Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

not so glowing review of the Epson 4800 printer

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 9:51:02 PM

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

Printers using the new Epson K3 inks have been getting mostly rave
reviews but here's another point of view, from someone who traded in a
4000 to upgrade to the 4800 ...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/4800...

Here is a quote from his summary:
"In the final analysis I have to say that the 4800 is a disappointment.
Much was promised and only a modest improvement was delivered, and with
it, some nasty flaws."
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 4:53:35 AM

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

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120265462.135419.139520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Printers using the new Epson K3 inks have been getting mostly rave
> reviews but here's another point of view, from someone who traded in a
> 4000 to upgrade to the 4800 ...
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/4800...
>
> Here is a quote from his summary:
> "In the final analysis I have to say that the 4800 is a disappointment.
> Much was promised and only a modest improvement was delivered, and with
> it, some nasty flaws."

Thanks, Bill.
I've now lost my upgrade itch, and will remain a happy 4000 user.
:) 
BTW--I just printed a huge panorama I shot in Alaska on my 4000.
What a stunner!
Black&White printing does present a challenge, though, in terms of neutral
tones.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 6:37:14 AM

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

In article <1120265462.135419.139520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

> Printers using the new Epson K3 inks have been getting mostly rave
> reviews but here's another point of view, from someone who traded in a
> 4000 to upgrade to the 4800 ...
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/4800...
>
> Here is a quote from his summary:
> "In the final analysis I have to say that the 4800 is a disappointment.
> Much was promised and only a modest improvement was delivered, and with
> it, some nasty flaws."

Nice to see they are willing to present both sides of the printer, pro
and con.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Related resources
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 8:52:44 AM

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

On 7/1/05 7:51 PM, in article
1120265462.135419.139520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com, "Bill Hilton"
<bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

> Printers using the new Epson K3 inks have been getting mostly rave
> reviews but here's another point of view, from someone who traded in a
> 4000 to upgrade to the 4800 ...
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/4800...
>
> Here is a quote from his summary:
> "In the final analysis I have to say that the 4800 is a disappointment.
> Much was promised and only a modest improvement was delivered, and with
> it, some nasty flaws."
>
It is good to read an honest review! I will say that his criticism of the
Epson printer driver is a bit unfair as the drivers for other makes of
printers, in my experience, act in the same way. He just misses having his
RIP! I have actually seen a 4800 demo and can attest to the fact that it
produces stunning prints.
Chuck W
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 11:56:48 AM

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

>Mark Morgan wrote ...
>
>Thanks, Bill.
>I've now lost my upgrade itch, and will remain a happy 4000
>user. :) 

Yeah, I'm in the same boat as you, a jealous 4000 user ... after seeing
the gamut print he did I don't think it's as big a deal to keep the
4000 though. One thing I didn't understand, he says you still waste a
lot of ink changing from matte to photo black but I thought I read that
only the black got purged, so it was a $10 swap instead of a $75 swap?
Maybe this is a PC vs Mac driver problem.

>Black&White printing does present a challenge (with the 4000), though, in
>terms of neutral tones.

I thought you had a RIP that supposedly fixes these issues?

Bill
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 2:37:08 PM

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

Bill Hilton wrote:
>
> One thing I didn't understand, he says you still waste a
> lot of ink changing from matte to photo black but I thought I read that
> only the black got purged, so it was a $10 swap instead of a $75 swap?
> Maybe this is a PC vs Mac driver problem.

The issue has nothing to do with the driver, or whether one is using a
Mac or Windows box.

It's true that only the black ink gets purged - and that's what the
"black ink conversion kit" is for that's included with the 4800.

But as part of the conversion, the 4800 charges the 4 inks (including
black), and wastes the other 3 colors in the process.

Enjoy!

-- Jim
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 2:44:24 PM

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

> Jim writes ...
>
>It's true that only the black ink gets purged ... But as part of the
>conversion, the 4800 charges the 4 inks (including
>black), and wastes the other 3 colors in the process.

Ah, now I understand, for some reason the marketing brochure glossed
over this tiny detail :)  My 4000 is looking better and better since I
switch between fine art and glossy papers often.

Bill
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:23:34 PM

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

In article <BEEB87CA.2E060%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com>,
C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:
> >
> It is good to read an honest review! I will say that his criticism of the
> Epson printer driver is a bit unfair as the drivers for other makes of
> printers, in my experience, act in the same way. He just misses having his
> RIP! I have actually seen a 4800 demo and can attest to the fact that it
> produces stunning prints.
> Chuck W

I agree with his complaint, I run on a Mac system as doe he,
he did state the windows drivers are somewhat better, did he not?
I've noted the same issues on my 1280 driver current to OSX, to have
those kind of issues on a 3K printer is a certain downside for not
buying the printer.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 7:08:59 PM

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

Bill Hilton wrote:

>>Mark Morgan wrote ...
>>
>>Thanks, Bill.
>>I've now lost my upgrade itch, and will remain a happy 4000
>>user. :) 
>
>
> Yeah, I'm in the same boat as you, a jealous 4000 user ... after seeing
> the gamut print he did I don't think it's as big a deal to keep the
> 4000 though. One thing I didn't understand, he says you still waste a
> lot of ink changing from matte to photo black but I thought I read that
> only the black got purged, so it was a $10 swap instead of a $75 swap?
> Maybe this is a PC vs Mac driver problem.
>
>
>>Black&White printing does present a challenge (with the 4000), though, in
>>terms of neutral tones.
>
>
> I thought you had a RIP that supposedly fixes these issues?
>
> Bill

Hi...

Dunno if it supports the model in question, but...

http://www.ssclg.com/epsone.shtml

Take care.

Ken
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 8:10:06 PM

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

On 7/2/05 6:23 AM, in article
bugstopped_-C67DE8.07330202072005@news.verizon.net, "Gregory Blank"
<bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:

> In article <BEEB87CA.2E060%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com>,
> C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>> It is good to read an honest review! I will say that his criticism of the
>> Epson printer driver is a bit unfair as the drivers for other makes of
>> printers, in my experience, act in the same way. He just misses having his
>> RIP! I have actually seen a 4800 demo and can attest to the fact that it
>> produces stunning prints.
>> Chuck W
>
> I agree with his complaint, I run on a Mac system as doe he,
> he did state the windows drivers are somewhat better, did he not?
> I've noted the same issues on my 1280 driver current to OSX, to have
> those kind of issues on a 3K printer is a certain downside for not
> buying the printer.

To clarify - I also run on a Mac system and I basically agree with his
printer driver complaints. The reason that I thought that his criticism was
a bit unfair is that he singled out the Epson driver for criticism. In my
experience one must go through the same hassles with _all_ printer drivers,
at least on the Mac. For example, for each new image printed I have to
re-select 'no color management' in the printer driver even though everything
that I print from PS is with 'no color management.' This is true for Canon
printer drivers (and I believe HP drivers) as well as Epson.
Chuck W.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:08:18 PM

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

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 16:10:06 GMT, C Wright wrote:

> To clarify - I also run on a Mac system and I basically agree with his
> printer driver complaints. The reason that I thought that his criticism was
> a bit unfair is that he singled out the Epson driver for criticism. In my
> experience one must go through the same hassles with _all_ printer drivers,
> at least on the Mac. For example, for each new image printed I have to
> re-select 'no color management' in the printer driver even though everything
> that I print from PS is with 'no color management.' This is true for Canon
> printer drivers (and I believe HP drivers) as well as Epson.
> Chuck W.

While he does have some valid complaints, I've noticed that his
reviews have more unfair complaints than those written by any other
reviewer I've yet seen. At least he seems more knowledgeable about
printers than cameras, but his objectivity seems to be lacking.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 9:08:19 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:msvdc1lsh6qmktao316i2cs06bsmrcdcf1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 16:10:06 GMT, C Wright wrote:
>
>> To clarify - I also run on a Mac system and I basically agree with his
>> printer driver complaints. The reason that I thought that his criticism
>> was
>> a bit unfair is that he singled out the Epson driver for criticism. In
>> my
>> experience one must go through the same hassles with _all_ printer
>> drivers,
>> at least on the Mac. For example, for each new image printed I have to
>> re-select 'no color management' in the printer driver even though
>> everything
>> that I print from PS is with 'no color management.' This is true for
>> Canon
>> printer drivers (and I believe HP drivers) as well as Epson.
>> Chuck W.
>
> While he does have some valid complaints, I've noticed that his
> reviews have more unfair complaints than those written by any other
> reviewer I've yet seen. At least he seems more knowledgeable about
> printers than cameras, but his objectivity seems to be lacking.

Unfair?
Please indicate what portion, and how it is unfair.
I note that he qualifies his own statements with acknowledgement of areas he
might be unfamiliar with.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 1:00:51 AM

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

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:32:15 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>> While he does have some valid complaints, I've noticed that his
>> reviews have more unfair complaints than those written by any other
>> reviewer I've yet seen. At least he seems more knowledgeable about
>> printers than cameras, but his objectivity seems to be lacking.
>
> Unfair?
> Please indicate what portion, and how it is unfair.
> I note that he qualifies his own statements with acknowledgement of areas he
> might be unfamiliar with.

