Just for the record:
I don't believe in any conspiracy, I just think RG has a positive dialog with Nikon and has trouble communicating with Canon, lately. As a human being, it is very difficult to not let that affect one's attitude towards their respective products. I don't really think his attitude invalidates his test results (the images, that is), but it certainly biases his interpretation and presentation of the results.
alundeb wrote:
Just for the record:
I don't believe in any conspiracy, I just think RG has a positive dialog with Nikon and has trouble communicating with Canon, lately. As a human being, it is very difficult to not let that affect one's attitude towards their respective products. I don't really think his attitude invalidates his test results (the images, that is), but it certainly biases his interpretation and presentation of the results.
Garylv wrote:
Questionable is one thing, but wildly outlandish accusations of a big conspiracy to trash Canon is something all together different. Certainly good for a laugh, but nothing else.
Questioning RG's possible ties to Nikon, fiscal or otherwise, is outlandish? Where do those who do so get off?! What is actually laughable are those naive enough to believe RG has absolutely no bias.
M Vers wrote:
Questioning RG's possible ties to Nikon, fiscal or otherwise, is outlandish?
No, not at all. I can't believe how widely you missed the point. That wasn't the point at all. It's the big conspiracy theory to trash Canon. That's what people are insinuating, directly and indirectly.
Garylv wrote:
No, not at all. I can't believe how widely you missed the point. That wasn't the point at all. It's the big conspiracy theory to trash Canon. That's what people are insinuating, directly and indirectly.
Or that's just your interpretation of what people are saying.
Anyways my alloted 5 posts on any one thread are used up. I'll wait till RG tests again and acknowledges that he made an error in his first tests by choosing multiple AF points and then drop back in to read the posts of the people here who will of course graciously admit they were wrong about Nikon buying up reviewers.
Anyways my alloted 5 posts on any one thread are used up. I'll wait till RG tests again and acknowledges that he made an error in his first tests by choosing multiple AF points and then drop back in to read the posts of the people here who will of course graciously admit they were wrong about Nikon buying up reviewers.
Where is that link supposed to go. I get a dead end with only a bunch of Nikon ads.
Garylv wrote:
No, not at all. I can't believe how widely you missed the point. That wasn't the point at all. It's the big conspiracy theory to trash Canon. That's what people are insinuating, directly and indirectly.
If Nikon is paying RG's bills, in one way or another, would you feel that it's crazy to think RG may have incorporated some bias into his review of the 1DIV? I can't say RG went out of his way to create bad press, but it is not difficult for me to believe given the evidence, both circumstantial and solid.
32067dlm wrote:
Where is that link supposed to go. I get a dead end with only a bunch of Nikon ads.
More conspiracy!
It should go to a page on RG's website that says this.
Sports photographer Brad Mangin posts enthusiastic assessment of EOS-1D Mark IV AF
Tuesday, December 29, 2009 | by Rob Galbraith
In a blog entry today, top-notch U.S. sports photographer Brad Mangin has written an enthusiastic assessment of the EOS-1D Mark IV's AF system, based on his use of a preproduction body at an NFL football game this past weekend.
And yes the glowing review of the Mark IV that RG reports on is surrounded by Nikon ads.
Since this thread has leveled accusations of 'impartial objectivity' at RG, how does the fact that Phil never even reviewed the 1D MkIII work into it? Can anyone think of a single DSLR that DPR didn't review?
I'm honestly not keeping track, so the question isn't necessarily rhetorical...
It should go to a page on RG's website that says this.
Sports photographer Brad Mangin posts enthusiastic assessment of EOS-1D Mark IV AF
Tuesday, December 29, 2009 | by Rob Galbraith
In a blog entry today, top-notch U.S. sports photographer Brad Mangin has written an enthusiastic assessment of the EOS-1D Mark IV's AF system, based on his use of a preproduction body at an NFL football game this past weekend.
And yes the glowing review of the Mark IV that RG reports on is surrounded by Nikon ads.
Follow your own link. I don't think it's a conspiracy! A conspiracy implies that more than one party were involved. I think RG's bias is a personal one. Since his 1DIII testing, he has clearly had a negative bias toward canon. He very likely got thrown out of the Canon loop, and that bruised his ego. Especially given, "all he'd done to help them". Plus the FACT that he's paid by Nikon (even if it's small), only adds to his bias and detracts from his perceived credibility.
M Vers wrote:
If Nikon is paying RG's bills, in one way or another, would you feel that it's crazy to think RG may have incorporated some bias into his review of the 1DIV?
That's like suicide. No I don't believe that. In the long run that would be very poor career management. And you'll notice above, Rob pointed people very early to an extremely good report of the Mark IV. That contradicts what you're implying.
I believe Rob reported his findings accurately based on how HE uses the camera. Which could be much different than how you or I use the camera. Everyone has their own shooting techniques and people will report varying results. It happens with every camera.
Rob's write-up is kind of blunt, for lack of a better word, but he's calling it as he sees it. No need for any Mark IV owners to feel insulted.
Ron Hole wrote:
And yes the glowing review of the Mark IV that RG reports on is surrounded by Nikon ads.
Now reading that review, and various others posted sporadically around the net, and then reading RG's, where do you see the similarities? Unless the website name changes from robgalbraith.com to BradMangin.com I don't see your point at all. It doesn't exonerate RG from being contracted with Nikon.
Garylv wrote:
That's like suicide. No I don't believe that. In the long run that would be very poor career management. And you'll notice above, Rob pointed people very early to an extremely good report of the Mark IV. That contradicts what you're implying.
I believe Rob reported his findings accurately based on how HE uses the camera. Which could be much different than how you or I use the camera. Everyone has their own shooting techniques and people will report varying results. It happens with every camera.
Rob's write-up is kind of blunt, for lack of a better word, but he's calling it as he sees it. No need for any Mark IV owners to feel insulted....Show more →
So what you're saying is it's OK for RG to use a camera incorrectly, be it intentional or not, in order to write up an in depth review? The point I've been trying to make the entire time is that several other sources have cleared the 1DIV as the best camera that they have ever used yet one source, RG, has stated that the camera has serious faults. He does this in a place littered with Nikon ad's and Nikon plugs. How does that seem unquestionable to you? It's not about "calling it as you see it" it's about good, honest reportage. If he doesn't know how to use and or test a camera correctly maybe he should find another career/hobby, because there are plenty of other people out there who apparently know how to do so.
Garylv wrote:
I believe Rob reported his findings accurately based on how HE uses the camera. Which could be much different than how you or I use the camera. Everyone has their own shooting techniques and people will report varying results. It happens with every camera.
Then shouldn't he be honest and objective enough to put his hands up and say that the AF "problems" he's experiencing might well be down to him and not the camera?
He lays the blame for the Mk IV's poor performance in his hands squarely at Canon's door without any compelling proof or evidence of the D3S's supposed superiority, and it's this - this ambiguity and lack of discipline in how he's reporting and backing up his conclusions - that leaves the review open to speculation and RG open to possible criticism.
As I've said, whether or not he's out to do Canon down on Nikon's behalf, the article certainly supports that kind of conclusion - and that's his own fault.
