Garylv wrote:
Browsing a thread at DPR I noticed this post from Eamon Hickey, who knows Rob personally, mentioning the Nikon advertising that people are screaming about. It's just a little more info to take in:
Go through the posting history of Eamon Hickey. He is VERY strongly biased. No need to pay any attention to what he says... wait a minute, are both of you the same person?
It seems the reality is that there have been some problems. You can't deny that. If everyone (23 pages and counting) took the time to write or email Canon about the problems maybe they stop releasing the cameras until they're ready. You're all ready to jumped all over a review from a website that disses our "brand", yet give the camera maker a free pass. This thread really isn't about photography. This thread isn't really about RG. What I see on these 23 pages is just defensive for the sake of being defensive.
Jeff wrote:
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...
"And for those still discussing the 1DIII's lack of review - our failure to review it was nothing to do with any relationship between Phil and Canon, it was because dpreview was moving office, employing and training new staff, during one of the busiest periods of DSLR releases ever. Work was done on a 1DIII review (I've shot over 1000 would-be gallery images with it), but by the time we had an opportunity to review it, it'd been on the market for almost a year and everything likely to be said about it had already been said. That is the one and only reason."
32067dlm wrote:
Historically, Joe Lieberman was a Democrat
Historically, the United States took an isolationist view.
Historically, we were the 13 British colonies.
Historically, Canon has been the low noise leader.
I currently have a bias for the company who issues my paycheck every week. I suspect RG does too.
"Historically, Joe Lieberman was a Democrat"...
Well, he's firmly an obstructionist plutocrat now.
As for RG's bias (and we all have them to some degree) he's clearly biased toward those paying his bills
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.
Wow...Talk about missing the point..
The point is not that a huge conspiracy (implying multiple individuals) is out to trash Canon, the point is that regardless of whether the report is ultimately true or false, a single man/individual presented potentially misleading information (and certainly no comparative proof to the contrary exists on his site) in what is easily construed as an unprofessional way. Information that in all probability will unfairly lead to negative connotations and uncertainty.
It takes some real effort to miss that huge, easy to spot, flashing neon sign, point, but some here manage to do it... repeatedly...
thw2 wrote:
Go through the posting history of Eamon Hickey. He is VERY strongly biased. No need to pay any attention to what he says... wait a minute, are both of you the same person?
Earlier in this thread, I asked a question as to whether RG MA'd any of his lenses to the various bodies he used. After re-reading the article, it appears that he did not. Rather, he states that several of the lenses were "focused calibrated" by Canon. I am wondering how much of an effect misaligned lenses may have had on the accuracy of the AF performances during RG's testing? Will it cause the noted inconsistencies? Just because Canon has calibrated a lens doesn't mean that it will automatically focus accurately with a given body. This I know from experience when I had lenses recalibrated by Canon.
thw2 wrote:
Well, that explains A LOT.... and Eamon is easily one of the most fanatical clowns in DPReview.
Interesting you read Eamon's posts in that regard. In the sea of incohernce that is DPR, Eamon's post are logical, well written and to the point.
In fact the two linked above should be required reading by everyone interested in this thread.
Edited this to ad.
I did learn something today at DPR...clicking on his "Nikon" ad on the left does not take you to a Nikon site. It takes you to "www.mycomparisonshop.com". The page that is loaded by default at that site is page full of Nikon point and shoot cameras. You can change the page to show you Pentax, Canon, Panasonic or whatever else.
Not a Nikon sponsored ad at all.
More edits..of course the other two ads are...so much for learning at DPR.
Ron Hole wrote:
...clicking on his "Nikon" ad does not take you to a Nikon site. It takes you to "www.mycomparisonshop.com". The page that is loaded by default at that site is page full of Nikon point and shoot cameras. You can change the page to show you Pentax, Canon, Panasonic or whatever else.
Not a Nikon sponsored ad at all.
Wow...just wow. The fact that the ads all read "Nikon" doesn't say enough? Should someone who views those ads think of Pentax, Canon or Panasonic?
rickyB wrote:
It seems the reality is that there have been some problems. You can't deny that. If everyone (23 pages and counting) took the time to write or email Canon about the problems maybe they stop releasing the cameras until they're ready. You're all ready to jumped all over a review from a website that disses our "brand", yet give the camera maker a free pass. This thread really isn't about photography. This thread isn't really about RG. What I see on these 23 pages is just defensive for the sake of being defensive.
+1
Breitling65 wrote:
Really? For me path was - I got mk III in mid 2008 and successfully and used until Feb 2010 without any single issue. Now I would like to follow same path with mk IV ...
Not only do I understand you, but I envy you as well.
alundeb wrote:
Some quotations characterizing the MK IV AF, they are taken out of context for simplicity. I encourage everybody who are concerned to read the full report, of course.
"there's no way to trust it"
"the AF system verged on total collapse"
"The EOS-1D Mark IV's Jekyll and Hyde autofocus performance at soccer has been so wacky that it's difficult to make a comparison to the D3S"
"and the results were as described: completely terrible."
RG says that the AF system did not net his standards from the PoV of consistency. Mix these sentences with others like:
"EOS-1D Mark IV locked onto the subject and would not let go, producing sequence after sequence of mostly in-focus pictures"
"EOS-1D Mark IV locked onto the subject and would not let go, producing sequence after sequence of mostly in-focus pictures."
and you get the sense of what he feels, frustrated because of inconsistency.
Yakim Peled wrote:
RG says that the AF system did not net his standards from the PoV of consistency. Mix these sentences with others like:
"EOS-1D Mark IV locked onto the subject and would not let go, producing sequence after sequence of mostly in-focus pictures"
"EOS-1D Mark IV locked onto the subject and would not let go, producing sequence after sequence of mostly in-focus pictures."
and you get the sense of what he feels, frustrated because of inconsistency.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Good point. It is easy to be spoilt by 99% performance, and when it drops to 70%, that suddenly feels like you lose everything. That makes his negative statements look even more exaggerated.
I believe that it is possible that as Nikon matched (and surpassed) Canon WRT noise, it is also possible that they have also matched (and possibly surpassed) Canon WRT AF performance. I believe that, based on recent history, there is a good chance he is right. None of these seems far fetched to me.
But what I really believe that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
M Vers wrote:
The fact that RG has Nikon ad's posted all over his website with not even a whiff of another DSLR manufacturer is a major reason behind the possibility RG may have been bought out. Yes, appearances can be deceiving but the fact of the matter remains--The Nikon ad space allocation on RG's site AND the piles of evidence that refute RG's claims all point to one thing. Again, if it looks like a fish and if it smells like a fish...
All I can do is point to his site: "Similarly, having an ad on the site will not influence the editorial content, which will remain focused on providing fair and accurate information on all products from advertisers and non-advertisers alike."
Yakim Peled wrote:
I believe that it is possible that as Nikon matched (and surpassed) Canon WRT noise, it is also possible that they have also matched (and possibly surpassed) Canon WRT AF performance. I believe that, based on recent history, there is a good chance he is right. None of these seems far fetched to me.
But what I really believe that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
What do you really believe?