We’ve been, from time-to-time, accused of using overly flowery language in the reviews on this site. We try to tread that fine line between trying not to say exactly the same thing time-after-time and lapsing into the incomprehensible. And, on the whole, I think we get it about right. But, as you'd expect, there is the occasional dissenting voice on the forum demanding that we must just state the facts as dryly as possible (But then the forums would be a much less 'vibrant' place if everyone agreed on everything).
However, our linguistic forays - even at their most florid - are nothing compared to the adventures in prose undertaken on behalf of some of the camera companies. Perhaps it’s because much of the underlying material has been translated from unrelated languages – a process that can result in some beautiful, if somewhat enigmatic, imagery. Or maybe because there are few jobs more thankless than having to compose three pages-worth of compelling text about a camera that differs from its predecessor only in the inclusion of a larger screen, a more densely-packed sensor and a smattering of new scene modes (surely soon to include ‘Friends eating Lancashire Hotpot on a Wednesday evening in summer' mode).
Statements such as: “The subject floats serenely in its own world, like a misty memory or the landscape of a dream” are not unheard of, making me slightly concerned that the next time I order prints I’m going to be confronted with the question: ‘What finish would you like? Gloss, Matte or Whimsy?’
My favourite of late, however, must be the press release that suggesting that the camera it was pushing included a mode that can create: “a sense of déjà vu.” Which sounds lovely, unless you make the mistake of thinking about it too hard. I suspect that, if you take photos for yourself, then you’re probably doing so to preserve memories, in which case the sensation of having experienced the scene before should really come as standard; and those who’re taking photos to show or sell to other people probably aren’t hoping for the response: “I’ve already seen this.”

Congrats on getting with the Blogosphere!
Posted by: Jeffrey | 6 Nov 2008 15:47:59
white background/black type may help readability
is there a preference somewhere?
Safari or FireFox3, Apple OSX.5
Posted by: Laurentiu Todie | 6 Nov 2008 15:59:36
Good luck. One question: why no "post a comment" for other blogs?
Renato
Posted by: rhlpetrus | 6 Nov 2008 16:07:12
Great Idea ! Could you place a link to the new blogs in a prominent location on the main menu.
Posted by: steve | 6 Nov 2008 16:09:27
I utterly second this. I don't have very good eyes, and I find it so hard to read the white on black that I actually turn off style sheets in my browser when reading more than a couple of sentences.
Posted by: Bob | 6 Nov 2008 16:12:02
The whole black text/white background is part of the 'look' of the site and is quite beyond my powers to change, I'm afraid.
The choice of whether to accept comments is down to the individual posters. I suspect my colleagues are waiting to see how viciously I get savaged before enabling comments on their posts. ;)
Richard
Posted by: Richard Butler | 6 Nov 2008 16:17:14
Excellent post -- made me laugh.
Posted by: Labenge | 6 Nov 2008 16:32:00
The last paragraph is precious.
Posted by: Ronn Stacy | 6 Nov 2008 16:40:27
In Safari and Firefox on a Mac. To change to black text on white I use the Zap Colors bookmarklet which can be googled for. It works very well and you can use the back button to go back to white on black.
Posted by: sphexx | 6 Nov 2008 17:24:25
Good work sphexx. There you go, Laurentiu and Bob, your problem solved. I've just tried it on my machine and it works on the PC too (in Firefox, at least).
https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html
Posted by: Richard Butler | 6 Nov 2008 17:35:21
Loved ur post !! Exactly my kind of humor...made me laugh a lot and even steal the awesome name you came up for the brand new camera mode to use it as my MSN quote...
Congrats for the creativity !
Posted by: Bruno Favoreto | 6 Nov 2008 18:52:27
Thanks for the info. I've noticed that a couple of the last couple of reviews sounded as if they were introduced by the comdedian Dennis Miller. I agree that reviews need not be boring, but I should not need a thesaurus to userstand what you are saying.
Posted by: dad_of_four | 6 Nov 2008 18:59:59
Nice to see new features.
One comment: I vote for the current language style. Dry language may seem professional but it is so boring. A little bit of humor is nice to read sometimes.
