightly softer due to NR),
    > > ISO 6400 usable for small output
    > >     * Highly configurable Auto ISO function (can set maximum ISO and
    > > minimum shutter speed)
    > >     * Conservative approach to image processing (slightly lower
    > > sharpening) helps to avoid 'digital' artifacts
    > >     * Excellent dynamic range from ISO 200 - 800 (good highlight
    > > 'reach'), typical at ISO 1600
    > >     * Seldom mentioned built-in chromatic aberration reduction is very
    > > effective (JPEG, RAWs through NX)
    > >     * Compact, solid body design with environmental sealing
    > >     * Quality glass pentaprism viewfinder (bright, large view) with
    > > electronic grid lines
    > >     * Professional in-use performance (instant power-up, short shutter
    > > lag and short viewfinder black-out)
    > >     * Improved auto-focus module (Multi-CAM3500DX) delivers fast and
    > > accurate AF lock even in low light
    > >     * Auto-focus fine-tuning by body or per lens
    > >     * Nikon's excellent 1005 pixel RGB metering sensor
    > >     * Numerous 'hidden' designed-in features; AF tracking by color,
    > > scene recognition system
    > >     * High speed continuous shooting (6 fps) can be boosted to 8 fps
    > > with grip & battery
    > >     * 150,000 exposure shutter life
    > >     * Now Nikon standard range of image parameter presets, addition of
    > > brightness adjustment
    > >     * Superb large, high resolution LCD (delivers full-color VGA;
    > > 640xRGB x 480)
    > >     * Live view with up to 1:1 pixel view, contrast detect AF as well
    > > as passive (mirror flip) AF
    > >     * HDMI video output (up to 1080i)
    > >     * Compact Flash UDMA support, very fast throughput overall
    > >     * Menu system is a pleasure to use, attractive, logical and built-
    > > in help
    > >     * Easy to use playback with very logical delete system (press
    > > delete button twice)
    > >     * Highly configurable via custom functions (6 configurable hard
    > > buttons / dials)
    > >     * Sophisticated interval timer feature
    > >     * Unique in-camera features: Overlay, Multiple exposures
    > >     * GPS data recording feature (requires optional cable, NMEA
    > > compatible)
    > >     * Built-in AF assist lamp (white light)
    > >     * Probably the best battery information display in the business (%
    > > charge, shots, aging)
    > >     * Optional wireless WiFi transmitter (802.11 b/g)

    >
    > > Conclusion - Cons (3)

    >
    > >     * No timed mirror lock-up function (could be automatic with self-
    > > timer)
    > >     * Non-articulating LCD (increases the usefulness of Live View
    > > considerably)
    > >     * Average automatic white balance performance, still very poor
    > > under incandescent light

    >
    > It's horses for courses stuff.
    > For those contemplating a camera in the D300's price and
    > purpose range It's a highly recommended choice. I agree with
    > it too, incidentally.
    >
    > As for the Oly? The EP1 is in no way, shape or form a choice
    > likely to be considered by someone shopping in the D300 market
    > place. For someone who is looking for a highly portable camera
    > that will pretty much fit in a shirt pocket whilst delivering
    > good quality images... The EP1 is a highly recommended choice.
    >
    > In the 60's when I used Olympus cameras and their very
    > excellent lenses, I used to look at the pens and wonder if
    > they were likely to be useful to me. They weren't and I never
    > owned one but there in lies the difference in cameras.
    >
    > I owned several OM1 cameras and a multitude of lenses for
    > them. The Pen then - as it is now, was a travel camera and
    > promoted as one - as it is now being promoted.
    >
    > How many people Rich, do you suppose would pack a D300, flash,
    > grip and lenses for a weekend away at some beachside resort? I
    > know... You would but that 's not the point. For a travel or
    > happy snaps camera you probably couldn't go past an EP1.
    >


    Not indoor snaps, apparently. Evidently, Panasonic wouldn't share
    it's contrast detection technology with Olympus. The focus sucks,
    like a P&S only (according to Dpreview) worse than the best of those.
    That, coupled with a crappy low res LCD and no EVF that makes manual
    focusing a major chore is enough to have killed any self-respecting
    "highly recommended" recommendation.
    Rich, Jul 30, 2009
    #3
  4. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    RichA <> wrote:
    >Both cameras got "highly recommended." Evidently, it's a highly
    >flexible attribution.