Look at his review of the Olympus C-8080. The unfairness should
be overwhelmingly obvious. If you have any difficulty detecting it,
I'll be happy to point several of the review's faults, but I have
confidence that even his fans would be embarrassed by that
particular review.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 1:48:58 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:0ndec1l7bltvq1t255kh3svs6hinghd4q1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:32:15 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>> While he does have some valid complaints, I've noticed that his
>>> reviews have more unfair complaints than those written by any other
>>> reviewer I've yet seen. At least he seems more knowledgeable about
>>> printers than cameras, but his objectivity seems to be lacking.
>>
>> Unfair?
>> Please indicate what portion, and how it is unfair.
>> I note that he qualifies his own statements with acknowledgement of areas
>> he
>> might be unfamiliar with.
>
> Look at his review of the Olympus C-8080. The unfairness should
> be overwhelmingly obvious. If you have any difficulty detecting it,
> I'll be happy to point several of the review's faults, but I have
> confidence that even his fans would be embarrassed by that
> particular review.

Weren't we talking about the Epson 4800?

I'll look at that review you refer to...
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 1:58:18 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:0ndec1l7bltvq1t255kh3svs6hinghd4q1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:32:15 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>> While he does have some valid complaints, I've noticed that his
>>> reviews have more unfair complaints than those written by any other
>>> reviewer I've yet seen. At least he seems more knowledgeable about
>>> printers than cameras, but his objectivity seems to be lacking.
>>
>> Unfair?
>> Please indicate what portion, and how it is unfair.
>> I note that he qualifies his own statements with acknowledgement of areas
>> he
>> might be unfamiliar with.
>
> Look at his review of the Olympus C-8080. The unfairness should
> be overwhelmingly obvious. If you have any difficulty detecting it,
> I'll be happy to point several of the review's faults, but I have
> confidence that even his fans would be embarrassed by that
> particular review.

I read the review of the C-8080 after reading your post.
What I found was a lot of positive comments...and a lot of negative
comments.
All negative comments included the reasons WHY he was of that
opinion--especially regarding ergonomics.

Personally, this is the very type of review I find MOST helpful!!
If anything, reviewers tend to be FAR too positive--perhaps for fear of
being cut off by companies in terms of getting their hands on pre-production
units, etc.

What I appreciate most about his site is that he explains his opinions
completely...good, bad, or indifferent.

What would you prefer?
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 5:14:54 AM

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

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 21:48:58 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> Weren't we talking about the Epson 4800?

Yes, but we also were talking about unfair reviews, and I did say
(which you quoted) "At least he seems more knowledgeable about
printers than cameras". If I had never seen any review of his but
the one for the 4800, I'm sure I wouldn't have had any complaint,
even though there are some things about his reviewing style that
could be improved.
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 6:33:05 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:7m1gc15cmc8too3b62ill6u96mn8dhj9sn@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 03:47:35 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> Maybe because the printed manual is clearly identified as only
> containing "Basic" information? The single sheet "Quickstart
> Guides", printed in several languages, and in LARGE type clearly
> mentions that the reference manual is a PDF file on the CD, and the
> small printed manual only contains basic information. MR has got to
> be the most incompetent reviewer of all time. Surely you've got to
> admit this. :) 

So this camera doesn't come with a manual...save for the CD version?
That's quite unusual. Those newbies you refer to are sure to wish they had
a manual.
WHen people are noe to this stuff, I would think they might prefer to be
able to take a small (but complete) manual with them on the road/trip/etc.

>> >and the audio recording information
>> >> is to be found on Page 100 of the PDF manual, but also not in the
>> >> printed manual. What can I say?
>> >
>> > What he could say is "I apologize for my failure to RTFM".
>>
>> Oh come ON!!
>> It was AMAZINGLY left out fo the printed manual!
>> The person who wrote the manual should be fired.
>> -A truly amazing oversight by the manufacturer.
>
> It was left out of the small BASIC manual, where it clearly
> doesn't belong. Your repeated use of "the printed manual" implies
> that it was the full manual, and should have contained all possible
> information. Get over this. In most cases it's not done this way
> any more.

Yes it is. In the case of Canon and Sony, their cameras come with a small
"book" which is the manual. I can assur you that it contains ALL important
info. I know this because I recently helped two family members with thei
cameras, and they referred to the very complete manuals that came with their
camera. The PDF thing is a cost-saving measure, and for many people who
don't have a knack for gadgetry, this can be a problem.

>Computer programs used to come with manuals several
> inches thick. Now they're almost always provided on PDF files.
> Unlike older film cameras, most digital cameras are assumed to be
> owned and used by people that also own computers. So PDF or other
> electronic manuals are to be expected now and into the foreseeable
> future.

By Olympus.
Not by Canon or Sony.

>Simpler cameras might be able to squeeze most of the
> necessary information into a small manual, but the more complex
> cameras really do need to use PDF files, or the manuals will be
> prohibitively large and add unnecessary cost.

See above.

>> >He may
>> > know how to take fine pictures with his camera of choice. He may
>> > also know a considerable amount about making fine prints and using
>> > Epson printers. But when it comes to reviewing, he's a real dolt.
>>
>> I disagree.
>> This was a point-and-shoot camera inteded for less-than-expert folks.
>> Give this fact, one SHOULD be able to assume that basic features that
>> exist
>> would be included in a printed manual.
>> The fact that they weren't it simply astonishing.
>
> What's astonishing is that you think that live histograms are a
> basic feature that would be important to "less-than-expert folks".
> I'd suggest that even in this ng, there are a good number of folk
> that don't use, and aren't very familiar with histograms.
>
> It seems to me that you're going out of your way to defend MR in a
> manner similar the way he was overly enthusiastic about Sony's F828.
> You don't have any ties to MR or to the L-L website that hasn't yet
> been disclosed, do you? :) 

Ya, he's my uncle.

> [I have no reason to suspect that you do, other than your unusually
> dedicated defense of MR's reviews.]

You seem to have an axe to grind here. Are you a C-8080 owner who feels his
camera is being run down?

>> He's opinionated and colorful.
>> I'll take that over the bland...useless advertisements that constitute
>> most
>> review sources.
>
> Saddam Hussein was opinionated and colorful.

Oh brother.
You just made the dreaded jump to "Nazi and Saddam" that people often resort
to when making rash, ridiculous comparisons.

>George Bush is
> opinionated and colorful. On these grounds alone, I'll let you go
> for the gusto and I'll seek out the blander stuff. I disagree
> completely if you're implying that the few ads scattered about the
> review pages of dpreview, Steve's, dcresource and others weakens or
> invalidates their reviews.

I find dpreview very helpful. Steve never wrote a nagative review in his
life (or so it seems). Steve is basically a cheerleader, and not helpful
for anything other than specifications, in my opinion.

>On the other hand, there are many
> so-called review websites that function as little more than
> distribution points for manufacturer's brochures and announcements.
> I don't waste my time with them and I doubt that you do either.
>
>
>> > Now we come to a part of the review that's really bizarre. He
>> > states:
>> >
>> >> The Olympus C-8080 perfomed very well on the DxO Analyzer.
>> >> Results are found here. In virtually every measure the Olympus
>> >> C-8080 measures better than the Sony F828, though the Minolta
>> >> is the champ when it comes to resolving power.
>> >
>> > What??? In every review I have come across, the Minolta was
>> > criticized for having an old, inferior lens design. The C-8080's
>> > lens invariably received top honors, but the Minolta was found be
>> > every other reveiewer to be at the bottom of the field with respect
>> > to resolving power. Askey's dpreview concludes with this:
>> >
>> >> It's interesting that the cameras from Nikon and Canon both delivered
>> >> an average performance and the Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom comes
>> >> through strong with low noise, good white balance, good image
>> >> processing
>> >> and a quality lens which exhibits virtually no problems. The Sony
>> >> DSC-F828
>> >> and Konica Minolta DiMAGE A2 performed the least well, although the
>> >> DSC-F828 delivered good results in most of the tests its strong purple
>> >> fringing
>> >> issue can't be ignored. The DiMAGE A2's 7x zoom lens is showing its
>> >> age
>> >> and really can't deliver consistently high resolution to this tiny
>> >> eight
>> >> megapixel sensor.
>>
>> So there you have it.
>> You've got persective from both sides, and you can now use your brain to
>> determine a balanced view.
>
> I did, and it was trivially easy to see which reviews were
> worthwhile and which was so in error as to appear not to be the
> result of a mistake or poor testing, but of intentional deception.
> And yet you continue to value MR's reviews? That's bizarre.

I don't know that this C-8080 review is indicative of MR as a whole.
I do see some of your beef, and I've acknowledged that there were some
oddities. You seem to be using this review as your basis for ignoring
anything else MR does. I would definitely not go along with that. He is an
avid user of this stuff--especially professional-level gear, which I find
extremely useful. Perhaps part of what we have here is an example of
reactions by a person who expects professional level performance...yet who
is reviewing a point-and-shoot aimed at the novice.

>> > This is the Minolta lens that Michael Reichmann praised so highly?
>> > For a finishing touch, dpreview's conclusion includes in the list of
>> > "pros", that the C-8080 has "Excellent battery life, best of group".
>> >
>> > MR stated:
>> >
>> >> Though I didn't run a full test, battery life appears to be
>> >> significantly
>> >> lower than the Sony F828. With that camera I regularly get 200-250
>> >> exposures on a battery, depending on the ambient temperature, but
>> >> with the Olympus I saw about 100 frames before the battery was
>> >> depleted.
>> >> This shortfall is likely due in part to the use of an electric rather
>> >> than a
>> >> manual zoom.
>> >
>> > Dpreview, on the other hand, did more thorough battery tests,
>> > using standard procedures that made for fair, uniform comparisons:
>> >
>> >> We ran the camera through our new battery life test. This test is
>> >> designed
>> >> to be fair and comparative to each camera and battery type:
>> >> Take 4 shots without flash
>> >> Wait 2 minutes (50% of the time powering the camera off)
>> >> Take 1 shot with flash
>> >> Wait 1 minute
>> >> Repeat
>> >
>> > With this procedure the C-8080 produced the *best* results.
>>
>> Did you notice that dpreview doesn't do any focusing in their battery
>> tests????????????????
>
> Do you think the cameras were never focused, or that it wasn't
> mentioned? In any case, since MR supposed that differences in
> focusing methods might have been responsible for the difference
> between the two cameras, he should have tested that hypothesis.

He clearly mentioned it as a suspicion...not a fact. That's called a
qualifier, and it gives the reader a cue.

>It
> wouldn't take much effort to do so, and then he could state with
> certainty what he only insinuated. I highly doubt that focusing
> consumes that much power.

Any time little bitty batteries have to physically move parts via motors,
it's a big consumer of energy.

>It would have to use more than 1/2 of all
> the power used by the camera. My opinion is that the only way he
> could have gotten such wildly different results is if he setup the
> Olympus to auto-focus, and a constantly focusing camera will indeed
> use lots of battery power. But if that was done, a definitive test
> would have disclosed that, forcing another test with auto-focus
> being disabled. But then that would have left MR with one less
> complaint to penalize the C-8080 with.

Some reviewers focus on tedious tests involving things like battery capacity
test, and other robotic exercises.
MR tends to give descriptions of his USE of the equipment. There really is
a need for this. It goes along well with other styles. Lets face it.
Nobody really SHOOTS in the manner that dpreview uses to test battery
capacity. I agree that dpreview's battery test rutine is more objective and
"clinical." I just think there's a place for real-world commentary.

>> > C-8080 5 hours, 52 minutes 595 images
>> > Sony F828 5 hours, 28 minutes 540 images
>> > Koninca Minolta A2 4 hours, 26 minutes 450 images
>> > Nikon CP8800 3 hours, 27 minutes 350 images
>> > Canon PS Pro1 2 hours, 36 minutes 265 images
>> >
>> > There may be a very good explanation for why MR got 2 to 2 1/2
>> > times better battery performance with the Sony than with the
>> > Olympus, but I highly doubt that the main factor was the Sony's use
>> > of a manual rather than an electric zoom.
>>
>> Why not? Zooming motors consume relatively huge amounts of power!
>> Surely you must recognise this.
>
> And then the reviewer has the responsibility to state how often
> and in what manner the lenses are zoomed. CIPA tests, which are
> becoming more and more common do this, and it makes it more
> difficult for less than totally honest reviewers to fudge the
> results, getting what they want to show.

Again, the problem is that you're looking for laboratory test-type data from
a reviewer who is in the business of "commentary" based on his actual USE of
equipment. This is tke key difference. I liken it to automobile reviews:
Some reviews simply list all the results of various speed/acceleration
tests, etc. and then compare them side by side.
BUT...some auto reviews actually describe what it was like for the reviewer
to actually live with and use daily of an automobile. These two types of
"reviews" take very different forms, and they INFORM in a very different
way. While I am definitely interested in the cold, hard laboratory (or
track) tests...I am very keenly interested in impressions of those who have
lived with, and used the stuff day-to-day. This is where MR comes in.
You're right in that he doesn't do the kind of clinical testing some sites
do (which you clearly prefer). But he does serve a purpose that those site
usually don't...that of impressions of real life use.

>> >> My first impression of the C-8080 Wide Zoom was, "at last a prosumer
>> >> camera that feels as though it is worth its price tag".
>>
>> Ha ha.
>> That reminds me, again, of dpreview's glowing initial review of the Sigma
>> beast.
>
> You find much fault with dpreview, but I don't see that it amounts
> to even a fraction of 1% of their conclusions. MR's "bogosity rate"
> seems to be much more than an order of magnitude higher. Do you
> object to *any* of his conclusions?

To the contrary...I refer to dpreview constantly, and find it very useful.
All I'm saying above is that dpreview has pulled some real boners, and are
certainly far from flawless (as is also the case with MR).

>> >>The C-8080 is built
>> >> to a higher standard than any of the other eight megapixel digital
>> >> cameras
>> >> (save maybe the Sony DSC-F828), with a thick, high grade metal body
>> >> simple rubber coating and innovative yet unfussy control layout. This
>> >> is
>> >> a
>> >> camera which feels as well put together as a much more expensive
>> >> digital
>> >> SLR, you just know it's going to last.
>>
>> Why aren't you crying murder that they made these statements about build
>> quality when they did no tests of this?
>> -Remember how you berated MR for this when he made statements about
>> robustness questions without tests...yet here you ignore the lack of
>> tests...so long as dpreview's comments are positive. :)  GOTCHA! :) 
>
> Because the reviews all have track records that indicate that they
> don't repeatedly engage in the kind of deception easily noticed in
> MR's review.

I really think your making an unfair leap to say that MR is deliberately
deceiving.

>You only have to walk into a camera store and pick up
> various cameras to determine for yourself how robust the camera
> feels. Tests of this sort can be difficult to perform (that's one
> of the things Consumer Report does better than most, but I'm not
> aware that they test cameras this way).

Then why did you cry foul that MR didn't TEST before voicing conern over
ruggedness?
You keep talking out of both sides on this.

>I wouldn't really have
> objected if MR simply said that the Sony appears to be unusually
> rugged. But to say that he "fears for its long term durability"
> when everyone else that has examined the C-8080 thinks that it is
> one of the most rugged cameras available requires a bit more than a
> hunch.

Oh good grief!
He stated he "fears for it." He didn't state it as a fact.

>> > If you feel that MR writes fair, unbiased, accurate reviews, so be
>> > it. To me it appears that he uses his reviews as soapboxes,
>> > allowing him to vent about his pet peeves.
>>
>> I'm sure that sometimes that is true. I think the difference between you
>> and me is that I appreciate hearing people's personal experiences with
>> equipment...INCLUDING those aspects which may be a little more
>> particular to the individual. I feel this way because it is from THESE
>> types
>> of reviews that I can conclude 2 things: 1) Whether I care about the
>> issues
>> the reviewer cares about, and 2) Whether their circumstances are similar
>> enough to mine to warrant similar concern. Unless a person is incapable
>> of
>> making these connections, then I see no reason why MR's review style
>> wouldn't remain very useful indeed.
>
> It wouldn't be useful if he was deceptive. If you wanted a rugged
> camera that stands a good chance of surviving lots of use and hard
> knocks, you'd likely rule out the C-8080, when it might well be more
> indestructible than the heavier, bulkier Sony.

Those interested in teh 8080 will then have other reviews to balance this
one against.

> You might also rule out the C-8080 after seeing that MR claims it
> only gets 1 hour of life from its battery. Clearly, he is using the
> cameras differently than other reviewers, if not most people. But
> he doesn't include that information.

You feel he should be compelled to compare his reviews to the reviews of
other groups?
No group or site does this.

>He requires too much faith.
> I'd rather know why other reviewers get more than 5 times the
> battery life that he gets. They state how their tests were
> performed and provide real data. MR provides anecdotal evidence
> that may or may not be duplicable. But it's also possible that the
> only way he got those results was to use the cameras in a studio
> setting only appropriate for the way pros might use DSLRs, and not
> at all typical for the uses that most people would use P&S cameras.
> But he provided NO details on how his tests were performed in this
> review. And as I've shown, though evidently not to your
> satisfaction, the many flaws evident in his review does not earn him
> the benefit of the doubt about any of his statements. If ever there
> was a poster boy for "He who has an axe to grind" it would be MR.
>
>
>> His personal opinion "MAY" also be incredibly applicable to others...as
>> they
>> have been to me quite a few times. Much of my decision to purchase my
>> Epson
>> 4000 Pro printer was based on MR's quirky style...and I must say that
>> I've
>> been incredibly pleased with my decision. Thanks MR! :) 
>
> As I've already said, his printer review, while not perfect, was a
> model of objectivity in comparison to his camera review.
>
>
>> >And much less harping on all of the
>> > buttons that are either too difficult to press or too easy to press
>> > when wearing gloves.
>>
>> I wear gloves when shooting wildlife.
>> I really do believe a few other folk in the world wear gloves too.
>> :) 
>
> You. Michael Jackson. And a few other assorted wildlife. :) 
>
> BTW, haven't you ever seen non-traditional gloves that have the
> fingertip areas removed? Consider them if new models of your
> cameras ever switch to the use of tiny buttons.

Yes I have.
In Northern Alaska, you would soon lose the tips of your fingers if you used
them.
(No joke)
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 8:37:18 PM

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

> Mark M writes ...
>
> Weren't we talking about the Epson 4800?

Sounds like ASAAR is in a snit because Reichmann gave his camera a bad
review, so now he doesn't trust anything Reichmann says :) 
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 11:33:27 PM

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

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 14:33:05 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> So this camera doesn't come with a manual...save for the CD version?
> That's quite unusual. Those newbies you refer to are sure to wish they had
> a manual.
> WHen people are noe to this stuff, I would think they might prefer to be
> able to take a small (but complete) manual with them on the road/trip/etc.

I agree. I'd much prefer that full manuals were always included,
but that's the way these things go, and there's little we can do
about it. That makes much of a difference, that is.


> >Computer programs used to come with manuals several
> > inches thick. Now they're almost always provided on PDF files.
> > Unlike older film cameras, most digital cameras are assumed to be
> > owned and used by people that also own computers. So PDF or other
> > electronic manuals are to be expected now and into the foreseeable
> > future.
>
> By Olympus.
> Not by Canon or Sony.

Good for them. There are other companies that also print full
manuals. But that will change, and it's the kind of change that
once made won't revert back. But we're getting away from the
original issue which was MR protesting loudly that it wasn't his
fault that he wasn't aware of a couple of features not mentioned in
the Basic Manual. It would be very unusual for a reviewer to miss
the bold signs pointing to the complete PDF reference. But assuming
that he did miss it, thinking that the Basic Manual was all that was
provided, why didn't he make that a big issue. A camera that
provides insufficient information to operate it properly. The Basic
Manual barely touches on more than a small number of the topics that
should be included in any decent full manual. He blew it. He
missed far more than the instructions on how to use histograms and
record sound. This appears to have been part of a hastily put
together comparative review of the kind that breaks rather than
makes reputations.


> > Simpler cameras might be able to squeeze most of the
> > necessary information into a small manual, but the more complex
> > cameras really do need to use PDF files, or the manuals will be
> > prohibitively large and add unnecessary cost.
>
> See above.

I did, and prefer both. By searching PDF files I've found bits of
information in Sony's manuals that escaped those the merely read the
full printed version. For comfort and reading pleasure, printed
manuals are better. But for utility, PDF manuals are best.


> > It seems to me that you're going out of your way to defend MR in a
> > manner similar the way he was overly enthusiastic about Sony's F828.
> > You don't have any ties to MR or to the L-L website that hasn't yet
> > been disclosed, do you? :) 
>
> Ya, he's my uncle.

Gotcha! It's not that easy these days getting people to cry
"uncle". :) 


> > [I have no reason to suspect that you do, other than your unusually
> > dedicated defense of MR's reviews.]
>
> You seem to have an axe to grind here. Are you a C-8080 owner who feels his
> camera is being run down?

Not at all. I followed a link into the L-L website, read an
interesting article on making better use of light in photographs,
and thought it worth my time reading more of what was available.
The C-8080 article stood out as a less than professionally done
piece whose author *really* had an axe to grind. I would have been
just as critical if it had been as unfairly written about any other
make or model, whether Sony, Canon, Kodak, Casio, Leica, Minolta,
Nikon, Panasonic, Samsung, HP, Ricoh, or any other brand, even
Sigma.


>> Saddam Hussein was opinionated and colorful.

> Oh brother.
> You just made the dreaded jump to "Nazi and Saddam" that people
> often resort to when making rash, ridiculous comparisons.

Not at all. The law that frequently gets invoked applies only to
Nazism, which I didn't mention. You brought that in. You also left
out the reference to the equally colorful Bush boy. And no
ridiculous comparisons were made. Just the point that being
opinionated and colorful isn't necessarily a good thing. There are
good guys as well as bad guys that are opinionated and colorful. I
see MR as one on the bad side of the ledger, and he could be a swell
guy, talented enough to sing and dance and entertain all who see
him. But it wouldn't be enough to salvage his reputation as an
abysmal writer of camera reviews.


> I find dpreview very helpful. Steve never wrote a nagative review in his
> life (or so it seems). Steve is basically a cheerleader, and not helpful
> for anything other than specifications, in my opinion.

I find Steve's specifications woefully deficient. Often basic
details are missing for no apparent reason. For instance,
sometimes the minimum lens apertures will be listed, sometimes not.
His test photos are useful, but some could be improved by taking
them from the same position, under the same lighting conditions,
etc.


> I don't know that this C-8080 review is indicative of MR as a whole.
> I do see some of your beef, and I've acknowledged that there were some
> oddities. You seem to be using this review as your basis for ignoring
> anything else MR does. I would definitely not go along with that. He is an
> avid user of this stuff--especially professional-level gear, which I find
> extremely useful. Perhaps part of what we have here is an example of
> reactions by a person who expects professional level performance...yet who
> is reviewing a point-and-shoot aimed at the novice.

That's not accurate. I haven't read most of his reviews, but of
the few I've seen, did say that the Epson printer review, while
slightly flawed was much better. I don't think that your
explanation of MR's bias is accurate either. After all, he did see
quite enthusiastic about Sony's P&S F828, which is aimed at the same
audience the C-8080 is pointed towards. But you're probably right
that his harshness might have been colored by the fact that he's
dealing with lowly P&S cameras.


> > And then the reviewer has the responsibility to state how often
> > and in what manner the lenses are zoomed. CIPA tests, which are
> > becoming more and more common do this, and it makes it more
> > difficult for less than totally honest reviewers to fudge the
> > results, getting what they want to show.
>
> Again, the problem is that you're looking for laboratory test-type data from
> a reviewer who is in the business of "commentary" based on his actual USE of
> equipment. This is tke key difference.

No, I don't care if MR used his own personally devised test
procedure. What I'd like to know is what that procedure was, so I
could try to duplicated it if I wanted to. Some months ago there
was quite a number of messages complaining about cameras that used
AA batteries, and how alkalines in particular were of practically no
value, as some people only got 10 to 20 shots from a set. At the
time I had only used NiMH in the camera (a Fuji S5100). The manual,
however, listed the CIPA procedure it used to test the camera's
battery life, and claimed 200 shots with alkalines, 400 with NiMH.
So I took the sealed set of alkalines that came with the camera and
had sat unused for several months and tried to duplicate the test to
see if I'd get the same results. My results were very close to
Fuji's battery life estimates, about 5% to 10% higher. Maybe my
normal shooting style would have produced different results. But if
the Fuji was tested by MR and his results were off by the same
percentage that they were for his C-8080 test, he'd have reported
that the alkaline AAs would have been good for only about 35 shots,
not very close to the 200+ that I got. Had I read such dismal
results I might not have purchased the S5100 late last year.

In short, if he performs a test, he owes it to his readers to
publish his methodology, in case any of them might want to verify
the results for themselves. If he doesn't perform comparative tests
but simply uses the camera to become familiar with it, then he
doesn't need to explicitly state how he took his pictures,
impressions would be enough.


> > Because the reviews all have track records that indicate that they
> > don't repeatedly engage in the kind of deception easily noticed in
> > MR's review.
>
> I really think your making an unfair leap to say that MR is deliberately
> deceiving.

At least I provide examples indicating where he might have been or
probably was deceptive. Whether it was intentionally or
unintentionally is for others to decide. I'd still like to know
what tests he performed that would allow him to claim that the
Minolta produced the highest resolution of any of the 8mp small
sensor P&S cameras. Everyone else found it to produce pictures
having the lowest resolution, and it's not something easily missed.
The test photos are pretty clear and hard to refute. You say that
MR's less clinical, more anecdotal style has its value. I'd agree
with that, but not when he blends the clinical with the anecdotal
that gives results that are hard to believe and provides no way to
verify his supposedly "clinical" resolution tests. Or were his
resolution tests not clinically done, and were merely pictures of
trees and leaves of grass that he wandered by, allowing him to offer
only very subjective opinions about the resolution each camera/lens
was capable of producing?


> >I wouldn't really have
> > objected if MR simply said that the Sony appears to be unusually
> > rugged. But to say that he "fears for its long term durability"
> > when everyone else that has examined the C-8080 thinks that it is
> > one of the most rugged cameras available requires a bit more than a
> > hunch.
>
> Oh good grief!
> He stated he "fears for it." He didn't state it as a fact.

Exactly. He based his opinion on nothing factual. He could have
said that the Sony, with its much longer lens was far more likely to
be damaged accidentally by hitting a wall or some other solid
object. If someone wanted to intentionally write a biased, unfair
review of a camera, he provides the model of how it could easily be
done. And in fact, that's what I perceive that he has done. That
he helped you select a good printer based on earlier printer reviews
shouldn't blind you to what he's done in the camera review, but you
still give him the benefit of every doubt.


> > You might also rule out the C-8080 after seeing that MR claims it
> > only gets 1 hour of life from its battery. Clearly, he is using the
> > cameras differently than other reviewers, if not most people. But
> > he doesn't include that information.
>
> You feel he should be compelled to compare his reviews to the reviews of
> other groups?
> No group or site does this.

That's a misreading on your part. I would like for him to show
how he performs his own tests. I'm not interested in what he has to
say about other reviewers. They show how their tests were
performed. He doesn't.


