Quote:
Originally Posted by Amy Davies
Hi Tazzers,
I've spoken with the reviewer of the camera, Geoff Harris, Digital Camera's Acting Editor who had this to say:
Geoff Harris, Acting Editor, replies
“Yes, I confess, I didn’t test the camera at all and wrote everything from the press release, sitting in my office in Bath! That’s how I got the pictures of Thailand you can see in the review. Sorry I am being flippant. Yes, I spent two weeks with the camera and got to know it pretty well. I’ll check on the points you raise, and we’ll print a clarification if necessary. We have to write to tight deadlines and while we strive to check every single spec, errors sometimes slip through. I stand by everything I said in my review though – the points about the video focussing were gleaned while filming my niece’s christening in Kuala Lumpur, if that reassures you.”
Hope that helps,
Thanks,
Amy
|
Of course my point has nothing to do with the video focussing issues and I suppose a flippant intruduction deserves a flippant bent to the reply. What I'd like to know though is how can the reviewer get basic information about the fps and the lcd so badly wrong? I nearly stopped reading right there. How can I be sure the rest of the review is not similarly mistaken? Not being funny or ought, I know my subscription is a drop in the ocean to you but it's still my subscription and just lately I have been wondering if it really is worth it.