jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.19 #16 · RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance | |
garyvot wrote:
I think the "problem" is the lack of critical thinking that allows people to assume that some impropriety exists without objective evidence to prove it.
Do we know for sure why Canon advertising does not appear on Rob's site? Are we certain that Rob accepts advertising dollars only from Nikon and no other camera maker?
I can state this much from first-hand knowledge: I worked quite closely with Rob on several projects back in the 2003-2005 timeframe. I know his consulting business required him to work with clients having both Nikon and Canon equipment, on a personal level he was a happy Canon shooter in those days. He once confided in me how he couldn't really figure out why his died-in-the-wool Nikon buddies couldn't see the difference for themselves in Canon files (recall this was back in the D2h/D2x days). He never once demonstrated any kind of Nikon bias in my interactions with him.
I believe that his integrity as a journalist is important to him; photojournalism was, after all, his first career. I for one can see that reflected in his writing, which is fact-based and objectively written to a much greater extent than most equipment blog sites on the Web.
You could argue that he his reviews have been based on bad samples, or he has incorrectly set up his grear, or his many posted images don't really show a problem. That's fine, but that's a different kind of criticism than calling the man a charlatan or a fraud because these Nikon ads "prove" he is on the take. For that you better have proof.
Whatever his current opinion of Nikon and Canon equipment, it seems likely to me that it might have something to do with the inherent qualities of the cameras themselves. Rob did not cause large numbers of Canon shooters to switch to Nikon in the last two years: Nikon and Canon did....Show more →
It's not a lack of critical thinking, it's in most cases an awareness that something isn't right with this "review".
I am not in the market for this camera, nor do I plan to buy one any time soon. My interest is solely in Canon's engineering development, quality control, and integrity; three areas where they've proven themselves lacking in recent years.
I've always supported RG and never believed he demonstrated any bias, even after he switched to Nikon. If he actually has uncovered another substandard Canon product being sold as a professional tool, I, and anyone that thinks,should congratulate him. But this time RG's "review" has problems that hurt his credibility IMO, not the least of which include the following:
1) He admitted he didn't use current firmware. All results may be invalid.
2) While this never bothered me previously, he accepts money from, and uses, Nikon equipment. I'm a big fan of the Nikon D3 series, but claiming that Nikon advertising dollars and relationship are not a consideration, one way or another, are simply disingenuous or misguided. Unless he has another mfg waiting in the wings to make up for a potential ad revenue loss, his comments can no longer be considered unbiased without question. he also accepts revenue from Panasonic (not a real competitor) and TT, based on what one can assume is a equal opportunity ad package. Also, remember, Canon was once his principle advertiser... ** see below...
3) He didn't show side-by-side comparisons demonstrating Nikon got the shot that Canon missed. Evidence (side-by-side images) from other reviews refute his claims. Additionally, the camera (1D4) is new and Canon deserves the chance to make corrections, just as Nikon did with the D3.
4) and this is the one that really bothers me, knowing full well what his comments would do, he purposely/intentionally left the specter of another AF debacle hanging over the cameras head, with a very unprofessional "I'll correct it in a few months" dismissal. That's the epitome of "Yellow journalism".
I'm actually saddened by this. I'm sure RG is a decent guy that just made a huge, and preventable mistake. Even if the 1D4 has problems, it doesn't excuse the way this was presented. There's a higher standard on review sites (besides DPR and ken Rockwell's that is) and once you lose credibility for misleading/misinforming, it may be gone for good. IMO he should immediately publish an acknowledgment that he screwed up, but it's his reputation.
** A large group of Toyota dealers in the South eastern US pulled their advertising from ABC affiliates because according to the group, ABC was focusing too much on the negative aspects of the Toyota recalls. While incredibly dumb, this shows exactly what advertisers (that lack credibility) will do when criticized. Are Nikon and Canon really above such tactics? Did Canon end their advertising relationship or did RG kick them out? I don't know, but one rightly should wonder when ever money is at stake...
|
