pingflood wrote: Lars Johnsson wrote:
To say that the review is useless or no good because he made grammar & spelling mistakes is just ridiculous.
Well, first off nobody said that it was just because of \"grammar & spelling mistakes\", so not sure where you are getting this from. I pointed out the poor grammar and spelling along with them clearly not having taken the time to read up on the camera they were supposedly \"reviewing\" since they didn\'t a) even know what \"live time\" is actually called, and b) completely erroneously stated that you can\'t get the exposure progression view in bulb mode. Oh yeah, and this gem: \"the autofocus was very fast when locked\". What the heck does that even MEAN?
Since these guys are publishing a magazine and have an active photo site, and Olympus hands them a new camera to review, it is a damned insult both to Olympus and to their readers to first of all not take the time to learn about the equipment, not even bother to mention significant things (they mention \"9 fps is good for action\" but not that you don\'t get autofocus in that mode...) then not find the time to actually review it with any amount of effort (\"unfortunately I didn\'t have time to test AF-C with my tele lens\"), then on top of that publish this drivel with grammar and spelling so poor that a fifth grader would be ashamed of themselves.
Frankly, I see better on the dpreview FORUMS than this crap. Sorry.
You are wrong. He say it\'s 9 fps with locked AF and 4,2 with AF. Read the article before you whine about it. There is even another chapter about what kind of AF it has with the 4,2 fps
Here is a copy of the original text
Seriebildstagningen ligger på 9 bilder per sekund med låst autofokus och 4,2 bilder/s med följande autofokus.
pingflood wrote: Lars Johnsson wrote:
To say that the review is useless or no good because he made grammar & spelling mistakes is just ridiculous.
Well, first off nobody said that it was just because of \"grammar & spelling mistakes\", so not sure where you are getting this from. I pointed out the poor grammar and spelling along with them clearly not having taken the time to read up on the camera they were supposedly \"reviewing\" since they didn\'t a) even know what \"live time\" is actually called, and b) completely erroneously stated that you can\'t get the exposure progression view in bulb mode. Oh yeah, and this gem: \"the autofocus was very fast when locked\". What the heck does that even MEAN?
Since these guys are publishing a magazine and have an active photo site, and Olympus hands them a new camera to review, it is a damned insult both to Olympus and to their readers to first of all not take the time to learn about the equipment, not even bother to mention significant things (they mention \"9 fps is good for action\" but not that you don\'t get autofocus in that mode...) then not find the time to actually review it with any amount of effort (\"unfortunately I didn\'t have time to test AF-C with my tele lens\"), then on top of that publish this drivel with grammar and spelling so poor that a fifth grader would be ashamed of themselves.
Frankly, I see better on the dpreview FORUMS than this crap. Sorry.
You are wrong. He say it\'s 9 fps with locked AF and 4,2 with AF. Read the article before you whine about it.
Here is a copy of the original text
Seriebildstagningen ligger på 9 bilder per sekund med låst autofokus och 4,2 bilder/s med följande autofokus.
Feb 19, 2012 at 01:17 PM
Previous versions of Lars Johnsson's message #10359687 « New Olympus OM-D announced »
I pointed out the poor grammar and spelling along with them clearly not having taken the time to read up on the camera they were supposedly \"reviewing\" since they didn\'t a) even know what \"live time\" is actually called, and b) completely erroneously stated that you can\'t get the exposure progression view in bulb mode. Oh yeah, and this gem: \"the autofocus was very fast when locked\". What the heck does that even MEAN?