Many of the people on this stinking PDML are not qualified. They have a narcissistic relationship with the Pentax brand. Nor do they actually LOOK at the output they get.
A good 50% of the photos displayed here are nothing more than stinking street shots of homeless people or mere snapshots with very little if any consideration given to composition. Don't tell me you or all most anyone that posts here is qualified to give anything nore than a subjective, unscientific review. Some are... but don't criticize me because I comment on one, if not the most exhaustive review available. If you have something that meets a higher scientific standard, than the review I commented on, then I invite you to present it and I'll look at it with an open mind. Bob, I am qualified to say what I said, because I qualified my statements by saying I was disappointed in the *results of the review*, not my own personal review of the camera. Do you require me to spend close to a $1000 to expess an opinion on a review? It's a fact that many people consult reviews, consider 2nd or 3rd party opinions and results, because they do not have the time, ability, or desire to spend the time Tom C. >From: "Bob Sullivan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> >Subject: Re: K10D review online >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:21:23 -0600 > >Tom, >YOU Haven't GOT the F*cking Camera and all you can say is negative >things based on what you've managed to scrounge up on the internet. >GIVE IT A REST... You're not qualified to say anything about the >K10D. >Regards, Bob S. > > >On 12/15/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's amazing that you're amazed really. Hey this reminds me of the >title of > > my favorite song... > > > > I forthrightly acknowledged that I do not have a K10D, so what is the >point > > of your redundant restatement of it? > > > > I am disappointed that a reviewer with far more photogrpahic and >technical > > knowledge than myself, along with far more capacity to perform at least > > pseduo-scientific tests, finds that the camera (at least his sample of >it) > > is nothing really special compared to the competition in the way we were > > lead to believe it would stand out, which was greater dynamic range. > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> > > >Subject: Re: K10D review online > > >Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:56:51 -0800 > > > > > >It's amazing how you can be disappointed with something that you have > > >absolutely no experience using. Are you always disappointed with > > >life? Try the alternatives ... > > > > > >G > > > > > > > > >On Dec 15, 2006, at 1:29 PM, Tom C wrote: > > > > > > > ... While I don't have the camera in hand, I'm very disappointed > > > > with the > > > > advertising hype regarding both the 22-bit and the PRIME engine. > > > > > > > > >-- > > >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > >PDML@pdml.net > > >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
