Another review - Trusted Reviews

[sevres_babylone]

As Yogi Berra said, it's deja vue all over again. Here is another negative review of the R-D1 in something called "Trusted Reviews":
http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=2102

I don't mind a good bashing -- heck, I used to be a fan of Christgau's Turkey Shoots in his Consumer Guide rock criticism -- but some of the review is quite mystifying. Some of the confusions seem to be based on things the reviewer has read or heard than on his own testing. At least that's what it seems. For example, he says he was given a 35mm Voigtlander lens for testing, yet writes about vignetting with wide-angle lenses, with no consideration of Epson's raw converter. He talks about image quality in a theoretical way, but provides no examples or references to his own results.

I have never heard of TrustedReviews before, so I don't know what reputation or readership it has. So I don't know what its likes and dislikes normally are. As a glasses wearer whose glasses long ago got scratched on my Olympus and other cameras, I have to admit that I haven't found the R-D1 as annoying in this regard as the TrustedReviewer. Anyway, if anyone is interested, follow the link.

 

[jlw]

I think this is the same review we've been bashing on another thread.

The reason he was annoyed about his glasses being scratched is that (as shown in the pictures with the review) the protective rubber eyepiece ring was missing from his camera! (Maybe he thought it was packing material and threw it away...)

This may also explain why he complained about unavailability of diopter correction, apparently unaware that you can screw Nikon or Cosina diopter correction lenses right into the thread that normally would be occupied by the protective ring he lost.

As we said in the other thread, if someone doesn't like the R-D 1, fine. But to call its purchasers stupid -- when the basic problem is that he doesn't understand the concept of the camera -- is insulting. My conclusion is that the reviews on this site should be "trusted" by morons, but no one else.

 

[pfogle]

Although the distinction is fuzzy, there is a difference between opinion and information. Some opinions I respect, but I prefer reviews that provide reliable information. Each to his own I suppose.

You just have to look at the rest of the reviews on this site to get an idea of the target market, and it ain't rangefinder aficionados 😉

 

[brightsky]

Has anyone nominated the reviewer for a 2005 Darwin award?

 

[ducttape]

I literally made it as far as this:

old-fashioned 35mm rangefinder camera, ... and typically used by the type of photographer who actually has one of those waistcoats with all the pockets.

Not to say the guy is an idiot, but I will say he just doesn't get it. Seems to be of the 'it ain't broke but let's fix it anyway' school. That works for me because for sure the guys who buy all the commodity stuff and keep the gross sales dollars flowing into the coffers of the mfgers are the ones who enable them to take soirees into the stuff I enjoy.

Keep throwing your money at point and shoots and low end digitals and I'll keep buying what I like. We'll both be happy (except, I promise not to write reviews about the crap you are shooting with)

:bang:

 

[jaapv]

I think it is a very good review- from his point of view. As he states at the beginning and the end:
He doesn't get it and that is 100% correct. The rest of the review is the logical result. Just think of the situation that such a dense person would have loved the camera! Now that would have been a damning review!