RE: Vs: R lens tests (was: Re: [Leica] Re: Why M is so popular?)

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

I would suggest that you can take the magazine reviews as pretty reasonable
general guidance, rather than gospel.....Also, keep the audience of the
publication in mind when you read the reviews - questions about intangibles
such as value for dollars spent usually have more to do with who the readers
are than how good the product really is......If a magazine such as The Robb
Report - a revolting publication aimed at the ostentaciously rich - does an
article about hot cameras, it's not going to say "This is a wonderful
camera, but not quite worth the price for what you get." But if Pop Photo
writes about a Leica 50 mm lens, they may well make such a comment...

B. D.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of khmiska
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2000 3:48 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: Vs: R lens tests (was: Re: [Leica] Re: Why M is so
> popular?)
>
>
> LUGers,
> I'm retired now but have worked on both sides of the fence -
> editorial and public
> relations. Magazines aim for at least a ratio of 60% advertising and 40%
> editorial. Further, editors are often politely asked (lightly
> squeezed) by the
> magazines' ad reps or their ad agencies to run a specific item or
> to take a more
> kindly approach. It's a way of life and there's nothing you can
> do about it. Very
> few magazines, photo or otherwise, are 100% above board. There
> are some magazines
> that will not run your publicity unless you advertise (buy
> space). So, whether
> you're a Leica, 'Blad or Rollei freak, take those 'tests' with a
> grain of salt.
> The only thing that matter is that you, as the photographer, are
> happy with your
> equipment.
> Kurt Miska
> Ann Arbor, MI
>
> AppleMac97@aol.com wrote:
>
> > <<From: Nathan Wajsman <wajsman@webshuttle.ch>
> > I am a deeply cynical person when it comes to business. After
> several years
> > of reading magazines like Popular Photography and before that Modern
> > Photography, I am fully convinced that the editorial policies of these
> > magazines
> > are driven by the advertising. This suspicion is strengthened
> by the fact
> > that the subscription is dirt cheap (I used to pay $9.95 a year
> for Pop Photo
> > in the early 90s). Clearly, subscriptions do not pay the freight there,
> > ads do. I do not recall ever reading a review of any major
> brand which was
> > negative. Now, it could be that everything produced by Nikon,
> Pentax, Minolta
> > and Canon is just wonderful, but I tend to believe that the magazines
> > know which side of the bread is buttered..>>>>
> >
> > Nathan:
> >
> > Your suspicions are correct!  Many years ago, Pop Photo or Modern Photo
> > responding to a reader's letter stated that they never publish negative
> > reviews of photo equipment for legal reasons, i.e. they were
> afraid of being
> > sued by the manufacturers.  My personal interpretation is that they were
> > afraid of losing advertising revenues from those companies,
> because other
> > magazines such as Consumer Reports routinely evaluate products
> without being
> > taken to court by unhappy manufacturers.  So if you never see a
> review of a
> > certain camera or lens, you can assume that their tests showed
> it to be a
> > poor quality product, and that they decided not to publish it.
> >
> > Muhammad Chishty
>
>