    We'll be looking forward to your detailed review that justifies your
    slander.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Jul 30, 2009
    #4
  5. Rich wrote:
    > On Jul 29, 8:01 pm, The pixel Bandit <> wrote:
    >> RichA wrote:
    >>> Both cameras got "highly recommended." Evidently, it's a highly
    >>> flexible attribution.
    >>> E-P1 versus D300
    >>> Olympus E-P1:
    >>> Conclusion - Pros (14)
    >>> Excellent resolution, tons of detail in the shots
    >>> Appealing, bright and punchy out of camera results and well optimized
    >>> JPEGs
    >>> Very clever collapsible kit lens that's small, but offers decent
    >>> quality
    >>> Unique retro design puts SLR quality into a compact body
    >>> Good high ISO performance up to ISO 3200 and lots of control over
    >>> noise reduction
    >>> Superb build quality
    >>> Decent handling
    >>> Dual control dials - unusual design that works well
    >>> Lots of external control, easy access to photographic functions
    >>> Comprehensive feature set and impressive level of customization
    >>> Reliable metering and white balance (in natural light)
    >>> Lots of stuff to play with; art filters, aspect ratios, multi-exposure
    >>> and level gauge
    >>> In body image stabilization
    >>> Easy to use, high quality video mode
    >>> Conclusion - Cons (10)
    >>> Slow focus requires a more considered approach to shooting
    >>> Some highlight clipping (and poor dynamic range at ISO 100)
    >>> Low resolution screen that's hard to see in bright light
    >>> No viewfinder
    >>> No built-in flash (and the optional flash is expensive and pretty
    >>> basic)
    >>> Complicated menu system not that easy to navigate
    >>> Preview image brightness doesn't always match the captured image
    >>> brightness
    >>> Poor focus, slow lens and jerky live view image make shooting in very
    >>> low light frustrating, to say the least
    >>> No AF illuminator
    >>> The most interesting Art Filters slow down operation (and make the
    >>> movie mode virtually useless)
    >>> Nikon D300:
    >>> Conclusion - Pros (30)
    >>> * Very good resolution and detail without looking over-processed,
    >>> even up to ISO 1600
    >>> * Better balanced noise reduction than most; more chroma NR, less
    >>> luminance NR
    >>> * High ISO 3200 perfectly usable (if slightly softer due to NR),
    >>> ISO 6400 usable for small output
    >>> * Highly configurable Auto ISO function (can set maximum ISO and
    >>> minimum shutter speed)
    >>> * Conservative approach to image processing (slightly lower
    >>> sharpening) helps to avoid 'digital' artifacts
    >>> * Excellent dynamic range from ISO 200 - 800 (good highlight
    >>> 'reach'), typical at ISO 1600
    >>> * Seldom mentioned built-in chromatic aberration reduction is very
    >>> effective (JPEG, RAWs through NX)
    >>> * Compact, solid body design with environmental sealing
    >>> * Quality glass pentaprism viewfinder (bright, large view) with
    >>> electronic grid lines
    >>> * Professional in-use performance (instant power-up, short shutter
    >>> lag and short viewfinder black-out)
    >>> * Improved auto-focus module (Multi-CAM3500DX) delivers fast and
    >>> accurate AF lock even in low light
    >>> * Auto-focus fine-tuning by body or per lens
    >>> * Nikon's excellent 1005 pixel RGB metering sensor
    >>> * Numerous 'hidden' designed-in features; AF tracking by color,
    >>> scene recognition system
    >>> * High speed continuous shooting (6 fps) can be boosted to 8 fps
    >>> with grip & battery
    >>> * 150,000 exposure shutter life
    >>> * Now Nikon standard range of image parameter presets, addition of
    >>> brightness adjustment
    >>> * Superb large, high resolution LCD (delivers full-color VGA;
    >>> 640xRGB x 480)
    >>> * Live view with up to 1:1 pixel view, contrast detect AF as well
    >>> as passive (mirror flip) AF
    >>> * HDMI video output (up to 1080i)
    >>> * Compact Flash UDMA support, very fast throughput overall
    >>> * Menu system is a pleasure to use, attractive, logical and built-
    >>> in help
    >>> * Easy to use playback with very logical delete system (press
    >>> delete button twice)
    >>> * Highly configurable via custom functions (6 configurable hard
    >>> buttons / dials)
    >>> * Sophisticated interval timer feature
    >>> * Unique in-camera features: Overlay, Multiple exposures
    >>> * GPS data recording feature (requires optional cable, NMEA
    >>> compatible)
    >>> * Built-in AF assist lamp (white light)
    >>> * Probably the best battery information display in the business (%
    >>> charge, shots, aging)
    >>> * Optional wireless WiFi transmitter (802.11 b/g)
    >>> Conclusion - Cons (3)
    >>> * No timed mirror lock-up function (could be automatic with self-
    >>> timer)
    >>> * Non-articulating LCD (increases the usefulness of Live View
    >>> considerably)
    >>> * Average automatic white balance performance, still very poor
    >>> under incandescent light

