jmikes955 wrote
It\'s advertising. You do know what that means, don\'t you? People pay you to display their message. You know, like in a newspaper? Or on television? Buying an ad doesn\'t mean you get editorial control. Simply because Macy\'s buys an ad in the Times doesn\'t mean it dictates Yankee coverage. You aren\'t exposing hypocrisy by claiming Galbraith is on the take. You\'re simply revealing your own bias and ignorance.
Bad Analogy.
The 1D mkiii I could see, but his analysis of the 7D was far off. Even dpreview and pop photo gave great reviews for the 7D and they arguably have somewhat of a Nikon slant. The post processing RG did with his 7D photos was absolutely horrible. Go look at the review yourself.
Once is acceptable (since the Af on the 1D really was crappy for some), Twice is a coincidence (seeing that everyone else gave the 7D great reviews), and now I\'m holding out to see what everyone else says about the mkIV. IF it gets praise then RG is a joke
RG stated on the 7D review
Noise, when it appears, has a natural graininess to it, up until about ISO 1600 as well. At ISO 3200 and beyond you\'ll run into increasingly unmanageable amounts of digital dandruff (white pixels spread throughout darker areas) and plugged shadows.
Funny, no one else found any. I don\'t even see any at ISO 12800 and he claims there is some at 3200. I\'ve posted plenty of high iso shots here.
He couldn\'t focus on a dog properly. Seeing that I\'m the king of pet shots (action and portrait), and never having any problems unless I\'m shooting in almost complete darkness, maybe he should stick to sports. Nature photographers find the camera a high precision machine.
When there are only Nikon ads on his site I\'m sure one can only takes what he says with a grain of salt. All of this change of heart happened when Canon stopped advertising tons on his site, not the other way around.
jmikes955 wrote
It\'s advertising. You do know what that means, don\'t you? People pay you to display their message. You know, like in a newspaper? Or on television? Buying an ad doesn\'t mean you get editorial control. Simply because Macy\'s buys an ad in the Times doesn\'t mean it dictates Yankee coverage. You aren\'t exposing hypocrisy by claiming Galbraith is on the take. You\'re simply revealing your own bias and ignorance.
Bad Analogy.
The 1D mkiii I could see, but his analysis of the 7D was far off. Even dpreview and pop photo gave great reviews for the 7D and they arguably have somewhat of a Nikon slant. The post processing RG did with his 7D photos was absolutely horrible. Go look at the review yourself.
Once is acceptable (since the Af on the 1D really was crappy for some), Twice is a coincidence (seeing that everyone else gave the 7D great reviews), and now I\'m holding out to see what everyone else says about the mkIV. IF it gets praise then RG is a joke
RG stated on the 7D review
Noise, when it appears, has a natural graininess to it, up until about ISO 1600 as well. At ISO 3200 and beyond you\'ll run into increasingly unmanageable amounts of digital dandruff (white pixels spread throughout darker areas) and plugged shadows.
Funny, no one else found any. I don\'t even see any at ISO 12800 and he claims there is some at 3200. I\'ve posted plenty of high iso shots here.
He couldn\'t focus on a dog properly. Seeing that I\'m the king of pet shots (action and portrait) and I don\'t have any problems unless I\'m shooting in almost complete darkness. Nature photographers find the camera a high precision machine.
When there are only Nikon ads on his site I\'m sure one can only takes what he says with a grain of salt. All of this change of heart happened when Canon stopped advertising tons on his site, not the other way around.
">
Feb 11, 2010 at 07:14 PM
Previous versions of droopy1592's message #8121689 « RG on 1D Mk IV autofocus performance »
