jamesf99 wrote:
My clients tell me it gives me an air of panache,
PS - Have you SEEN Shania Twain? Groupie heck, I'd sign up to be her slave for a while.
Panache one can never have too much of. Good going, James.
Well, if Ms.Twain paid me enough, I'd also accept a position of her personal slave, assuming such employment category is legal in the state/province of her residence.
denoir wrote:
He was until a few days ago a "Canon Ambassador" i.e one of ~12 photographers chosen by Canon to show off their stuff. The "ambassadors" are essentially the best photographers that Canon could get and that were interested in such a cooperation.
So it is a big deal, especially for Canon. Not because he wrote some nice gear reviews on the interweb but because they considered him to be one of the top Canon photographers.
Now, being a "Canon Ambassador" I wonder if his reviews might have been a little bit slanted. Can someone tell me how a Canon Ambassador is different than being a Nikon whore?
denoir wrote:
From my point of view it's too bad as I liked his reviews. And yes this does hurt his credibility as an independent reviewer - both retroactively for the Canon reviews and for future Nikon reviews.
However having said that I don't think there is anything to be upset about. He's a pro photographer that got a better deal from Nikon. Nothing unique about that. Art Wolfe switched from Nikon to Canon in a similar situation. In fact for a long while there was a Nikon->Canon stream because Nikon were being cheap while Canon handed out tons of equipment.
I doubt the not getting an 1DIV was his reason for switching - it sounds like a lame excuse. More likely he was approached by Nikon with an offer of all the cameras and glass he could eat plus a healthy amount of pocket change. Nothing wrong about that reason for switching.
Hobby photographers may enjoy blind brand loyalty but people who do it for a living have other considerations....Show more →
denoir wrote:
So it is a big deal, especially for Canon. Not because he wrote some nice gear reviews on the interweb but because they considered him to be one of the top Canon photographers.
Hm, had that been the case, Canon would bend over backwards to supply this guy with, at the minimum, a single 1D Mark IV and they didn't. What does it tell us? I never heard of this guy and never been to his site. More power to him that he now became a Nikon Ambassador, This is just my observation from reading about him here on FM and it is not meant to be a negative statement about this Ole guy nor about Canon/Nikon.
rd4tile wrote:
Canon needs to retaliate fast and sign Ken Rockwell
Good one .
On a more serious note one of his thoughts unfortunately deeply echoes my direct experience : the D3x is everything I want in a 1ds4, that is not even available . The only thing I'm not comfortable with my D3x is that it doesn't have Canon written on it , but that's just emotional inertia I guess .
Don't think he's one of the top photographers. He said he's a Canon Master but that's not the same as Canon Explorer of Light. The latter is the top one.
AGeoJO wrote:
Hm, had that been the case, Canon would bend over backwards to supply this guy with, at the minimum, a single 1D Mark IV and they didn't. What does it tell us? I never heard of this guy and never been to his site. More power to him that he now became a Nikon Ambassador, This is just my observation from reading about him here on FM and it is not meant to be a negative statement about this Ole guy nor about Canon/Nikon.
nazdravanul wrote:
Good one .
On a more serious note one of his thoughts unfortunately deeply echoes my direct experience : the D3x is everything I want in a 1ds4, that is not even available . The only thing I'm not comfortable with my D3x is that it doesn't have Canon written on it , but that's just emotional inertia I guess .
What's unfortunate about that? If the D3x is a better cam for you then the switch was warranted in your mind. If Nikon made a product comparable to the MKIV I'd take a look at it.
Their 70-200 better be from another universe because I don't see how a zoom could be any better then the new Canon.
nazdravanul wrote:
The only thing I'm not comfortable with my D3x is that it doesn't have Canon written on it , but that's just emotional inertia I guess .
can fix that with a sharpie.
Anyone who blasts this guy for switching is a hypocrite. Nikon and Canon both make amazing gear. Nikon did the same thing with him that Canon did to get Art Wolfe (tons of free gear). Doesn't change anything except get a bunch of fanboys in an uproar for no reason.
stargazer78 wrote:
Because some intrepid web sleuths had uncovered the fact that Mr.Jorgen had already registered the www.nikonfieldreviews.com web domain as early as December 2009. It's obvious Jorgen was just orchestrating some kind of excuse to switch brands long before he even got to test the 1D Mark IV against the Nikon D3s.
I wish Canon or Nikon gave me 400mm 2.8 VR ect... to chit~chat about.
But in my world all brands of gear cost me money.
No free~bees for me so admission price matters to me.
Good for Ole for switching. The d3S is an extraordinary camera. Unfair that he's comparing a 1.3 crop (IQ wise as a reference) to an FX full frame sensor from Nikon. All is good if it makes him happy.
Canon definitely needs a 1dsmk4 to keep up to Nikon's 9 fps and 11 fps (crop mode which Canon does not have). The 1dsmkIII's 5fps is slow. The Nikon d3s meets criteria of a sport/portrait body except its missing the crop factor for reach.
Careless of what people use. Photography is an art in itself and nikon/canon are just tools.
Its just nice to rib others that use different gear. Call it ego or competitive nature in us all.
jamesf99 wrote:
I'm book marking this guys just a notch or two below my link to the Britney Spears fan club.
A little-known fact: back in her heyday, Ms. Spears was quite renowned in academic circles for her eminently accessible treatise on semiconductor physics.
Alanu wrote:
Good for Ole for switching. The d3S is an extraordinary camera. Unfair that he's comparing a 1.3 crop (IQ wise as a reference) to an FX full frame sensor from Nikon.
I don't see why, Canon saw how extraordinary the D3 was at roughly the same time that the 1DIII came out, and still chose to keep the crop for their next model, that's like saying it was unfair to compare the D300 to the 50D because the Nikon had more features.
chez wrote:
Now, being a "Canon Ambassador" I wonder if his reviews might have been a little bit slanted. Can someone tell me how a Canon Ambassador is different than being a Nikon whore?
kewlcanon wrote:
Don't think he's one of the top photographers. He said he's a Canon Master but that's not the same as Canon Explorer of Light. The latter is the top one.
"Canon Explorer of Light" is just the US name for "Canon Ambassador".
Now, from a second google cache (his now deleted about page) states the following: Ole Jørgen Liodden is the founder of canonfieldreviews.com. He was chosen to be a Canon Master (Ambassador) in Norway and works closely with Canon doing field testing of equipment, and gives presentations and multimedia shows.
Now I'm not sure how the whole Master/Ambassador/Whatever system works, but there seem not to be too many of them.
Question: If an ambassador gets 'free' stuff or preferential treatment then why are you lot not decrying his lack of impartiality in being a canon ambassador in the first place? Were his writings not just as suspect until now?
Or is it only if he works for Nikon that suddenly he's hugely biased and making it all up?
nazdravanul wrote:
Good one .
On a more serious note one of his thoughts unfortunately deeply echoes my direct experience : the D3x is everything I want in a 1ds4, that is not even available . The only thing I'm not comfortable with my D3x is that it doesn't have Canon written on it , but that's just emotional inertia I guess .
If the D3x is everything you want in a 1Ds4, why isn't 1Ds3?
. 
. The only thing I'm not comfortable with my D3x is that it doesn't have Canon written on it 