Anyone can write a "first impressions" review after 15 minutes, but it takes
considerably more time to fully evaluate the pro's and con's of an
unfamiliar camera. People who write "evaluations" should spend enough time
(> 15 minutes) with the manual and the camera to fully understand how it
works before posting a review. Okay, so maybe the MZ-S manual won't win a
Nobel Prize for literature, but it does a reasonable job of explaining the
camera's features. Reviewers should at least have the decency to shoot a
few rolls of film and look at the results before passing judgment. And
isn't it boring to see Pentax getting hammered in every review for the 2.5
FPS frame advance? Who cares?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 1:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: poor MZ-S review on epinions.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Erickson"
Subject: poor MZ-S review on epinions.com
> All,
>
> Saw a link to this review on rec.photo.equipment.35mm. It's
not so good.
> As an MZ-S owner, I think the reviewer is incorrect on several
points and
> generally misunderstands the camera. Oh well....
>
> http://www.epinions.com/content_36083568260
Yup, and if you don't like the MZ-S, you should give the Nikon FM-2n a try.
They are similar enough cameras from Epinions POV. Just goes to show that
you don't need credibility to do product reviews on the internet.
There is a spot to post comments about the review at the bottom of the page.
William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to
http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the
Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
