garyvot wrote:
I don't perceive a bias in his reporting, no matter how many fanboys say it's so.
Hmmm... so if we have legitimate concerns about RG's objectivity we're fanboys, eh?
Speaking personally I have only his online presence on which to base my opinion of him and his views, and I'm quite comfortable with saying that his articles do not come across as balanced and unbiased.
keithreeder wrote:
Hmmm... so if we have legitimate concerns about RG's objectivity we're fanboys, eh?
This is a common perception in internet-dom: If you're critical of a piece of work that is critical of an object/person/event/whatever, then you're a fanboy according to people who agree with the critical piece of work.
In this case, if you're critical of RG's piece of work that is critical of the 1D4, you're considered a fanboy by people who approve of RG's piece of work.
kakomu wrote:
In this case, if you're critical of RG's piece of work that is critical of the 1D4, you're considered a fanboy by people who approve of RG's piece of work.
RG did a nice job of giving just enough praise to make his review seem unbiased.
He included the negative to keep himself in the headlines so to speak.
If RG were to give a Phenomenal review to the 1d IV, the following would've happened..
1. Nikon most likely pulls all their advertising from his site. Affecting his pocketbook.
2. Nikon cuts off the 'free' lenses given to RG
3. It takes RG out of the spotlight. His site looses 90% of it's hits, because he's not relevant anymore
4. RG is broke, has no more free Nikon 'perks', and his site is back into oblivion as it was before the mark III review.
His review is obviously a carefully orchestrated promotional money-maker! Just look at all the forums linking to his review. If he gave a positive review, this would be a 1 page thread.
Clearly Nikon aren't paying the poor bloke as much as you may think
"If you've found this article useful, please consider making a donation through the link at right to help offset the high bandwidth costs associated with making over 2GB of full resolution files available for download on the next page. Thanks in advance for any amount you choose to contribute. - Rob Galbraith"
"If this is the best the company could muster, after the autofocus debacle of the EOS-1D Mark III, then it's official: Canon has lost their autofocus mojo."
That statement alone is so obviously biased I'm finding it hard to believe anyone here is trying to defend his impartiality. The hidden message is "Canon didn't consult me during their beta tests and now they're going to pay".
drozz119 wrote:
RG did a nice job of giving just enough praise to make his review seem unbiased.
He included the negative to keep himself in the headlines so to speak.
If RG were to give a Phenomenal review to the 1d IV, the following would've happened..
1. Nikon most likely pulls all their advertising from his site. Affecting his pocketbook.
2. Nikon cuts off the 'free' lenses given to RG
3. It takes RG out of the spotlight. His site looses 90% of it's hits, because he's not relevant anymore
4. RG is broke, has no more free Nikon 'perks', and his site is back into oblivion as it was before the mark III review.
His review is obviously a carefully orchestrated promotional money-maker! Just look at all the forums linking to his review. If he gave a positive review, this would be a 1 page thread. ...Show more →
Considering RG's notoriety is tied to how extensively he has cataloged his distaste for the 1D3, I would not doubt this. Impartial reviews of products are click generators only if you have proven yourself to be thorough, interesting and reliable. Otherwise, you have to move on to inflammatory reviews to get people to visit your site.
jamesf99 wrote:
Do you think RG did the right thing by accusing and running? That's anathema to me...
I don't think he did it maliciously.
I do think it wasn't the right decision, though I can see his predicament. People were expecting a timely review, and he was apparently just about ready to finish it up when Canon came up with the new firmware.
I can imagine a scenario where Rob stopped the publication, redid everything with the new firmware, and then another firmware (either Canon or Nikon) came out just before publication, and he'd have to start all over again, too.
mark fadely wrote:
I shoot mostly small fast flyiing things and my most used lens is the 300 2.8 wide open. So I decided to perform a long-burst tracking test that would prove my point on how well my MKIII was doing after the latest fix. Here is a link to a 16 shot burst of a jet model traveling at around 100mph towards the camera.
I am glad you posted this link. This posting was one of the major reasons I was convinced that the 1DMK3 could focus. The used 1DMK3 I bought was a blue dot unit and I have AF experienced performance similar to yours. Now, if I just can figure out how to hold the camera as steady as you do.
Seems like it. Who knows whether RG will be proven correct this time. But the posts from those shooting Canon and those who don't are following a similar path as before, with even more vile responses this time around (for and against). Anyone who refuses to acknowledge the pluses and minuses of all camera equipment is truly a fanboy and/or troll.
RG has to be really careful here. Because of what happened with the 1D3, he could do some serious damage to the 1D4 despite being wrong or too narrowly focused in his tests and analysis.
DavidP wrote:
I don't think he did it maliciously.
I do think it wasn't the right decision, though I can see his predicament. People were expecting a timely review, and he was apparently just about ready to finish it up when Canon came up with the new firmware.
I can imagine a scenario where Rob stopped the publication, redid everything with the new firmware, and then another firmware (either Canon or Nikon) came out just before publication, and he'd have to start all over again, too.
I couldn't sleep at night if I bashed Canon (one of my favorite sports BTW) without at least some verifiable proof. I simply see no evidence that the Nikon is better, and I'm a big fan of the D3 series. I also see no evidence that the problems he reported were not fixed by the firmware.
I've always supported RG but now he goes and does a bush-league thing like this. If the 1D4 is an over priced turkey like the 1D3 was, that will come out, but we need to give Canon a chance to update the firmware before we lynch them. If there's a problem and they don't immediately address it, then by all means let's use barbed wire for the rope to hang them....
M Vers wrote:
Again, show me the proof--who was complaining? Where are all the mass complaints? A firmware update does not always represent there was a problem.
If a firmware update doesn't mean there was a problem then why don't you please tell us what it does means? Do you think Canon had nothing better to do that week than release new firmware that does nothing?
You don't need "mass complaints" for something to be broken. If something is broken, the company I work for will fix it regardless of how many of our customers are actively complaining about it. Our studies have shown that for every customer who calls us with a problem 7-10 others are suffering with it and not telling us about it. The way you make customers really really happy is to fix a problem before they have to complain about it.
scowl wrote:
If a firmware update doesn't mean there was a problem then why don't you please tell us what it does means? Do you think Canon had nothing better to do that week than release new firmware that does nothing?
Of course I think it did something. There are such things as 'enhancements' and or 'upgrades'--they do exist. It doesn't take something needing to be fixed to get an enhancement and or upgrade, does it?
scowl wrote:
If a firmware update doesn't mean there was a problem then why don't you please tell us what it does means? Do you think Canon had nothing better to do that week than release new firmware that does nothing?
Just because one firmware is better than a previous version doesn't mean that the previous version was bad or broken. Firmware can be update for many reasons, including (but not limited to) increasing efficiency, adding features and improving features.
Beni wrote:
I think that the winter Olympics will tell the tale as to whether RG is on his own with this. I have no doubt that the pro's will not put up for another mkIII type fiasco and the response this time will be far far faster. Let's wait and see...
At the very least the weather proofing, specifically water sealing, will get a work out.
scowl wrote:
If a firmware update doesn't mean there was a problem then why don't you please tell us what it does means?
The 5D Mk II/video shooters are getting miffed about the late delivery of a promised firmware update that adds extra video capabilities. It's not fixing anything, it's enhancing the camera's functionality.
So there's a firmware update that isn't "fixing a problem"...