> > BTW, haven't you ever seen non-traditional gloves that have the
> > fingertip areas removed? Consider them if new models of your
> > cameras ever switch to the use of tiny buttons.
>
> Yes I have.
> In Northern Alaska, you would soon lose the tips of your fingers if you used
> them.
> (No joke)

What Alaskans need are cameras with powerful CPUs, able to
internally run programs that take their commands from the users
speaking into a throat microphone. No more buttons needed. But
just to prevent problems when taking pictures near other people, the
command to activate the shutter should not be "FIRE" or "SHOOT".
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 11:33:28 PM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:kqngc1l3nqpknp92bhv593ovib6v5mr5t0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 14:33:05 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> > It seems to me that you're going out of your way to defend MR in a
>> > manner similar the way he was overly enthusiastic about Sony's F828.
>> > You don't have any ties to MR or to the L-L website that hasn't yet
>> > been disclosed, do you? :) 
>>
>> Ya, he's my uncle.
>
> Gotcha! It's not that easy these days getting people to cry
> "uncle". :) 

I was kidding, you big doofus!
:) 

>
>> > [I have no reason to suspect that you do, other than your unusually
>> > dedicated defense of MR's reviews.]
>>
>> You seem to have an axe to grind here. Are you a C-8080 owner who feels
>> his
>> camera is being run down?
>
> Not at all. I followed a link into the L-L website, read an
> interesting article on making better use of light in photographs,
> and thought it worth my time reading more of what was available.
> The C-8080 article stood out as a less than professionally done
> piece whose author *really* had an axe to grind. I would have been
> just as critical if it had been as unfairly written about any other
> make or model, whether Sony, Canon, Kodak, Casio, Leica, Minolta,
> Nikon, Panasonic, Samsung, HP, Ricoh, or any other brand, even
> Sigma.
>
>
>>> Saddam Hussein was opinionated and colorful.
>
>> Oh brother.
>> You just made the dreaded jump to "Nazi and Saddam" that people
>> often resort to when making rash, ridiculous comparisons.
>
> Not at all. The law that frequently gets invoked applies only to
> Nazism, which I didn't mention. You brought that in. You also left
> out the reference to the equally colorful Bush boy. And no
> ridiculous comparisons were made. Just the point that being
> opinionated and colorful isn't necessarily a good thing. There are
> good guys as well as bad guys that are opinionated and colorful. I
> see MR as one on the bad side of the ledger, and he could be a swell
> guy, talented enough to sing and dance and entertain all who see
> him. But it wouldn't be enough to salvage his reputation as an
> abysmal writer of camera reviews.
>
>
>> I find dpreview very helpful. Steve never wrote a nagative review in his
>> life (or so it seems). Steve is basically a cheerleader, and not helpful
>> for anything other than specifications, in my opinion.
>
> I find Steve's specifications woefully deficient. Often basic
> details are missing for no apparent reason. For instance,
> sometimes the minimum lens apertures will be listed, sometimes not.
> His test photos are useful, but some could be improved by taking
> them from the same position, under the same lighting conditions,
> etc.
>
>
>> I don't know that this C-8080 review is indicative of MR as a whole.
>> I do see some of your beef, and I've acknowledged that there were some
>> oddities. You seem to be using this review as your basis for ignoring
>> anything else MR does. I would definitely not go along with that. He is
>> an
>> avid user of this stuff--especially professional-level gear, which I find
>> extremely useful. Perhaps part of what we have here is an example of
>> reactions by a person who expects professional level performance...yet
>> who
>> is reviewing a point-and-shoot aimed at the novice.
>
> That's not accurate. I haven't read most of his reviews, but of
> the few I've seen, did say that the Epson printer review, while
> slightly flawed was much better. I don't think that your
> explanation of MR's bias is accurate either. After all, he did see
> quite enthusiastic about Sony's P&S F828, which is aimed at the same
> audience the C-8080 is pointed towards. But you're probably right
> that his harshness might have been colored by the fact that he's
> dealing with lowly P&S cameras.
>
>
>> > And then the reviewer has the responsibility to state how often
>> > and in what manner the lenses are zoomed. CIPA tests, which are
>> > becoming more and more common do this, and it makes it more
>> > difficult for less than totally honest reviewers to fudge the
>> > results, getting what they want to show.
>>
>> Again, the problem is that you're looking for laboratory test-type data
>> from
>> a reviewer who is in the business of "commentary" based on his actual USE
>> of
>> equipment. This is tke key difference.
>
> No, I don't care if MR used his own personally devised test
> procedure. What I'd like to know is what that procedure was, so I
> could try to duplicated it if I wanted to.

That's just not the kind of review he offered.
You want to duplicate lab tests...but his comments weren't of that nature.
I think you just need to take his review for what it was...which was NOT lab
tests.

>Some months ago there
> was quite a number of messages complaining about cameras that used
> AA batteries, and how alkalines in particular were of practically no
> value, as some people only got 10 to 20 shots from a set. At the
> time I had only used NiMH in the camera (a Fuji S5100). The manual,
> however, listed the CIPA procedure it used to test the camera's
> battery life, and claimed 200 shots with alkalines, 400 with NiMH.
> So I took the sealed set of alkalines that came with the camera and
> had sat unused for several months and tried to duplicate the test to
> see if I'd get the same results. My results were very close to
> Fuji's battery life estimates, about 5% to 10% higher. Maybe my
> normal shooting style would have produced different results. But if
> the Fuji was tested by MR and his results were off by the same
> percentage that they were for his C-8080 test, he'd have reported
> that the alkaline AAs would have been good for only about 35 shots,
> not very close to the 200+ that I got. Had I read such dismal
> results I might not have purchased the S5100 late last year.
>
> In short, if he performs a test, he owes it to his readers to
> publish his methodology, in case any of them might want to verify
> the results for themselves. If he doesn't perform comparative tests
> but simply uses the camera to become familiar with it, then he
> doesn't need to explicitly state how he took his pictures,
> impressions would be enough.
>
>
>> > Because the reviews all have track records that indicate that they
>> > don't repeatedly engage in the kind of deception easily noticed in
>> > MR's review.
>>
>> I really think your making an unfair leap to say that MR is deliberately
>> deceiving.
>
> At least I provide examples indicating where he might have been or
> probably was deceptive.

There's a big difference between intentional and unintentional.

>Whether it was intentionally or
> unintentionally is for others to decide.

You already declared that he was intentionally misleading. How do you know
this intention on his part?
It really makes you sound like you have an axe to grind.

>I'd still like to know
> what tests he performed that would allow him to claim that the
> Minolta produced the highest resolution of any of the 8mp small
> sensor P&S cameras.

That's a good question. I don't know either.

>Everyone else found it to produce pictures
> having the lowest resolution, and it's not something easily missed.
> The test photos are pretty clear and hard to refute. You say that
> MR's less clinical, more anecdotal style has its value. I'd agree
> with that, but not when he blends the clinical with the anecdotal
> that gives results that are hard to believe and provides no way to
> verify his supposedly "clinical" resolution tests. Or were his
> resolution tests not clinically done, and were merely pictures of
> trees and leaves of grass that he wandered by, allowing him to offer
> only very subjective opinions about the resolution each camera/lens
> was capable of producing?
>
>
>> >I wouldn't really have
>> > objected if MR simply said that the Sony appears to be unusually
>> > rugged. But to say that he "fears for its long term durability"
>> > when everyone else that has examined the C-8080 thinks that it is
>> > one of the most rugged cameras available requires a bit more than a
>> > hunch.
>>
>> Oh good grief!
>> He stated he "fears for it." He didn't state it as a fact.
>
> Exactly. He based his opinion on nothing factual.

I think you know know what I meant.
I'm saying he expressed an opinion, and did not declare it to be a fact.

>He could have
> said that the Sony, with its much longer lens was far more likely to
> be damaged accidentally by hitting a wall or some other solid
> object. If someone wanted to intentionally write a biased, unfair
> review of a camera, he provides the model of how it could easily be
> done. And in fact, that's what I perceive that he has done. That
> he helped you select a good printer based on earlier printer reviews
> shouldn't blind you to what he's done in the camera review, but you
> still give him the benefit of every doubt.

I don't say he's without flaw.
I do say that there is room for subjective commentary.
It's useful to many.

>> > You might also rule out the C-8080 after seeing that MR claims it
>> > only gets 1 hour of life from its battery. Clearly, he is using the
>> > cameras differently than other reviewers, if not most people. But
>> > he doesn't include that information.
>>
>> You feel he should be compelled to compare his reviews to the reviews of
>> other groups?
>> No group or site does this.
>
> That's a misreading on your part. I would like for him to show
> how he performs his own tests. I'm not interested in what he has to
> say about other reviewers. They show how their tests were
> performed. He doesn't.
>
>
>> > BTW, haven't you ever seen non-traditional gloves that have the
>> > fingertip areas removed? Consider them if new models of your
>> > cameras ever switch to the use of tiny buttons.
>>
>> Yes I have.
>> In Northern Alaska, you would soon lose the tips of your fingers if you
>> used
>> them.
>> (No joke)
>
> What Alaskans need are cameras with powerful CPUs, able to
> internally run programs that take their commands from the users
> speaking into a throat microphone. No more buttons needed. But
> just to prevent problems when taking pictures near other people, the
> command to activate the shutter should not be "FIRE" or "SHOOT".

:) 
Anonymous
July 3, 2005 11:37:14 PM

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

>AASAR writes ...
>
>What I'd like to get isn't another P&S but whatever replaces
>the D70s ... And if MR reviews that camera when it's released,
>I'll indeed read it very carefully.

According to his site he hasn't reviewed a Nikon dSLR since the D1 in
June 1999, so I guess you're safe.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 1:18:33 AM

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

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 16:50:03 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> > No, I don't care if MR used his own personally devised test
> > procedure. What I'd like to know is what that procedure was, so I
> > could try to duplicated it if I wanted to.
>
> That's just not the kind of review he offered.
> You want to duplicate lab tests...but his comments weren't of that nature.
> I think you just need to take his review for what it was...which was NOT
> lab tests.