    >> It's horses for courses stuff.
    >> For those contemplating a camera in the D300's price and
    >> purpose range It's a highly recommended choice. I agree with
    >> it too, incidentally.
    >>
    >> As for the Oly? The EP1 is in no way, shape or form a choice
    >> likely to be considered by someone shopping in the D300 market
    >> place. For someone who is looking for a highly portable camera
    >> that will pretty much fit in a shirt pocket whilst delivering
    >> good quality images... The EP1 is a highly recommended choice.
    >>
    >> In the 60's when I used Olympus cameras and their very
    >> excellent lenses, I used to look at the pens and wonder if
    >> they were likely to be useful to me. They weren't and I never
    >> owned one but there in lies the difference in cameras.
    >>
    >> I owned several OM1 cameras and a multitude of lenses for
    >> them. The Pen then - as it is now, was a travel camera and
    >> promoted as one - as it is now being promoted.
    >>
    >> How many people Rich, do you suppose would pack a D300, flash,
    >> grip and lenses for a weekend away at some beachside resort? I
    >> know... You would but that 's not the point. For a travel or
    >> happy snaps camera you probably couldn't go past an EP1.
    >>

    >
    > Not indoor snaps, apparently. Evidently, Panasonic wouldn't share
    > it's contrast detection technology with Olympus. The focus sucks,
    > like a P&S only (according to Dpreview) worse than the best of those.
    > That, coupled with a crappy low res LCD and no EVF that makes manual
    > focusing a major chore is enough to have killed any self-respecting
    > "highly recommended" recommendation.


    Yeah but it's a nice looking camera! :)

    --

    I'm coming back as a Pelican...
    Watch out because I'm staying the worlds biggest ass-hole!
    The pixel Bandit, Jul 30, 2009
    #5
  6. RichA

    Rich Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    On Jul 29, 11:05 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > RichA  <> wrote:
    > >Both cameras got "highly recommended."  Evidently, it's a highly
    > >flexible attribution.

    >
    > We'll be looking forward to your detailed review that justifies your
    > slander.
    >
    > --
    > Ray Fischer        


    IQ letting you down again? The problem wasn't the review, it was the
    scoring of the review relative to others. Try to keep up.
    Rich, Jul 30, 2009
    #6
  7. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    Rich <> wrote:
    >On Jul 29, 11:05 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >> RichA  <> wrote:
    >> >Both cameras got "highly recommended."  Evidently, it's a highly
    >> >flexible attribution.

    >>
    >> We'll be looking forward to your detailed review that justifies your
    >> slander.

    >
    >IQ letting you down again? The problem wasn't the review, it was the
    >scoring of the review relative to others.


    You don't have a problem with the review - It's the review that you
    don't like.

    Got it.

    You're an idiot.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Jul 30, 2009
    #7
  8. RichA

    Twibil Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    On Jul 29, 11:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >
    > >IQ letting you down again?  The problem wasn't the review, it was the
    > >scoring of the review relative to others.

    >
    > You don't have a problem with the review - It's the review that you
    > don't like.
    >
    > Got it.
    >
    > You're an idiot.


    Well, no, from a disinterested observer's point of view his point is
    perfectly valid, but *you* don't seem to understand it.

