Your naivety is showing ... Nikon pay for ads on Amazon.
Canon knew what they were doing when refusing Phil a review camera. As you’ve stated, bias …. Canon knew in advance they were not getting a fair review from Phil, who has shown his own smallmindedness.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
That's not Nikon's fault and doesn't detract from their current lineup, but Phil's losing fans and clearly hasn't forgiven Canon over their treatment of him in the past.
Phil's review have always emphasized straight out of the camera jpg images and while I felt that in the early days he was probably one of the most extensive reviewers on the internet there is a lot of competition now. His reviews were more for the general point and shoot camera enthusiast. I found his reviews helpful when my friend and relatives would ask me about what kind of Point and Shoot camera should I buy. None of these folks care about RAW processing. I know a colleague who has a nikon DSLR but never touches RAW files. It is clear that the in camera jpg images are not what most of us who participate on this web site care about.
gbee wrote:
Your naivety is showing ... Nikon pay for ads on Amazon.
Canon knew what they were doing when refusing Phil a review camera. As you’ve stated, bias …. Canon knew in advance they were not getting a fair review from Phil, who has shown his own smallmindedness.
Just because Nikon has ads on Amazon, doesn't mean they put pressure on Phil. Maybe Amazon had a quite word to him but I don't believe Nikon would have anything to do with what Phil writes. That is too cynical even by my standards.
Although it should have no bearing on his reviews, Canon have treated Askey with contempt for a while now, so don't make out their innocent victims.
And for such a BIG company to take such a personal interest in one man .... he must have royally given them the big finger behind the scenes ~~ and ant acting like an elephant comes to mind.
Read between the lines, you don't boycott a reviewer just for one bad review ... you'd work with him like they did with Galbraith ... we have precedents in this case.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Although it should have no bearing on his reviews, Canon have treated Askey with contempt for a while now, so don't make out their innocent victims.
hyperion wrote:
Why are you surprised by that? Do you really think people buy the D3 "just" for image quality?
No, I don't; in fact, in the first paragraph at the top of this thread I wrote, "there's a lot more to a camera than IQ (e.g., speed, features, build quality, ergos, weatherproofing), and at high ISOs the D3 clearly pulls away from the 5D."
bobbytan wrote:
Huh? I would think that IQ is more important than feature set. To me, the 5D images have better color balance. The images are cleaner and brighter than either the D3 or D300.
I have seen a lot of washed-out-looking images from the D3-- I have begun calling this the "D3 looK". I am unsure whether this is due to JPEG shooting and in-camera processing, or something else.
jvarszegi wrote:
I have seen a lot of washed-out-looking images from the D3-- I have begun calling this the "D3 looK". I am unsure whether this is due to JPEG shooting and in-camera processing, or something else.
Let's remember that Nikon have only recently caught up to Canon i.q wise. It is interesting then all the fuss by some that we now need to jump ship to Nikon and that Canon are not up to scratch is really sily and emotive talk.
I think it is great that there are fantastic cameras from both camps to be had. If anything it's now the vast majotiy of photographers who are not up to the quality of the gear. That is many who get evangelical about features and pixels etc who can not yet create an image that a great photographer can get from a D60.
I think the future investment we need to be making is not just gear but in our education as photographers. Professional or otherwise. Of course most of us don't really believe we have that much to learn.
Then of course there is the horrible reality that another photographer may make some money by teaching us something.
I have my 5D since December 2005 and I still love it.
It is nice to know the IQ of the 5D is still as good as the newest camera with a comparable sensor. Because IQ is the most important to me. Speed and weathersealing are not that important to me. Better dust protection and a few more AF points wider spread and all crosstype would be nice but I am not in a hurry to replace my 5D
It all comes down to what tools works best for you.
The Nikon is trying to build a all-in-one D3.
Whereas Canon gives you two options:
FAST... 1DMKIII
Resolution... 1DsMKIII
Even in their lower lines,
FAST... 40D
Resolution... 5D
I think my long-standing mantra regarding DPReview applies here: Look at the numbers, ignore the words.
DPReview has some useful stats in their reviews, and it's easy to be blinded by all the charts. But look past the numbers and their actual reviews are horrible.
Yes. In fact I now remember have seen one Italian photographer's comparison online, where he postprocessed low-ISO images similarly from the two cameras and they looked identical to me with the minor differences of less CA in the Nikon image and slightly different focus. If I had such a high-end camera I would not use the in-camera processing for much of my shooting... but I cannot afford such a camera anyway. I based my early opinion on seeing sports shots, which mostly seemed to be overexposed (blown highlights etc.) and this may have contributed to the color effects I was seeing. I suppose it is natural also for a completely new camera not to be used to fullest effect by excited new purchasers.
It seems to me that the reason the D3 is so compelling is that it is a complete package. The DPReview article minorly detracted from it by saying that for a sports shooter it offers a 5MP alternative to the 1D Mark III, which is a tad bit silly in my opinion. There's no other camera out there with its mix of capabilities. I am sure I would not need more than its capabilities unless I needed higher resolution for some reason, and a higher-res Nikon is apparently in the works.
Where are you going to get such painstaking, thorough, and yes, objective reviews of cameras--free, too, if not Phil? Nobody is completely free of bias at all times, in every mood and in all weathers.
Nikon will incorporate both (speed and high resolution) in their D3 replacement, probably later this year, so you can get the best of both worlds in 1 body. Would be interesting to see how Canon responds.
s23chang wrote:
It all comes down to what tools works best for you.
The Nikon is trying to build a all-in-one D3.
Whereas Canon gives you two options:
FAST... 1DMKIII
Resolution... 1DsMKIII
Even in their lower lines,
FAST... 40D
Resolution... 5D
edde wrote:
Yes, the 5D does spanketh the D3 in IQ. Nice to see
As a pro who used the 5D to the tune of 265,000 frames over two bodies and the D3 with 26,000 thus far, I can easily see in my day to day work, not testing, but real photography that the 5D clearly does not "Spanketh" the D3 in terms of image quality.
From ISO 100-400, they are about the same, really.
But from ISO 640 on up, the 5D is capable, but image quality goes to the D3 easily.
I still think the 5D is the camera that changed it all, but since I have always preferred Nikon, the decision to switch back with the D3 was a no brainer.
Some that I can see is caused by the creative lighting ~ remote flash control.
Apparently when the remote flash is hidden in daylight, it blows out.
jvarszegi wrote:
I have seen a lot of washed-out-looking images from the D3-- I have begun calling this the "D3 looK". I am unsure whether this is due to JPEG shooting and in-camera processing, or something else.
I find that the 5D has the best ISO400 (least noise) of any camera I have tested personally, or, seen sample pix of online. Other than the sensor collects dust often,
I love my 5D!
