Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by rijesh, May 25, 2012.
Here is a new review of the OM-D on Cnet.
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Review - Watch CNET's Video Review
She jumps all over with her comments, one second praising the next second slamming. I seriously do NOT think she properly set the camera up to shoot before coming to her conclusions. Oh well nothing new there.
+1 nuff said.
I agree as well. I was really wanting to see what CNET would say, but I think they missed out some of the great features and may be a bit biased.
Review seemed fair to me
Talking about endless review of OM-D I stumble across this in June Edition of Digital Camera magazine....seems a bit unfair to other camera as Olympus supreme JPEG engine beats all of them? definitely In the contrary of Cnet review...
Lori Grunin is hard to impress. All the reviews I've seen from her have ranged from negative to moderately positive.
I don't think she has any knowledge about cameras. She is always like that and shouldnt b doing this job.
That's putting it very, very generously. Show me a CNET editor and I'll show you a failed career.
The worst camera reviewers anywhere are Engadget. They basically have no idea what they're doing. CNET/Grunin comes in solidly at second place.
Fully agree . She should be fired actually . No idea what she is talking and always negative . I don't think she uses cameras in real life . .,
1) I just read the review and I thought it was pretty fair.
2) In my opinion, CNET is a kind of online, tech-oriented Consumer Reports. Their reviews, while decent, never seem to be aimed at enthusiasts, but rather the general public. I tend to read them if the review is early and there aren't many others about a given camera that I am researching.
I think there are more reviews of the OM-D than outstanding stock
I've found very little useful photographic information on CNET. I prefer to get camera information from photographic sources rather than from gadget geeks.
I found this review to be very objective. Everything she noted, both positive and negative, exist.
She's right about the over sharpened JPEG's, but of course this is at the default settings, you CAN change that, obviously.
She also stated, accurately, that things get noisy over 1600 ISO, and that the dynamic range is somewhat limited.
All of these criticisms are true. But than again, she seems to be comparing these things against the results obtainable from much higher end DSLR's.
It's really not fair to compare this camera to a full frame or more recent aps c sensor, because as far as noise and dynamic range go, they are clearlly superior.
But, if you want to talk about size, handling and ease of use, with a price point within the grasp of most enthusiasts, then things look much better.
That was less of a review and more of someone reading the brochure, then giving their 2 cents. No photographers (beit amateur, pro-am or pro) is going to go to cnet (or the like) to gather research on a new camera. They will probably seek out other sources and go to the store to try it out themselves.
Sorry, but you won't find any of the things she was talking about (especially the criticisms) on any brochure.
She obviously used the camera.
I should have said "in the video...." since I didn't bother to read the longer article and just listened to the video's audio while doing other things.
"reincarnation of the OM film line...."
"class leading performance..."
"tank like, magnesium alloy body that is dust sealed..."
"lenses small enough to fit in roomy jacket"
"you can customize the display so you only see the features you want"
I know, she is just doing her job for her target audience.
Oh, the video...
I never watched it, read the written review instead. My apologies...
I didn't bother to read or watch the review. I've seen and watched enough of hers on various brands to know that they're not worth the time. I've never gained any useful information from them at all. Makes no difference whether she likes "my" brand or not. If she said the OM-D was the greatest camera in the world and everyone should buy one, I'd still feel the same.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to compare the OM-D E-M5 with other cameras at similar price points. I agree that the review appears factual and objective, but owners who have just spent a lot of money on their brand new E-M5 are never going to accept any criticism, no matter how factual.
In fact I find m4/3 owners in general are very defensive of their equipment. They react quite strongly if anyone dares criticise any aspect of it. That is something I haven't noticed to any significant extent with other formats.