    Ya see, the review itself can be perfectly honest and fair (see
    "Olympus: pros 14, cons 10, above), but if the camera in question gets
    the same "highly recommended" rating as a camera which scored pros of
    30 and cons of 3 as the Nikon did, it renders the words "highly
    recommended" utterly meaningless unless there is no standard both are
    to be judged against. (In which case you could rate both a common
    brick and a Nikon D 700 as "highly recommended" on the grounds that
    both do a great job at what they're designed for...)

    The review itself doesn't bother him: it's the fact that Dpreview has
    devalued the meaning of a term that's supposed to be both helpful and
    descriptive.

    ~Pete
    Twibil, Jul 30, 2009
    #8
  9. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    Twibil <> wrote:
    > (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>
    >> >IQ letting you down again?  The problem wasn't the review, it was the
    >> >scoring of the review relative to others.

    >>
    >> You don't have a problem with the review - It's the review that you
    >> don't like.
    >>
    >> Got it.
    >>
    >> You're an idiot.

    >
    >Well, no, from a disinterested observer's point of view his point is
    >perfectly valid, but *you* don't seem to understand it.


    He doesn't like the review. He isn't smart enough to find anything
    wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Jul 30, 2009
    #9
  10. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:25:12 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
    <> wrote:
    >Ya see, the review itself can be perfectly honest and fair (see
    >"Olympus: pros 14, cons 10, above), but if the camera in question gets
    >the same "highly recommended" rating as a camera which scored pros of
    >30 and cons of 3 as the Nikon did, it renders the words "highly
    >recommended" utterly meaningless unless there is no standard both are
    >to be judged against. (In which case you could rate both a common
    >brick and a Nikon D 700 as "highly recommended" on the grounds that
    >both do a great job at what they're designed for...)



    Well, that's perfectly valid. The common brick and the Nikon D700
    address different markets, so the "Highly Recommended" refers to their
    suitability for thir respective markets.

    Likewise, the Nikon D300 and Olympus E-P1 address different markets.
    The D300 would not be "Highly Recommended" for the E-P1's target
    market, neither would the E-P1 be "Highly Recommended" for the D300's.

    DPReview has assessed each camera against the perceived requirements
    of its target market. Each is "Highly Recommended" for its target
    market, not foe each other's. End of story.

    In fact, there was never a story, just someone trying to make trouble.

    ..
    Bruce, Jul 30, 2009
    #10
  11. Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    ...."relative to others." What "others" are there? You can't compare the
    D300 to the EP-1. Compare the EP-1 to other like cameras.

    "Rich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Jul 29, 11:05 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    > RichA <> wrote:
    > >Both cameras got "highly recommended." Evidently, it's a highly
    > >flexible attribution.

    >
    > We'll be looking forward to your detailed review that justifies your
    > slander.
    >
    > --
    > Ray Fischer


    IQ letting you down again? The problem wasn't the review, it was the
    scoring of the review relative to others. Try to keep up.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Jul 30, 2009
    #11
  12. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    George Kerby <> wrote:
    > "Twibil"
    >> On Jul 29, 11:34 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> IQ letting you down again?  The problem wasn't the review, it was the
    >>>> scoring of the review relative to others.
    >>>
    >>> You don't have a problem with the review - It's the review that you
    >>> don't like.
    >>>
    >>> Got it.
    >>>
    >>> You're an idiot.

    >>
    >> Well, no, from a disinterested observer's point of view his point is
    >> perfectly valid, but *you* don't seem to understand it.
    >>

    >These isn't much out there that Fischer *does* understand.


    Obviously, you are unable to reply in a manner that would be considered
    reasonable to most folks: Just insults like a spoiled five year old. You
    just can't do any better. Sad.
    kerby in <C5BC8977.2207B%>

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Jul 30, 2009
    #12
  13. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    Pete Stavrakoglou <> wrote:
    >"Rich" <> wrote in message
    >On Jul 29, 11:05 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >Both cameras got "highly recommended." Evidently, it's a highly
    >> >flexible attribution.

    >>
    >> We'll be looking forward to your detailed review that justifies your
    >> slander.

    >
    >IQ letting you down again? The problem wasn't the review, it was the
    >scoring of the review relative to others. Try to keep up.


