"Highly recommended (just)" -- what does it mean?

[Bernhard 1]

Hi,

I'm no native speaker, and as such, I dont understand the verdict in the K10D-review: does "just" mean, "Highly Recommended" is "justified" for the K10D, or that the camera nearly missed the "Highly Recommended"-rating?

thanks for answers,

--
Bernhard

 

[steelski]

Dont Go there Girl...

 

[Jan Moren]

Hi,

I'm no native speaker, and as such, I dont understand the verdict
in the K10D-review: does "just" mean, "Highly Recommended" is
"justified" for the K10D, or that the camera nearly missed the
"Highly Recommended"-rating?

It seems to mean the camera is actually "Highly Recommended", but the reviewer saw fit to vent his frustration with people on this forum by adding the "(just)" as a form of comeback. The "(just)" has nothing to do with the camera itself in other words.

--
Japan: http://www.lucs.lu.se/people/jan.moren/log/current.html
Images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jannem/

 

[ChrisDM]

Surely you're not serious. If you believe this then you're blinded by your brand loyalty... He clearly explained his reservations about giving the camera a heartlity Highly Receomended, and his reasoning was based on the poor in-camera image processing. And for the benefit of the original poster, who apparently didn't read the full article either, here are Phil's words exactly regarding the rating: "At just under $900 it's a very strong proposition, so despite our reservations about the slightly soft image processing the K10D just achieves a Highly Recommended."

It seems to mean the camera is actually "Highly Recommended", but
the reviewer saw fit to vent his frustration with people on this
forum by adding the "(just)" as a form of comeback. The "(just)"
has nothing to do with the camera itself in other words.

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

 

[Atheon]

Hi,

I'm no native speaker, and as such, I dont understand the verdict
in the K10D-review: does "just" mean, "Highly Recommended" is
"justified" for the K10D, or that the camera nearly missed the
"Highly Recommended"-rating?

It seems to mean the camera is actually "Highly Recommended", but
the reviewer saw fit to vent his frustration with people on this
forum by adding the "(just)" as a form of comeback. The "(just)"
has nothing to do with the camera itself in other words.

That's a very bold statement my friend. As much as I disagree with the final rating, I think Phil only added the "just" because he was so dissapointed by the jpeg output. Yes, it is a criticism and a fault (IMO) of the camera, but I think too much emphasis was placed on this downfall, and not enough on the camera overall. I really don't think Phil would let other forum members affect his reviews though.

 

[gkreth]

I'm no native speaker, and as such, I dont understand the verdict
in the K10D-review: does "just" mean, "Highly Recommended" is
"justified" for the K10D, or that the camera nearly missed the
"Highly Recommended"-rating?

It seems to mean the camera is actually "Highly Recommended", but
the reviewer saw fit to vent his frustration with people on this
forum by adding the "(just)" as a form of comeback. The "(just)"
has nothing to do with the camera itself in other words.

Sigh...

What it means is that the camera made the HR rating, but just barely.

So, the "(just)" DOES have something to do with the camera itself.

Disagree with Phil's review, but don't change its meaning, please.

For a letter-grade comparison, it's an "A-minus" as opposed to an "A." For a number-grade system, think of it as a "90%" as opposed to "95%."

The camera did not have enough issues to miss the HR rating, but there were enough issues so that is just barely squeezed in at an HR rating.

Phil has used qualifiers a few times now:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/page19.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona710is/page12.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms6000fd/page14.asp

I personally like the idea; it more precisely defines his "level" of recommendation.

--Greg

 

[gkreth]

I'm no native speaker, and as such, I dont understand the verdict
in the K10D-review: does "just" mean, "Highly Recommended" is
"justified" for the K10D, or that the camera nearly missed the
"Highly Recommended"-rating?

It seems to mean the camera is actually "Highly Recommended", but
the reviewer saw fit to vent his frustration with people on this
forum by adding the "(just)" as a form of comeback. The "(just)"
has nothing to do with the camera itself in other words.

Sigh...

What it means is that the camera made the HR rating, but just barely.

So, the "(just)" DOES have something to do with the camera itself.

Disagree with Phil's review, but don't change its meaning, please.

For a letter-grade comparison, it's an "A-minus" as opposed to an "A." For a number-grade system, think of it as a "90%" as opposed to "95%."

The camera did not have enough issues to miss the HR rating, but there were enough issues so that is just barely squeezed in at an HR rating.
Phil has used qualifiers a few times now:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/page19.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona710is/page12.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms6000fd/page14.asp

I personally like the idea; it more precisely defines his "level" of recommendation.
--Greg

 

[Jon Hall]

It's a useful qualification and it's fine by me.

I've still ordered the camera, just as I ordered the DL2 earlier in the year despite a UK magazine giving it a really good reveiw with a slight reservation about some "over-processing" of JPEGs. I don't quite believe how personally some people have taken the review to be honest, with a raft of conspiracy theories and allegations that the site's credibility would be undermined.

