Sy Sez wrote:
Again? They threatened a shutdown some time ago, and it didn't happen.
At that time, the previous owner did end up selling it to the current owner, IIRC.
About the posts suggesting that they have lost or don’t have access to sources of rumors, I’ve wondered about that for some time.There aren’t that many “rumors” on the site, and even confirmed information about upcoming stuff is scant. It feels more like “Canon News And Information” than “Canon Rumors.”
I'm glad it's gone. It never was anything but click-bait. When I quit looking at their stuff, maybe 5 years ago, they had never gotten anything right, about anything. If you looked at CR, you were the product.
The forums and social stuff is being removed.that's not the site shutting down.
EBH
TomSchriefer wrote:
I'm glad it's gone. It never was anything but click-bait. When I quit looking at their stuff, maybe 5 years ago, they had never gotten anything right, about anything. If you looked at CR, you were the product.
TomSchriefer wrote:
I'm glad it's gone. It never was anything but click-bait. When I quit looking at their stuff, maybe 5 years ago, they had never gotten anything right, about anything. If you looked at CR, you were the product.
This may come as a surprise to you, but you.re not forced or compelled to visit any site that you don't like.
Curious to know where else do folks go for rumors about upcoming Canon products? Most places I know just point to CR. They might add their own speculations to it, but mostly they start from a CR article.
TomSchriefer wrote:
Isn't that what I just said? I looked at it, found it completely worthless and didn't go back. Who said anything about being compelled to do anything?
No, you said, "I'm glad it's gone". Which would seem to imply that because you don't like it, you're happy that others who do will be deprived of it.
Sy Sez wrote:
No, you said, "I'm glad it's gone". Which would seem to imply that because you don't like it, you're happy that others who do will be deprived of it.
And you continue. I AM GLAD IT'S GONE makes absolutely no comment on what I think others should think. It is a statement of what I think. Period. Full stop. End of sentence.
dcisive wrote:
I have long seen so many complain about noise regarding the R5MkII. Frankly with the advent of both DXO Photolab 8 and Topaz Photo noise is a thing of the past right up to ISO 51,200. So why is noise in a camera even brought up? Even results from a OM1 MkII at ISO 25,800 is virtually not even there. And I mean with NO detail destruction (contrary to so many reviews of cameras out there in general). ISO noise is pretty much a thing of the past. I haven't touched the likes of anything Adobe for that reason. DXO and Topaz are far beyond them at this point. I take a RAW into either of those two and voila' great detail, sharpness and not a hint of grain anywhere to be found at higher ISO's which interestingly enough I rarely shoot at in the first place. ISO6400 is about the extreme for me and that's nothing to banish noise at. Even ON1 can do that. In the end to ME it's no longer an issue with what a RAW from camera is about. It's about what it ends up after a tad bit of post processing. Even in batch....Show more →
No algorithm can recover an unknown signal buried in random noise. That is a simple scientific fact. Whatever detail you don't see being destructed is invented. So yeah, noise will always be an issue for people who care about a faithful rendering.