Posted by: LeifM | 6 Nov 2008 20:38:29
compliments for the idea. It gives more value to the exchange of opinions and to the sharing of knowledge & experience.
Posted by: cirospat | 6 Nov 2008 22:43:44
1.- Good idea the blogs
2.- Your reviews are pleasant to read, I think you follow that fine line in a good way
3.- I hope you won't review in the future "a camera that differs from its predecessor only in the inclusion of a larger screen ..."
Thanks
Posted by: bennevis | 6 Nov 2008 22:53:39
Please keep the nice and environmental friendly black background!
Posted by: emersonik | 6 Nov 2008 23:58:31
I would have to say I like a little bit of "flourish" in the writing. For Pete's sake, photography is an art form correct? for Digital Photography Review to be at least a little "artistic" is hardly an example of overstepping some idea of journalistic integrity. If you just want facts, just download the spec sheets...
Posted by: Tom | 7 Nov 2008 01:57:19
I think your reviews are extremely well done and your choice of language makes them even more interesting.
An occasional bit of irony or an elegant twist in the phrase is a welcome relief from the dreadful dullness of the press releases we receive from the zombies in the marketing departments of Camera manufacturers.
Posted by: Alberto Zavaroni | 7 Nov 2008 09:27:23
I love the style of english language DRP uses and it is something that makes the otherwise technical language more interesting! Keep it up!
Posted by: Mayank Bhatnagar | 7 Nov 2008 10:18:56
Thanks for the zap colors tip!
(I like DPR's personality, but B/W is easier to read)
Posted by: Laurentiu Todie | 7 Nov 2008 12:08:59
The internet is over influenced by a minority of very loud, extremely pedantic about facts, nerdy intellectual bullies. I admire your nerve veering into the world of opinions and emotional response to stuff. rather than the absolute metric of measurement and statistic.
I would like to see some more obviously biased reporting. rather than trying to thread the needle. If you hate something however good it performs say so.
By the way i think the unique design of the site and white on black is very distinctive, and readable, don't change.
Posted by: Attomole | 7 Nov 2008 17:09:41
I have been a faithful reader since someone gave me your link back in 2004. This is one fantastic web-site. The navigation is intuitive and the pages never fail. The writing is excellent, I read it even when I am not camara shopping and look daily at lunch for what hit the news column! Great job guys. You are awsome web masters. (i work in IT) thanks for the great job and very hard work.
PS I like the white on black. Very distinctive and clean.
Posted by: Gary Leland | 7 Nov 2008 17:49:32
OMG, I think I've seen that déja vú camera... or was it a dream?
Congrats on the blog, you're gonna get butt kissed by your fans more than you think, fear not to allow comments.
Posted by: Misoman | 8 Nov 2008 00:39:26
Hint: If you find the white on black text hard to read, press CtrlA on your keyboard. It's a simple, quick way to reverse the text to black on white.
The readers who don't like variation in the written context are probably Engineers...
Posted by: Mark | 9 Nov 2008 00:52:00
I don't really care what you guys say in your reviews because my life does not hang on every word that dpreview writes in a camera review, even if I own the gear myself or refuse to confess to being a "fanboi" of the brand.
Also the fact that I prefer to shoot raw so given teh size of the camera, the range of the lens, the quality of the lens and the quality of the sensor, that's all I really am interested in reading about anyway.
You will never offend me by writing "flowery" reviews. You will offend me by continuing to refuse to include raw noise data in your test results and making me download raw shots from IR.com, convert the images and analyze the files myself, to get this information.
Because that says that you are more interested in "flowering up" MFG marketing blurbs than in actually providing useful test-data for your readers. But that's ok, too. Why should dpreview monopolize the camera-review market? You guys can write the "flowery" reviews and other sites can provide the hard test data that we all want to see.
Posted by: p | 11 Dec 2008 18:49:58
The whole page from which you extracted the citation seems to "float" ;)
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/e30/feature/01/
The nine aspect ratios are a definitive must for any up-to-date camera.
Posted by: Andrea Esuli | 16 Dec 2008 16:41:54