But it's the nature of his results that have me smelling a rat,
even if it doesn't happen to be a lab rat.


> >Whether it was intentionally or
> > unintentionally is for others to decide.
>
> You already declared that he was intentionally misleading. How do you know
> this intention on his part?
> It really makes you sound like you have an axe to grind.

From the tone and many inaccuracies that appear only in his
review. I didn't have an axe to grind until this thread appeared,
but I suppose it now seems that way. :) 


> >> Oh good grief!
> >> He stated he "fears for it." He didn't state it as a fact.
> >
> > Exactly. He based his opinion on nothing factual.
>
> I think you know know what I meant.
> I'm saying he expressed an opinion, and did not declare it to be a fact.

Yes, I know what you meant. He expressed an opinion, did not
declare it to be a fact, but as I said, based the opinion on nothing
factual. I've said it several times before but maybe once more will
clarify what I mean. If he said that he feared that the Olympus
might not last long or prove as rugged as the Sony, it would be
perfectly believable, or plausible if he could present convincing
reasons, even if torture tests weren't done. He might cite shoddy
construction, loose screws, poor fit & finish, a flimsy metal or
plastic body, or any number of other reasons that might present a
convincing case, whether or not these factors actually had any
bearing on the camera's longevity. But he ignored all evidence that
the camera was truly rugged, and cited only a suspicion that the
articulated LCD might be a problem. I haven't used any of these,
but from the cameras I've examined in stores, most appear less
rugged than the C-8080's LCD, possibly because it happens to be more
limited in its movement. I don't know what he based his thinking
on, so I can only guess. He might have assumed that a flimsier
articulating frame would absorb impact shock better than the
Olympus's more rigid frame that has fewer degrees of movement
freedom. (sorry for the less than elegant phrase). But that part of
the camera is less subject to hard knocks, normally being shielded
by the photographer's body. The part more susceptible to sharp
blows is the lens, and the Sony's is longer and presumably more
vulnerable. I don't know if this is anywhere close to the reasoning
he used, but it seems that a reviewer that keeps his reasons that
close to the vest might lack real confidence in the validity of the
reasons behind his opinions, and prefer keeping them to himself.


> I don't say he's without flaw.
> I do say that there is room for subjective commentary.
> It's useful to many.

There's room for, and perhaps even a need for subjective
commentary. If nothing else it should make for more enjoyable,
easier reading. But he is a poor model, and could and should have
been able to do much better. Subjective commentary doesn't have to
be bland and uncritical. But it should strive for accuracy where
possible, and more than that, avoid unfairness and an apparent bias.
And you can tell your uncle that I said so! :) 
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 1:18:34 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:ld1hc19c1p093i4rvsppsthkcvnier30g3@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 16:50:03 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> > No, I don't care if MR used his own personally devised test
>> > procedure. What I'd like to know is what that procedure was, so I
>> > could try to duplicated it if I wanted to.
>>
>> That's just not the kind of review he offered.
>> You want to duplicate lab tests...but his comments weren't of that
>> nature.
>> I think you just need to take his review for what it was...which was NOT
>> lab tests.
>
> But it's the nature of his results that have me smelling a rat,
> even if it doesn't happen to be a lab rat.
>
>
>> >Whether it was intentionally or
>> > unintentionally is for others to decide.
>>
>> You already declared that he was intentionally misleading. How do you
>> know
>> this intention on his part?
>> It really makes you sound like you have an axe to grind.
>
> From the tone and many inaccuracies that appear only in his
> review. I didn't have an axe to grind until this thread appeared,
> but I suppose it now seems that way. :) 
>
>
>> >> Oh good grief!
>> >> He stated he "fears for it." He didn't state it as a fact.
>> >
>> > Exactly. He based his opinion on nothing factual.
>>
>> I think you know know what I meant.
>> I'm saying he expressed an opinion, and did not declare it to be a fact.
>
> Yes, I know what you meant. He expressed an opinion, did not
> declare it to be a fact, but as I said, based the opinion on nothing
> factual. I've said it several times before but maybe once more will
> clarify what I mean. If he said that he feared that the Olympus
> might not last long or prove as rugged as the Sony, it would be
> perfectly believable, or plausible if he could present convincing
> reasons, even if torture tests weren't done. He might cite shoddy
> construction, loose screws, poor fit & finish, a flimsy metal or
> plastic body, or any number of other reasons that might present a
> convincing case, whether or not these factors actually had any
> bearing on the camera's longevity. But he ignored all evidence that
> the camera was truly rugged, and cited only a suspicion that the
> articulated LCD might be a problem. I haven't used any of these,
> but from the cameras I've examined in stores, most appear less
> rugged than the C-8080's LCD, possibly because it happens to be more
> limited in its movement. I don't know what he based his thinking
> on, so I can only guess. He might have assumed that a flimsier
> articulating frame would absorb impact shock better than the
> Olympus's more rigid frame that has fewer degrees of movement
> freedom. (sorry for the less than elegant phrase). But that part of
> the camera is less subject to hard knocks, normally being shielded
> by the photographer's body. The part more susceptible to sharp
> blows is the lens, and the Sony's is longer and presumably more
> vulnerable. I don't know if this is anywhere close to the reasoning
> he used, but it seems that a reviewer that keeps his reasons that
> close to the vest might lack real confidence in the validity of the
> reasons behind his opinions, and prefer keeping them to himself.

Dpreview and other sources have commented that the card door on Canon DSLRs
including the D30, D60, 10D and 20D have seemed flimsy for years and
years...and yet I've nver heard a report of breakeage. But so what!! I
have never taken offense at the suggestion that it seems flimsy...even
though I've never seen ANY evidence of problems. I really don't see how you
could take this opinion so hard. You are carrying on and on and on about
it...MUCH more than MR ever did. What is it about this that makes it so
personal for you? You really seem to be taking it personally--or at least
reacting to it with such vigor to give one the impression that you've been
personally insulted or something. I just don't get that.

>> I don't say he's without flaw.
>> I do say that there is room for subjective commentary.
>> It's useful to many.
>
> There's room for, and perhaps even a need for subjective
> commentary. If nothing else it should make for more enjoyable,
> easier reading. But he is a poor model, and could and should have
> been able to do much better. Subjective commentary doesn't have to
> be bland and uncritical. But it should strive for accuracy where
> possible, and more than that, avoid unfairness and an apparent bias.
> And you can tell your uncle that I said so! :) 

Has it occurred to you that YOUR criticism of MR has reached a level that is
over the top?

And he's not my uncle.
:) 
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 1:37:58 AM

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

On 3 Jul 2005 16:37:18 -0700, Bill Hilton wrote:

> > Weren't we talking about the Epson 4800?
>
> Sounds like ASAAR is in a snit because Reichmann gave his camera a bad
> review, so now he doesn't trust anything Reichmann says :) 

At least it wasn't an unfair Sigma review, or you'd think I owned
one of those bricks. There's a big difference between a bad, but
fair and accurate review and one where what's bad isn't the camera
but what's in the review.

What I'd like to get isn't another P&S but whatever replaces the
D70s, since I've got a bag full of Nikon lenses, flashes, diffusers
and other equipment sitting idle. And if MR reviews that camera
when it's released, I'll indeed read it very carefully. But as
Mark suggested, he may have less of an axe to grind reviewing DSLRs,
even though it would be a Nikon review and his cameras of choice are
made by Canon.
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 2:22:46 AM

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

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 18:54:05 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> Dpreview and other sources have commented that the card door on
> Canon DSLRs including the D30, D60, 10D and 20D have seemed flimsy
> for years and years...and yet I've nver heard a report of breakeage. But
> so what!! I have never taken offense at the suggestion that it seems
> flimsy...even though I've never seen ANY evidence of problems. I really
> don't see how you could take this opinion so hard.

That's just a card door. They didn't extrapolate from that to
saying that because of a flimsy card door the fear for the camera's
overall ruggedness and ability to survive, did they? I don't take
this little piece of the review "hard". It's just one of many small
pieces that contribute to the overall impression.

> You are carrying on and on and on about it...MUCH more than MR
> ever did. What is it about this that makes it so personal for you? You
> really seem to be taking it personally--or at least reacting to it with such
> vigor to give one the impression that you've been personally insulted or
> something. I just don't get that.

Well of course I (we) are carrying on and on about it, much more
so than MR. That's the nature of newgroup threads. But I really
see you taking it much more personally than I have. I've tried only
to answer your points, and not all of them (gotta keep the message
lengths down to a reasonable amount).


>> There's room for, and perhaps even a need for subjective
>> commentary. If nothing else it should make for more enjoyable,
>> easier reading. But he is a poor model, and could and should have
>> been able to do much better. Subjective commentary doesn't have to
>> be bland and uncritical. But it should strive for accuracy where
>> possible, and more than that, avoid unfairness and an apparent bias.
>> And you can tell your uncle that I said so! :) 
>
> Has it occurred to you that YOUR criticism of MR has reached a level
> that is over the top?

No, but you do seem to be guilty of what you're accusing me of.
You seem to be taking my criticism of MR (which is reasonable and
not over the top) very personally, as if it is an attack on your
integrity if not your intelligence. Your charge above is itself
unfair and unreasonable. The kind of thing that often breeds flame
wars. I suppose that's one way to try to win an argument.