With the SR and waterproofing, together with the usual great backwards compatibility offered by Pentax, it's the camera I need. It's useful to know it's not perfect and for real sharpmenss, where it's needed, I might have to abandon JPG, but I also agree with other posters that over-sharp DSLR images can look like two-dimensional cutouts.

It's a review. Of a camera. It was a pretty good review, and the reviewer did a good job of expressing a genuine concern he had, while still commending a strong product.

 

[Jan Moren]

Hi,

I'm no native speaker, and as such, I dont understand the verdict
in the K10D-review: does "just" mean, "Highly Recommended" is
"justified" for the K10D, or that the camera nearly missed the
"Highly Recommended"-rating?

It seems to mean the camera is actually "Highly Recommended", but
the reviewer saw fit to vent his frustration with people on this
forum by adding the "(just)" as a form of comeback. The "(just)"
has nothing to do with the camera itself in other words.

I'm sorry; I meant this to come across as a way-over-the-top tongue in cheek non-answer. I didn't succeed very well.

--
Japan: http://www.lucs.lu.se/people/jan.moren/log/current.html
Images: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jannem/

 

[fwcetus]

It seems to mean the camera is actually "Highly Recommended", but
the reviewer saw fit to vent his frustration with people on this
forum by adding the "(just)" as a form of comeback. The "(just)"
has nothing to do with the camera itself in other words.

Gimme a break...

It was a well-done review of a fine camera body that made some points which some of us might disagree with, that's all.

The next Pentax DSLR will be even better...

--
Fred

 

[rondeann]

I agree with Jan Moren. The classifications available are "Recommended" and 'Highly Recommended'. Either create another category that will apply to everyone or use the ones you have. The numerical values for each area of evaluation are there and speak for themselves. It's obvious when you create a new category (just) for this one review you are trying to draw attention and I believe that intention was to send a message (If you bug me it will cost you).

I purchased the K10D after this review came out because I make my own decisions based on all the information I can gather and for me the overall value of this camera compared to everything else on the market (I repeat, OVERALL) is overwhelming. I have owned (and still own) five different brands of cameras (including canon) and if something comes out in the future that is better overall I will probably buy it regardless of brand or any single review.
Thats my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[gkreth]

I agree with Jan Moren.

Yeah, but Jan was just being tongue-in-cheek. See his follow-up post:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=21318293

It's obvious when you create a new category (just)
for this one review

As I pointed out in an earlier thread, Phil has used qualifiers a few times now:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/page19.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona710is/page12.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms6000fd/page14.asp

I believe that [Phil's] intention was to send a message (If you bug
me it will cost you).

I seriously doubt that. Phil's site is highly respected, I'm sure, but I doubt he has that sort of clout, or would use it in that was if he did.

 

[gkreth]

I'm sorry; I meant this to come across as a way-over-the-top tongue
in cheek non-answer. I didn't succeed very well.

No problem. BTW, I like your Japan shots, especially the "bikers" and the "hair-cutting" kids. Things certainly have changed since I lived there (in the early- to mid-1970s)!

--Greg

 

[Jon Hall]

I agree with Jan Moren. The classifications available are
"Recommended" and 'Highly Recommended'. Either create another
category that will apply to everyone or use the ones you have. The
numerical values for each area of evaluation are there and speak
for themselves. It's obvious when you create a new category (just)
for this one review you are trying to draw attention and I believe
that intention was to send a message (If you bug me it will cost
you).

One man's "obvious" is clearly different to another's.

 

[rondeann]

regardless of what he said later.

Every human being has prejudices and that includes you and me and Phil. The difference is you and I don't have the added responsibility of controlling a publication that can effect what thousands of people do. This site IS highly respected which makes it even more important that it shows no favoritism. It is an awesome responsibility and obviously not one that I am willing to accept (retirement is great). I have no bones to pick, no money to make and don't care what other people think (just ask my wife).

When you control a publication and make statements that make it appear that you prefer a certain brand (no I can't quote but we have all seen them, at least I have) it's bound to come back to haunt you. We reap what we sow.

 

[richardplondon]

to the OP, in answer to language query: "just" is here short for "only just" - it means that he was thinking about putting it into the lower category of "recommended". The camera managed to get "highly recommended", but it was a close decision.

RP

 

[tapir]

--
http://www.pbase.com/klopus

 

[rondeann]

Actually I appreciate knowing Phill's preferences. It makes it much easier to determine what 'just' means when evaluating a review.

I think that the K10D is offering a real alternative to C and that will be good for all consumers. Only time will tell.

 

[rondeann]

it only further demonstrates that we need a category between 'Recommended' and 'Highly Recommended" but not a vague word that can be interpreted differently by each person (see all the questions about 'just'). Ideally the final value would be numeric and although that would not eliminate personal prejudices it would be a step in the right direction.

I realize that Phil has stated that the present final evaluation is only his opinion we all know that the general public take that as a 'buy' or 'don't buy'.

 

[BIJ001]

"highly recommended (just)"

I try to translate it into German:

Die Kamera hat gerade (knapp) dieses Predikat verdient.