    The scoring s part of the review, dimwit.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Jul 30, 2009
    #13
  14. RichA

    Twibil Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    On Jul 30, 1:21 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >
    > >Well, no, from a disinterested observer's point of view his point is
    > >perfectly valid, but *you* don't seem to understand it.

    >
    > He doesn't like the review.  He isn't smart enough to find anything
    > wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion.


    Ah, got it.

    But how odd that you only seem able to read the minds of people you
    don't like, and that by your reports they always seem to be thinking
    things that make you look good in comparison. Must be one of those
    strange coincidence things.

    http://masonictao.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/imeter1.gif
    Twibil, Jul 30, 2009
    #14
  15. RichA

    Twibil Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    On Jul 30, 3:36 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >Ya see, the review itself can be perfectly honest and fair (see
    > >"Olympus: pros 14, cons 10, above), but if the camera in question gets
    > >the same "highly recommended" rating as a camera which scored pros of
    > >30 and cons of 3 as the Nikon did, it renders the words "highly
    > >recommended" utterly meaningless unless there is no standard both are
    > >to be judged against. (In which case you could rate both a common
    > >brick and a Nikon D 700 as "highly recommended" on the grounds that
    > >both do a great job at what they're designed for...)

    >
    > Well, that's perfectly valid.  The common brick and the Nikon D700
    > address different markets, so the "Highly Recommended" refers to their
    > suitability for thir respective markets.


    Only if you clearly -and repeatedly- state that that's the way you're
    scoring things. Otherwise a large percentage of your readers will
    assume that your "Highly Recommended" summary means that you think the
    two things are equal; period.

    Don't think so? I recommend you spend as much time dealing in print
    media as I have. You will soon discover that an IQ of 100 is a
    *median*, and that things must be made absolutely clear for the
    portion of your market that comprise the lower half of that bell
    curve.

    Even then you will get the occasional oddball who files a complaint
    with eBay because he won the old worn-out shovel you were auctioning
    off, but you failed to ship him the Corvette that it was leaning
    against in the auction photo.

    > In fact, there was never a story, just someone trying to make trouble.


    There was someone making a valid point. If you choose to dismiss it,
    that doesn't mean he was wrong.

    (And, BTW, "making trouble" is walking into a biker bar filled with
    inebriated Hell's Angels and yelling "**** HARLEY DAVIDSON!!".

    Calmly voicing an opinion on Usenet is not "causing trouble", even if
    you disagree with the OP's original point.)

    ~Pete



    ..
    Twibil, Jul 30, 2009
    #15
  16. RichA

    Steven Wandy Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    wrote:


    >
    >IQ letting you down again? The problem wasn't the review, it was the
    >scoring of the review relative to others. Try to keep up.


    If you actually read the review you would see that he (the reviewer)
    was not comparing the EP1 to the D300, which is certainly out of it's
    class. He was comparing it to other either advanced P&S cameras or
    intro level DSLRs, which is what it would be compared to. And in
    relation to THOSE CAMERAS the EP1 deserved (in my mind and that of the
    reviewer) the "Highly Recommended" rating. I don't seriously think he
    was comparing it with regards to every other camera that has received
    that rating previously.
    Steven Wandy, Jul 30, 2009
    #16
  17. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    Twibil <> wrote:
    > (Ray Fischer) wrote:


    >> >Well, no, from a disinterested observer's point of view his point is
    >> >perfectly valid, but *you* don't seem to understand it.

    >>
    >> He doesn't like the review.  He isn't smart enough to find anything
    >> wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion.

    >
    >Ah, got it.
    >
    >But how odd that you only seem able to read the minds of people you
    >don't like,


    How odd that you seem to think that I'm "reading minds" when everyone
    can see him complaining about the conclusion.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Jul 31, 2009
    #17
  18. RichA

    Twibil Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    On Jul 30, 11:03 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >
    > >> >Well, no, from a disinterested observer's point of view his point is
    > >> >perfectly valid, but *you* don't seem to understand it.

    >
    > >> He doesn't like the review.  He isn't smart enough to find anything
    > >> wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion.

    >
    > >Ah, got it.

    >
    > >But how odd that you only seem able to read the minds of people you
    > >don't like,

    >
    > How odd that you seem to think that I'm "reading minds" when everyone
    > can see him complaining about the conclusion.


    Oh, not odd at all. Follow the bouncing ball...