> And he's not my uncle.
> :) 

Flip-flopping now are ye? FWIW I never assumed you were serious
when you said "Ya, he's my uncle." Looks like you now regret having
said it, but it's no big deal. Umm, maybe he's really a cousin?
C'mon, you can tell us. :) 
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 2:22:47 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:gk5hc1dgd1j2mri4jive4bq578lh2bmiem@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 18:54:05 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> Dpreview and other sources have commented that the card door on
>> Canon DSLRs including the D30, D60, 10D and 20D have seemed flimsy
>> for years and years...and yet I've nver heard a report of breakeage. But
>> so what!! I have never taken offense at the suggestion that it seems
>> flimsy...even though I've never seen ANY evidence of problems. I really
>> don't see how you could take this opinion so hard.
>
> That's just a card door. They didn't extrapolate from that to
> saying that because of a flimsy card door the fear for the camera's
> overall ruggedness and ability to survive, did they?

Think about it. If the card door breaks, the camera won't operate. Period.
When the door is open, the camera shuts off.


>I don't take
> this little piece of the review "hard". It's just one of many small
> pieces that contribute to the overall impression.
>
>> You are carrying on and on and on about it...MUCH more than MR
>> ever did. What is it about this that makes it so personal for you? You
>> really seem to be taking it personally--or at least reacting to it with
>> such
>> vigor to give one the impression that you've been personally insulted or
>> something. I just don't get that.
>
> Well of course I (we) are carrying on and on about it, much more
> so than MR. That's the nature of newgroup threads. But I really
> see you taking it much more personally than I have. I've tried only
> to answer your points, and not all of them (gotta keep the message
> lengths down to a reasonable amount).
>
>
>>> There's room for, and perhaps even a need for subjective
>>> commentary. If nothing else it should make for more enjoyable,
>>> easier reading. But he is a poor model, and could and should have
>>> been able to do much better. Subjective commentary doesn't have to
>>> be bland and uncritical. But it should strive for accuracy where
>>> possible, and more than that, avoid unfairness and an apparent bias.
>>> And you can tell your uncle that I said so! :) 
>>
>> Has it occurred to you that YOUR criticism of MR has reached a level
>> that is over the top?
>
> No, but you do seem to be guilty of what you're accusing me of.
> You seem to be taking my criticism of MR (which is reasonable and
> not over the top) very personally, as if it is an attack on your
> integrity if not your intelligence. Your charge above is itself
> unfair and unreasonable. The kind of thing that often breeds flame
> wars. I suppose that's one way to try to win an argument.

Let's not get carried away.
:) 
No flame wars are necessary here.
Actually I think we've both kept a fairly even keel.

>
>
>> And he's not my uncle.
>> :) 
>
> Flip-flopping now are ye? FWIW I never assumed you were serious
> when you said "Ya, he's my uncle." Looks like you now regret having
> said it, but it's no big deal. Umm, maybe he's really a cousin?
> C'mon, you can tell us. :) 

If he was my uncle, I'd be hitting him up for a job testing camera doodads.
:) 
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 4:19:42 AM

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

On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 20:12:52 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> >> Dpreview and other sources have commented that the card door on
> >> Canon DSLRs including the D30, D60, 10D and 20D have seemed flimsy
> >> for years and years...and yet I've nver heard a report of breakeage. But
> >> so what!! I have never taken offense at the suggestion that it seems
> >> flimsy...even though I've never seen ANY evidence of problems. I really
> >> don't see how you could take this opinion so hard.
> >
> > That's just a card door. They didn't extrapolate from that to
> > saying that because of a flimsy card door the fear for the camera's
> > overall ruggedness and ability to survive, did they?
>
> Think about it. If the card door breaks, the camera won't operate. Period.
> When the door is open, the camera shuts off.


Ah, that looks like the famously intimidating "Period." Nonsense.
The camera might stop operating but it wouldn't be for long. All of
my cameras would stop only because the card doors have a tiny
plunger that when the door is fully closed, depresses a small
microswitch, causing a warning message to be displayed. I don't
know about you, but depending on how the door was damaged, I could
have the camera operating again either in a minute or two, or in
less than 15 minutes at most. And if Canon or Fuji had reasonable
rates I might send it in to them to be rapaired.

But your mention of the card door has little to do with reviewers
comparing the ruggedness of camera bodies. Their concern is with
the rigidity of the camera's body. If a camera falls or is struck
by a large object, if the body isn't made of a sufficiently thick
and rigid material, it could be be deformed, and it takes only a
slight deformation to cause internal cards to no longer connect
securely in their sockets, rendering the camera unusable. The
mindset upon seeing the C-8080, with its body made of magnesium
(much thicker than usual according to reviews) and the Sony F828,
which apparently is an even more intimidating beast, is that here we
have two cameras that could be used to drive spikes into the ground.
So they won't be fazed by the smaller bumps and knocks that would
likely put other cameras out of service.


> Let's not get carried away.
> :) 
> No flame wars are necessary here.
> Actually I think we've both kept a fairly even keel.

It's about time we did something about that.

"LETS GET READY TO RUMMMBULLLLLLL!!!!"

It wasn't me that said that. Somebody must have left the door
open, and Michael Buffer got out. And didja notice? No mention of
MR this time. :) 
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 4:19:43 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:indhc1po6t7pggm6lt6561f5daruq4h1cr@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 20:12:52 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> >> Dpreview and other sources have commented that the card door on
>> >> Canon DSLRs including the D30, D60, 10D and 20D have seemed flimsy
>> >> for years and years...and yet I've nver heard a report of breakeage.
>> >> But
>> >> so what!! I have never taken offense at the suggestion that it seems
>> >> flimsy...even though I've never seen ANY evidence of problems. I
>> >> really
>> >> don't see how you could take this opinion so hard.
>> >
>> > That's just a card door. They didn't extrapolate from that to
>> > saying that because of a flimsy card door the fear for the camera's
>> > overall ruggedness and ability to survive, did they?
>>
>> Think about it. If the card door breaks, the camera won't operate.
>> Period.
>> When the door is open, the camera shuts off.
>
>
> Ah, that looks like the famously intimidating "Period." Nonsense.
> The camera might stop operating but it wouldn't be for long. All of
> my cameras would stop only because the card doors have a tiny
> plunger that when the door is fully closed, depresses a small
> microswitch, causing a warning message to be displayed. I don't
> know about you, but depending on how the door was damaged, I could
> have the camera operating again either in a minute or two, or in
> less than 15 minutes at most. And if Canon or Fuji had reasonable
> rates I might send it in to them to be rapaired.
>
> But your mention of the card door has little to do with reviewers
> comparing the ruggedness of camera bodies. Their concern is with
> the rigidity of the camera's body. If a camera falls or is struck
> by a large object, if the body isn't made of a sufficiently thick
> and rigid material, it could be be deformed, and it takes only a
> slight deformation to cause internal cards to no longer connect
> securely in their sockets, rendering the camera unusable. The
> mindset upon seeing the C-8080, with its body made of magnesium
> (much thicker than usual according to reviews) and the Sony F828,
> which apparently is an even more intimidating beast, is that here we
> have two cameras that could be used to drive spikes into the ground.
> So they won't be fazed by the smaller bumps and knocks that would
> likely put other cameras out of service.
>
>
>> Let's not get carried away.
>> :) 
>> No flame wars are necessary here.
>> Actually I think we've both kept a fairly even keel.
>
> It's about time we did something about that.
>
> "LETS GET READY TO RUMMMBULLLLLLL!!!!"
>
> It wasn't me that said that. Somebody must have left the door
> open, and Michael Buffer got out. And didja notice? No mention of
> MR this time. :) 

Don't get me started, or I might try to bite your ear off...
It's that rumble/Tyson thing...
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 7:51:07 AM

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

OT again, sorry..
>blah blah, Olympus, Sony, blah blah.. (O;

At the risk of extending this silly, but interesting, conversation, I
just have to chuck my 2c in... I am in the odd position of being in
both camps here...

Back when I decided to actually *buy* an 8Mp prosumer, (a decison I
have not regretted for one moment..), I pored over every review I could
find of the contenders. But I was also in the enviable position of
having to recommend a camera of this calibre for my workplace! Very
convenient.. I recommended the Sony 828 for the workplace, and it was
a very good choice - easy to use, rugged, excellent image quality,
great zoom range, and the dreaded purple fringing has never been a big
issue (although I certainly saw it, and found it a little offputting in
the few images when it bit me..).

After playing with the work Sony, and before making *my* choice, I
*also* read all the Olympus 8080 reviews. And I, like ASAAR, found the
Reichmann review of the 8080 very odd indeed, and way out of step with
what I had read elsewhere. That review had me quite concerned, as I
generally have a lot of time for Michael's reviews and opinions. But
there were too many other reviews conflicting with it, the 8080 was
cheaper than the 828, and it had some features I really wanted, eg
longer time exposures, while the 828 had a lot of stuff I didn't really
need.

Anyway, I decide that *despite* the MR review, I would buy the Oly
(gulp..). And guess what I found? That review is just a bit silly.
The Olympus does have some minor ergonomic problems, but the ones that
Michael positively agonises over, are not among them, at least for me!
(IMO, its worst problems are the rather silly and often redundant menu
system, and the ridiculously annoying way it flicks from the EVF to the
LCD on specific commands, for no apparent reason..)

