KR has a right to have a web site and use it to state his opinions. That said if you publish something other people who don\'t have web sites have a right to disagree, either based upon their personal opinion which is formed by personal experience, discussions with other, reading other press or web site reviews, or just because they think it is that way. The issue with KR is that IMO his opinions fly counter to my personal experience and what other qualifed reviewers are saying about digital equipment, and therefore even though he may say some good things, he says more things that are of a questionable nature. All of this tends to cast doubt on his creditability and taint people\'s opinions of his work, myself included. I once did but no longer do read his material unless it is put in front of me through forums like FM.
As to the comparison of the 5DmK2 and the D3X the whole test is nonsense IMO. Unscientific testing method, different focal lengths, exposures, etc, etc, and the list goes on. If someone would like to analyse Raw images after a credible level of front end shooting has occurred, I am all ears. At the end of the day they both deliver incredible images with massive detail and are designed for very different purposes IMO. The question that everyone is seemingly attempting to solve is can a $2700 camera deliver the same image quality as a $7900 camera. Having shot both and having RAW images on our computers to look at the answer is pretty much so. Why the big difference in price, marketing mostly, the 5D has it\'s feature set and the D3X has it\'s feature set. If you need the features of the D3X and cannot get along without them then your going to buy it or it\'s Canon counterpart the 1DsMk3, simply as that. But again for the average photographer there isn\'t a tinkers d--m worth of difference in image quality.
KR has a right to have a web site and use it to state his opinions. That said if you publish something other people who don\'t have web sites have a right to disagree, either based upon their personal opinion which is formed by personal experience, discussions with other, reading other press or web site reviews, or just because they think it is that way. The issue with KR is that IMO his opinions fly counter to my personal experience or what other qualifed reviewers are saying about digital equipment and therefore even though he may say some good things he says more things that are of a questionable nature. All of this tends to cast doubt on his creditability and taint people\'s opinions of his work, myself included. I once did but no longer do read his material unless it is put in front of me through forums like FM.
As to the comparison of the 5DmK2 and the D3X the whole test is nonsense IMO. Unscientific testing method, different focal lengths, exposures, etc, etc, and the list goes on. If someone would like to analyse Raw images after a credible level of front end shooting has occurred, I am all ears. At the end of the day they both deliver incredible images with massive detail and are designed for very different purposes IMO. The question that everyone is seemingly attempting to solve is can a $2700 camera deliver the same image quality as a $7900 camera. Having shot both and having RAW images on our computers to look at the answer is pretty much so. Why the big difference in price, marketing mostly, the 5D has it\'s feature set and the D3X has it\'s feature set. If you need the features of the D3X and cannot get along without them then your going to buy it or it\'s Canon counterpart the 1DsMk3, simply as that. But again for the average photographer there isn\'t a tinkers d--m worth of difference in image quality.
KR has a right to have a web site and use it to state his opinions. That said if you publish something other people who don\'t have web sites have a right to disagree, either based upon their personal opinion which is formed by personal experience, discussions with other, reading other press or web site reviews, or just because they think it is that way. The issue with KR is that IMO his opinions flew counter to my personal experience or what other qualifed reviewers are saying about digital equipment and therefore even though he may say some good things he says more things that are of a questionable nature. All of this tends to cast doubt on his creditability and taint people\'s opinions of his work, myself included. I once did but no longer do read his material unless it is put in front of me through forums like FM.
As to the comparison of the 5DmK2 and the D3X the whole test is nonsense IMO. Unscientific testing method, different focal lengths, exposures, etc, etc, and the list goes on. If someone would like to analyse Raw images after a credible level of front end shooting has occurred, I am all ears. At the end of the day they both deliver incredible images with massive detail and are designed for very different purposes IMO. The question that everyone is seemingly attempting to solve is can a $2700 camera deliver the same image quality as a $7900 camera. Having shot both and having RAW images on our computers to look at the answer is pretty much so. Why the big difference in price, marketing mostly, the 5D has it\'s feature set and the D3X has it\'s feature set. If you need the features of the D3X and cannot get along without them then your going to buy it or it\'s Canon counterpart the 1DsMk3, simply as that. But again for the average photographer there isn\'t a tinkers d--m worth of difference in image quality.
KR has a right to have a web site and use it to state his opinions. That said if you publish something other people who don\'t have web sites have a right to disagree, either based upon their personal opinion which is formed by personal experience, discussions with other, or reading other press or web site reviews. The issue with KR is that IMO his opinions flew counter to my personal experience or what other qualifed reviewers are saying about digital equipment and therefore even though he may say some good things he says more things that are of a questionable nature. All of this tends to cast doubt on his creditability and taint people\'s opinions of his work, myself included. I once did but no longer do read his material unless it is put in front of me through forums like FM.
As to the comparison of the 5DmK2 and the D3X the whole test is nonsense IMO. Unscientific testing method, different focal lengths, exposures, etc, etc, and the list goes on. If someone would like to analyse Raw images after a credible level of front end shooting has occurred, I am all ears. At the end of the day they both deliver incredible images with massive detail and are designed for very different purposes IMO. The question that everyone is seemingly attempting to solve is can a $2700 camera deliver the same image quality as a $7900 camera. Having shot both and having RAW images on our computers to look at the answer is pretty much so. Why the big difference in price, marketing mostly, the 5D has it\'s feature set and the D3X has it\'s feature set. If you need the features of the D3X and cannot get along without them then your going to buy it or it\'s Canon counterpart the 1DsMk3, simply as that. But again for the average photographer there isn\'t a tinkers d--m worth of difference in image quality.
KR has a right to have a web site and use it to state his opinions. That said if you publish something other people who don\'t have web sites have a right to disagree, either based upon their personal opinion which is formed by personal experience, discussions with other, or reading other press or web site reviews. The issue with KR is that IMO his opinions flew counter to my personal experience or what other qualifed reviewers are saying about digital equipment and therefore even though he may say some good things he says more things that are of a questionable nature. All of this tends to cast doubt on his creditability and taint people\'s opinions of his work, myself included. I once did but no longer do read his material unless it is put in front of me through forums like FM.
As to the comparison of the 5DmK2 and the D3X the whole test is nonsense IMO. Unscientific testing method, different focal lengths, exposures, etc, etc, and the list goes on. If someone would like to analyse Raw images after a credible level of front end shooting has occurred I am all ears. At the end of the day they both deliver incredible images with massive detail and are designed for very different purposes IMO.
Jan 14, 2009 at 09:30 AM
Previous versions of davenfl's message #6595147 « D3x better than 5DII »
