Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/10/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
>True, but Pop Photo is rather slavishly enslaved to advertisers, like
>Peterson's Photographic is, as well. I am a friend of David Brooks, who
>used to be editor of Petersons. (He lives in Eugene, OR., now. Which
>reminds me, Bob Rosen, I'm working on a reply to your message on the
>subject of Eugene!) And he is rather critical of what Peterson's has turned
>into - an advertorial rag that is in no way objective in relation to the
>products they review. I find it disgusting.
A recent post in the rec.photo.technique.nature neewsgroup, Shun Cheung
states that in an October 19th seminar he attended, given by George Lepp in
northern New Jersey, Lepp mentioned that a few years ago, for an article in
Outdoor Photographer, he had conducted a test of six competitive lenses and
found one to be significantly better. That manufacturer was understandably
pleased, but the other five threatened to stop advertising in OP if the
results were published. They weren't!
If true, then even the vaunted OP magazine has slipped into obsequity [sic]!
IMHO it has over the last several years that I have been reading it. We're
right back at square one. Read all you can get your hands on, read between
the lines in what you read and make the best informed opinion that you can.
*You* are your own test lab!
- --
Roger Beamon, Naturalist & Photographer
Docent: Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
Leica Historical Society Of America
INTERNET: beamon@primenet.com