Ruggedness is not an issue with either of these cameras, the Sony is a
little easier to use and has some cute toys (laser focus, nightshot)
and it's AF is a bit better than the Oly.
The Oly has a better, if lesser zoom range, lens and more neutral
colours.
The Sony manual is definitely *not* complete. But it *is* a lot more
complete than the Olympus... I *don't* like manuals on CD, and would
certainly prefer a full one, but then I must sheepishly admit I have
always managed to work out what I want from the Oly without yet
actually looking at that CD..

The Olympus' initial default-reset thing is very clearly explained in
the *printed* manual, and it saved my bacon at least once when I was
still getting the hang of the myriad of settings. I *elected* to leave
it on while I spent the first few days getting familiar with it. I
don't think it is a big issue either way, and the manual very clearly
tells you why it is there, and how to turn it off if/when you are
feeling confident. (The automatic default settings, by the way, are
extremely sensible.)
I too found it very strange that Michael did not find the histogram
function (which also has a clever additional image highlighting
function) - he clearly did not look hard at all.

Anyway, without getting too bogged down in the minutiae, I thought MR's
review puzzling *before* I got the Oly, and even more puzzling
afterwards. To me, the image quality is the biggest issue with a
camera, and I thought he glossed over that aspect in a very strange
way..

These are both extremely good cameras, both have some faults. I use
both regularly, and while the Sony is probably more fun to use, and
certainly easier.. the Olympus just outdoes it for image quality, and
offers more manual control. I'm not at all sorry that I own the Oly
rather than the Sony..

Oh, and I live in Australia. It's warm most of the time, and I don't
even own gloves... Like ASAAR, I was quite bemused by MR's seeming
obsession with this issue. I could barely believe it when I got the
Olympus, and I actually never once turned it On or Off by mistake! Nor
did I get tangled in the mode dial. I'm 6'3", and have BIG hands, by
the way..
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 4:13:26 PM

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

<chrlz@go.com> wrote in message
news:1120474267.526178.254710@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> OT again, sorry..
>>blah blah, Olympus, Sony, blah blah.. (O;
>
> At the risk of extending this silly, but interesting, conversation, I
> just have to chuck my 2c in... I am in the odd position of being in
> both camps here...
>
> Back when I decided to actually *buy* an 8Mp prosumer, (a decison I
> have not regretted for one moment..), I pored over every review I could
> find of the contenders. But I was also in the enviable position of
> having to recommend a camera of this calibre for my workplace! Very
> convenient.. I recommended the Sony 828 for the workplace, and it was
> a very good choice - easy to use, rugged, excellent image quality,
> great zoom range, and the dreaded purple fringing has never been a big
> issue (although I certainly saw it, and found it a little offputting in
> the few images when it bit me..).
>
> After playing with the work Sony, and before making *my* choice, I
> *also* read all the Olympus 8080 reviews. And I, like ASAAR, found the
> Reichmann review of the 8080 very odd indeed, and way out of step with
> what I had read elsewhere. That review had me quite concerned, as I
> generally have a lot of time for Michael's reviews and opinions. But
> there were too many other reviews conflicting with it, the 8080 was
> cheaper than the 828, and it had some features I really wanted, eg
> longer time exposures, while the 828 had a lot of stuff I didn't really
> need.
>
> Anyway, I decide that *despite* the MR review, I would buy the Oly
> (gulp..). And guess what I found? That review is just a bit silly.
> The Olympus does have some minor ergonomic problems, but the ones that
> Michael positively agonises over, are not among them, at least for me!
> (IMO, its worst problems are the rather silly and often redundant menu
> system, and the ridiculously annoying way it flicks from the EVF to the
> LCD on specific commands, for no apparent reason..)
>
> Ruggedness is not an issue with either of these cameras, the Sony is a
> little easier to use and has some cute toys (laser focus, nightshot)
> and it's AF is a bit better than the Oly.
> The Oly has a better, if lesser zoom range, lens and more neutral
> colours.
> The Sony manual is definitely *not* complete. But it *is* a lot more
> complete than the Olympus... I *don't* like manuals on CD, and would
> certainly prefer a full one, but then I must sheepishly admit I have
> always managed to work out what I want from the Oly without yet
> actually looking at that CD..
>
> The Olympus' initial default-reset thing is very clearly explained in
> the *printed* manual, and it saved my bacon at least once when I was
> still getting the hang of the myriad of settings. I *elected* to leave
> it on while I spent the first few days getting familiar with it. I
> don't think it is a big issue either way, and the manual very clearly
> tells you why it is there, and how to turn it off if/when you are
> feeling confident. (The automatic default settings, by the way, are
> extremely sensible.)
> I too found it very strange that Michael did not find the histogram
> function (which also has a clever additional image highlighting
> function) - he clearly did not look hard at all.
>
> Anyway, without getting too bogged down in the minutiae, I thought MR's
> review puzzling *before* I got the Oly, and even more puzzling
> afterwards. To me, the image quality is the biggest issue with a
> camera, and I thought he glossed over that aspect in a very strange
> way..
>
> These are both extremely good cameras, both have some faults. I use
> both regularly, and while the Sony is probably more fun to use, and
> certainly easier.. the Olympus just outdoes it for image quality, and
> offers more manual control. I'm not at all sorry that I own the Oly
> rather than the Sony..
>
> Oh, and I live in Australia. It's warm most of the time, and I don't
> even own gloves... Like ASAAR, I was quite bemused by MR's seeming
> obsession with this issue. I could barely believe it when I got the
> Olympus, and I actually never once turned it On or Off by mistake! Nor
> did I get tangled in the mode dial. I'm 6'3", and have BIG hands, by
> the way..

I think part of what happened with MR is that he did his main review with a
pre-production model. As he stated...it came with NO documentation.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:32:02 AM

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

<chrlz@go.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, and I live in Australia. It's warm most of the time, and I don't
> even own gloves... Like ASAAR, I was quite bemused by MR's seeming
> obsession with this issue.

MR lives in Canada, where it's under minus 40 degrees C over 40% of the
time.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:32:03 AM

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

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 20:32:02 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

> > Oh, and I live in Australia. It's warm most of the time, and I don't
> > even own gloves... Like ASAAR, I was quite bemused by MR's seeming
> > obsession with this issue.
>
> MR lives in Canada, where it's under minus 40 degrees C over 40% of the
> time.

It's not surprising then that he'd have more of a need for gloves
than most of us. But if where he lives it's that cold over 40% of
the time then his camera will probably be idle more than that,
possibly 50% of the time or more, even if he's got his gloves on.

According to the manual for my Canon cameras, they, and their
rechargeable batteries are rated for operation down to only 0 deg. C
(32 deg. F). My Fuji has the same lower temperature limit listed in
its specifications. Rechargeable lithium batteries may vary since
their chemistries differ, but the ones I've seen are probably
typical, and are rated for operation down to minus 10 deg. C (14
deg. F) and for storage down to minus 20 deg. C (minus 4 deg. F). A
battery pack that uses Energizer AA lithium batteries could help, as
they're rated for operation down to minus 40 deg. C (minus 40 deg.
F), but that's probably a lower temperature than even Canon's
coldest blooded cameras are capable of operating at. So MR needs
his gloves, but only when the temperatures are a bit warmer! :) 
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:32:03 AM

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

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> <chrlz@go.com> wrote:
>
>>Oh, and I live in Australia. It's warm most of the time, and I don't
>>even own gloves... Like ASAAR, I was quite bemused by MR's seeming
>>obsession with this issue.
>
>
> MR lives in Canada, where it's under minus 40 degrees C over 40% of the
> time.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

Hi David...

Wow! I'm in Winnipeg, Canada. Oft referred to as Winterpeg :) 

Right smack dab in the geographical center of the country
in the east/west direction; about 75 miles north of the US
border at North Dakota.

Sure, I've seen -40c; but never ever for long, and sure not
40% of the time :)  :)  :) 

Just glimpsed the weather forecast; Wednesday calls for
32 degrees C. But that's *plus* 32 degrees :) 

Come and visit us sometime... promise not to freeze you :) 

Take care.

Ken
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:32:04 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:p 2gic1p2dvk0j1cmtinl6kf80v2h0nm4pm@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 20:32:02 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
>> > Oh, and I live in Australia. It's warm most of the time, and I don't
>> > even own gloves... Like ASAAR, I was quite bemused by MR's seeming
>> > obsession with this issue.
>>
>> MR lives in Canada, where it's under minus 40 degrees C over 40% of the
>> time.
>
> It's not surprising then that he'd have more of a need for gloves
> than most of us. But if where he lives it's that cold over 40% of
> the time then his camera will probably be idle more than that,
> possibly 50% of the time or more, even if he's got his gloves on.
>
> According to the manual for my Canon cameras, they, and their
> rechargeable batteries are rated for operation down to only 0 deg. C
> (32 deg. F). My Fuji has the same lower temperature limit listed in
> its specifications. Rechargeable lithium batteries may vary since
> their chemistries differ, but the ones I've seen are probably
> typical, and are rated for operation down to minus 10 deg. C (14
> deg. F) and for storage down to minus 20 deg. C (minus 4 deg. F). A
> battery pack that uses Energizer AA lithium batteries could help, as
> they're rated for operation down to minus 40 deg. C (minus 40 deg.
> F), but that's probably a lower temperature than even Canon's
> coldest blooded cameras are capable of operating at. So MR needs
> his gloves, but only when the temperatures are a bit warmer! :) 

I've used my Canon DSLRs in below freezing environments... You just can't
leave them sitting out in the cold forever.
!