    Firstly, you made a statement: "He isn't smart enough to find anything
    wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion." Now that could be
    either (A) mind-reading on your part or (B) a simple flame based on
    your fondest wishes and desires, but one having little or nothing to
    do with objective reality.

    Since (B) would obviously be nothing but a baseless insult; the sort
    that make the insulter look worse than his intended insultee -and I'm
    certain that you wouldn't want your readers to think you were being
    unfair- one can only assume that you're reading Rich's mind.

    However, your latest post *would* tend to make us think that you're
    indeed prone to posting things that are based on your masturbatory
    fantasies rather than a review of the facts, as you said, "everyone
    can see him complaining about the conclusion", when in fact a ten-
    second review of the posts in this thread demonstrates clearly that
    everyone sees no such thing, and that more than one of the posters
    seems to feel more than a little hostility towards you.

    I've got no dog in this fight and don't know either you or RichA from
    Adam, but if you're going to insist we play "pin the tail on the
    troll" I suggest you not sit down until you've explored your nether
    regions for small puncture wounds.

    ~Pete
    Twibil, Jul 31, 2009
    #18
  19. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    Twibil <> wrote:
    >On Jul 30, 11:03 pm, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>
    >> >> >Well, no, from a disinterested observer's point of view his point is
    >> >> >perfectly valid, but *you* don't seem to understand it.

    >>
    >> >> He doesn't like the review.  He isn't smart enough to find anything
    >> >> wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion.

    >>
    >> >Ah, got it.

    >>
    >> >But how odd that you only seem able to read the minds of people you
    >> >don't like,

    >>
    >> How odd that you seem to think that I'm "reading minds" when everyone
    >> can see him complaining about the conclusion.

    >
    >Oh, not odd at all. Follow the bouncing ball...


    Is this where you profess the ability to read minds?

    >Firstly, you made a statement: "He isn't smart enough to find anything
    >wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion." Now that could be
    >either (A) mind-reading on your part or (B) a simple flame based on
    >your fondest wishes and desires, but one having little or nothing to
    >do with objective reality.


    It's a reasonably objective opinion based upon observing his past behavior.

    But you weren't _quite_ smart enough to consider that possibility.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Jul 31, 2009
    #19
  20. RichA

    Twibil Guest

    Re: Rich's reviews "Highly Questionable" is highly questionable

    On Jul 31, 10:01 am, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >
    > >> How odd that you seem to think that I'm "reading minds" when everyone
    > >> can see him complaining about the conclusion.

    >
    > >Oh, not odd at all. Follow the bouncing ball...

    >
    > Is this where you profess the ability to read minds?


    Er, no, it's where I employ a thing called "logic". See below. \I/

    > >Firstly, you made a statement: "He isn't smart enough to find anything
    > >wrong with it so he whines about the conclusion." Now that could be
    > >either (A) mind-reading on your part or (B) a simple flame based on
    > >your fondest wishes and desires, but one having little or nothing to
    > >do with objective reality.

    >
    > It's a reasonably objective opinion based upon observing his past behavior.


    Free hint: We don't usually go to someone's enemies when we want to
    get an objective opinion. Neither do we go to his best friends. We go
    to someone who's going to be objective.

    And that's not you.

    > But you weren't _quite_ smart enough to consider that possibility.


    The problem with relying on good old Usenet cliche' #3 ("You're
    stupid") is that it's just another masturbatory fantasy -unless
    perchance it's based on fact.

    Alas for you, the fact is that the last time they ran me through the
    Stanford-Binet test series I scored 168, and I retired after many
    years of teaching at the University of California. (Riverside)

    And you? (He politely asked)

    ~Pete
    Twibil, Jul 31, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    65
    Views:
    1,593
    TonyAtRest
    Feb 25, 2004
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    422
    Dyuob Poltice
    Feb 6, 2004
  3. Waterperson77

    Re: Lost In Translation: Highly Recommended!

    Waterperson77, Feb 23, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    374
    Justin
    Feb 23, 2004
  4. Saref Aref

    Highly Recommended

    Saref Aref, May 21, 2004, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    333
    Lloyd Jones
    May 22, 2004
  5. Replies:
    19
    Views:
    485
    Dave Martindale
    Aug 7, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page