Honestly I find that it has too much 'jargon', and I'd much rather a simple straightforward review. Haesslich nailed it on the head with his last statement I think. Seems to be a 'NATO' (No Action, Talk Only) type of review to me. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Is Aten still doing reviews or has the web site turned into a dead end?
I always got a laugh at the new phrases he would make up. Anyone else would say spot and spill beam. Aten says, "we've codified as a highly Context Inclusive Illumination Window (CIIW) as compared with a Context Exclusive Illumination Window (CEIW) (*5)"
I would say 'distance' but Aten, "we conducted a Maximum Distance for Object Identification or MDOI (*2)."
And there are more wonderful phrases like that.
Like a so-so movie Aten has a couple of comedic scenes and the rest of the story is a snooze. I never could finish reading his reviews.
The review copy was disgustingly obtuse and the site design made them difficult to read. For a "usability expert," Aten made some wierd mistakes on site layout.
S'alright. If you take the time to go through his reviews, he makes some interesting points about the ergonomics of each light (and he had the only KC-1 review for ages), but he doesn't do much in the way of actual runtime tests or actual brightness comparisons.
The plastic bag test I found particularly useless, especially as he made SIMULATED beamshots without having even the decency to take a real plastic bag out somewhere to photograph. I always found the grey overlay kinda amusing. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Another GOOD reviews page
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote