Bias

[iND]

I am not sure how I feel about Scott Kelby's announcement that he swtichec from Nikon to Cannon, especially after it came when

Canon signed on a a tour sponsor.

http://scottkelby.com/2014/why-i-switched-to-canon/

Maybe the same way I felt when I realized Zack Arias was sponsored by Fuji.

I am finding it hard to fully trust reviews when I suspect there are underlying sponsored relationships.

With that in mind I realize that I use TDP for equipment and technology advice, as TDP is not heavy on artistic technique.

Realize I am also a Canon man and have no plans to switch.

But I am have the sense that the equipment and technology advice I receive here is heavily Canon biased with an occasional bone

slipped to Nikon or other. What I need to strike a balance in my professional career to get the best products for my customers.

Perhaps if we had some disclosures from our major contributors we could make our own conclusions.

Additionally I am noticing a decline in posting and wondering if we don't refresh and expand that TDP interest will run out.

No plans to leave, just a comment for quality improvement.

Thank you

[HDNitehawk]

I think the decline in posts on this site relates to the camera market in general. There was a boom in digital camera sales a few years ago. When digital started getting close to the quality of film, as well people realized that they didn't have to pay the high cost of film development camera sales boomed. It was similar to the computer and internet boom of the 90's.

Fewer new people now means fewer people looking to figure out the difference in one piece of equipment versus another. The market changed and there are fewer people that do not know the difference between crop cameras and full frame for instance.

Caution, troll example;
The 7d's massive mega pixel density is superior to the 1d X's sparse pixel density. Four years ago (well if the 1d X had existed) I could have trolled that comment and we would have had 40 pages of heated debate. Not today, no one bites.

This site started out as Canon. Most of the people that have been posting on the site for more than a few years are Canon users. Nikon was added not long ago. So yes the answers you get here will be bias toward Canon.

[Sean Setters]

TDP intended on publishing full-fledged Nikon reviews, but those plans fell through. It might be something we investigate at a further date, but other things became more important to tend to (like our slipping Google search results).

When you mention "...a decline in posting and wondering if we don't refresh and expand that TDP interest will run out," do you mean specifically the Community posts or to the TDP site itself?

As far as bias goes, both Bryan and I are Canon users. We don't use Nikon gear (Bryan only runs standardized testing on them). I think Bryan does a good job of remaining objective when it comes to third-party lenses/gear that can be used with the Canon system he's most familiar with.

We still report Nikon news because we still have things of value to offer Nikon shooters (like the standardized testing). And again, if we should start doing full-fledged Nikon reviews in the future, it'll be a seamless transition for the news section.

[iND]

If markers of site activity are down, and if assumptions can be made on why.
Then perhaps we could adjust the mission of the site to expand to areas of more intense current interest.
Not venturing to guess what those areas are I would only be able to state what my needs are.
And yes I don't have the same equipment issues that I had 3+ years ago, but there are new areas that I have question and if we are tight to Canon and if Canon is not in that area will we be able to come here and get independent direction.
Would be refreshing to have a site that discusses equipment, technology, technique, and artistry without a bias to branding.

The NEWS sections are fantastic, and the REVIEWS are very thorough, but the postings are not (at least for me at my stage of development)

Perhaps a survey of what current active posters need.

Just trying to help.

[Kayaker72]

I think the forum topics can be whatever anyone wants them to be. So, please, post away. Even if I don't participate, I tend to get a lot out of different discussions that take place, gear related or not.

I've been around long enough to know that it gets slower this time of year and likely will start picking up around April. I absolutely agree that the lack of new gear from Canon is part of it, so there is much less gear to discuss. There also could have been a wave of those jumping from P&S/film to dSLR. But I still get a lot of inpiration from this site and enjoy the general positive demeaner of the other people that frequent here.

[cls]

Regarding the bias I'm sure all of us used to the site are aware of it and read reviews with a grain of salt. Don't misunderstand me - I really appreciate the valuable reviews - but if it says something like "absolutely fantastic" I rather read it like "very good". I don't really see it as a problem, but anyone believing the reviews are completely independent may be misled. The TDP reviews are very useful for making decisions between different pieces of reviewed gear, but (of course) less useful for comparisons with gear not reviewed here.

I have no idea about the overall site popularity, but it's obvious that the forum intensity has gone down (not only over the winter). A few years ago there could be pages of unread posts daily, but nowadays there can be days with hardly any new posts. I'm not sure why, but one of the reasons may be the heavy bias towards gear and tech stuff. Assuming that many have already acquired a set of gear they're happy with and are now trying to improve using it (i.e. trying to improve their artistic skills), the TDP forum is currently not the best place to go. Maybe some more focus towards creating images rather than the gear used for it would increase the interest. (An indicator of the rather low image creation interest is the assignment activity. Nowadays there are very few contributions both to the original assignment threads and to the weekly threads.)

Of course I understand that the contents of the forum is created by us that hang around here, and that any focus shift (yeah...) of the contents must be made by us. But maybe the site management could somehow encourage/stimulate increased interest in the resulting photographs. I believe that could be valuable not only for the forum, but for the entire site. I don't have any solution, and I don't even know if I'm on the right track with my speculations - these are only my thoughts on what could increase the interest in the site/forum.

PS. Being non-native English speaker makes me unaware of language nuances. That may make my way of expressing myself weird and even offensive to some. If so, it's absolutely not my intention - please read my English with a few grains of salt.

[Dave Throgmartin]

I think this is one place that people may find tough to start out because the average user that posts here has made a significant investment ($) into photography equipment. Once someone does post I think they find that the people here are very nice and also knowledgeable. I mainly frequent this forum, FM, and DPR for various things.

Personally, I'm looking to scale back some of my photography costs. I've splurged on some nice things, but have found that the main joy I get is from the activity itself. I like going out with the wife and taking pictures. My father-in-law is also big into photography and goes with us fairly often. I like the results too, but don't want to get into the trap of pixel peeping. Maybe this is my long winded way of saying that I've found where "good enough is good enough" equipment wise for what I like to do.

I should try posting in some of the weekly images more often and participate more often.

Dave

[Jayson]

I came to TDP a long time ago and have been active on here ever since. I don't consider myself anything special when it comes to photography, but I enjoy sharing my photos with anyone that will take a look. I initially found this site while researching different equipment to supplement my obsessive gear hobby at the time. I understood from the beginning that the site was mostly going to be a Canon site and I was fine with that. I grew up in a Canon family and my photography friends all shoot Canon, so that is what I decided to do. I filter through many different forums like FM, POTN, DPR, CR, and sometimes participate in a thread or two. I am not a gear nut and just enjoy taking pictures. It seems like most of those sites really like to focus on what gear your using to take the picture and not so much enjoying the craft. Another reason I post mainly here is the friendly atmosphere of the community. You will get the great shot more than not, but if you have a question, ask for critique, or want to debate something, the people on here are civilized in their discussions. You'll get honest answers about your questions and not be belittled because you have a different opinion. I have also noticed that another thing that drives forums seems to be gear speculation. This community really doesn't worry to much about that and I like that part of it.

I have noticed that there is a decline in the amount people post on the forum, but hopefully it will increase as the weather gets nicer. I think the forum is on the right track by starting to add assignments and weekly photo threads because it gets people out to shoot. Maybe this will draw more people to the forum and maybe not, but it's a start.

One thing I always thought would help the forum is a different format to the way it has the individual threads. I really like the way they are set up at FM with the pure picture threads having their own sections i.e. Landscapes, Birds, Nature, Macro, Wedding. Then have a section for gear talk and one for monthly and weekly assignments. That way topics are easier to find and you don't have to search through tons of threads looking for what you want. Using the search tool is nice, but a lot of times you can get more traffic by just having an easier, user friendly design.

[peety3]

I've been following TDP since my Minolta DSLR was stolen in July '07 and I decided to jump to Canon at the time. I've really valued the reviews, and I've bought stuff through Bryan's links whenever possible (lately I seem to be buying a lot of stuff used). I've been on the forums since their inception, off and on, but make it a daily 'while I wait for coffee to kick in' habit almost every morning.

Frankly, I miss the days when TDP was Canon only. I felt there was a credibility from someone who "lived with" Canon all the time. When TDP added Nikon, I felt that credibility got undermined a bit, and I feel like it impacted the timeliness of Canon reviews for a while, though lately they're picking back up. I'd prefer the third-party lens reviews get finished before even starting the Nikon reviews.

The community does seem to be quieter, but I'll take it over the flame-happy world at photography-on-the.net. I forget what happened, but one of the mods decided to hold a pissing contest with me, which got me banned, and my attempts to get a third-party evaluation went nowhere. Oh well.

[Joel Eade]

Perhaps if we had some disclosures from our major contributors we could make our own conclusions.

Additionally I am noticing a decline in posting and wondering if we don't refresh and expand that TDP interest will run out.

No plans to leave, just a comment for quality improvement.

Thank youNot sure who you consider to be "major contributors" but .... I decided to go with Canon several years ago because my brother and my 2 son-in-laws were both already using Canon. I used TDP heavily to decide which Canon gear was best for me. I have commented and made recommendations on Canon gear only because that is what I have used and studied. I have no affiliation, sponsorship or financial arrangement with anyone in the photography world. (Wish I did!)

I was happy when they started the forum section and I read it daily along with BirdPhotographers.net (http://BirdPhotographers.net) and Naturescapes.net (http://Naturescapes.net)

This forum is smaller with less posts for sure but it also is more immune to flame wars than the bigger forums. You get good solid advice here and a very friendly atmosphere. Bryan's fantastic in depth reviews are respected far and wide.

I do get the feeling (without looking at numbers) that the post volume is down, I would have no idea why. There is a core of regular contributors (and a few of those have been inactive in recent months) but not many posts from newbies. There may be thousands of lurkers.

I am not sure there is truly a real problem with the forums or is it seasonal affective disorder.....so I cannot offer any possible solutions for now.

I can say that I have never felt that there was severe bias here or that I could not trust the advice given here due to an undisclosed financial relationship. I always thought it was a Canon equipment review site from the beginning.

[neuroanatomist]

Not sure who you consider to be "major contributors"

I suspect iND was referring not to forum contributors, but rather site sponsors, e.g. is TDP compensated by Canon, B&H, etc. In that regard, from what I've seen, Bryan et al. are pretty transparent about that - obviously, the site hosts advertisements, and purchasing items using links from the site results in a small percentage returned to TDP. In the reviews, Bryan generally includes statements like 'two copies purchased retail'. I believe he purchases almost all of the gear he reviews through standard retail channels, although I suspect he receives 'consideration' solely in the form of being put near the top of the pre-order queue for new gear - and really, that's in everyone's best interests! When he is sent evaluation copies, he says so, e.g. "At B&H Photo's urging, I accepted an Oben brand ball head with a review promised," or, "I consented to having a CB Gimbal sent to me with my promise to create this review."

[peety3]

... although I suspect he receives 'consideration' solely in the form of being put near the top of the pre-order queue for new gear - and really, that's in everyone's best interests!

Playing devil's advocate for a minute, I have to ask: is it really in everyone's best interests? Why not get Bryan head-of-line privileges with one or more rental shops, so he can test a fresh camera and then return it to the rental pool, alongside ONE purchased camera? Otherwise, those of us who want to buy the product regardless of review don't have to wait for one more camera to be released into the sales pool (or bought by the rental houses to be released into the rental pool). For those who believe in buying new, that second camera might only be in Bryan's hands for a couple weeks, but it's not going back into the new queue when Bryan is done.

I say this after waiting 7 weeks for a 1D Mark III, but also with the hopes of renting the (JUST A RUMOR, FOLKS) new 100-400 for my July cruise instead of the 200-400.

[HDNitehawk]

I suspect iND was referring not to forum contributors, but rather site sponsors, e.g. is TDP compensated by Canon, B&H, etc. In that regard, from what I've seen, Bryan et al. are pretty transparent about that - ...

+1

I have always been suspicious of reviews, what interest do they have in the product. Sometimes you can read in to a review by knowing where they are coming from. When the review uses the same Hype that the manufacture uses it makes me look at the review even closer to see if there is bias.

Of course when I first started this hobby I would read over Bryans reviews and watch for tells of bias. After a few purchases I noticed my comparison to what I had in hand was accurate to Bryan's reviews. One thing that stands out to me is that many of his reviews he tested more than one copy. He found multiple copies with problems (for instance the 24-70 II). In his review he tells you this. IMO the reviews on TDP are not bias, they are provided to sell you a piece a gear of course(click the buy button) but it seems the reviews are geared more toward you buying the right gear and rewarding the site owner for his work in reviewing by buying the gear through the site.

As for the members here I will use myself as an example, I would give you a bias answer if you asked whether Canon is better than Nikon.
If you asked about a certain piece of gear that I own while I would try to answer accurately but pride of ownership may come in to play. For example it is a fact known to me that I own the best 24-70mm f/2.8L II ever made. I would be bias in this way and I am not trying to sell anything.

[Dave Throgmartin]

One lens I've seen that sparks debate on the forums is the TDP ISO crops of the Tamron 70-300. My father in law owns both the Canon 70-300 IS and the Tamron. His A1 goto tele lens is the Tamron. When you compare the IQ results on various review sites these two lenses are basically the same.

The ISO crops for the Tamron 70-300 are abysmal on the long end. It appears something was wrong with Bryan's copy when you compare versus images people capture and some of the other review sites.

Some people cry bias, but I think they don't understand that not all copies are the same. In cases like this where something appears wrong testing a 2nd copy could be worth considering.

Dave

[HDNitehawk]

One lens I've seen that sparks debate on the forums is the TDP ISO crops of the Tamron 70-300. My father in law owns both the Canon 70-300 IS and the Tamron. His A1 goto tele lens is the Tamron. When you compare the IQ results on various review sites these two lenses are basically the same.

The ISO crops for the Tamron 70-300 are abysmal on the long end. It appears something was wrong with Bryan's copy when you compare versus images people capture and some of the other review sites.

Some people cry bias, but I think they don't understand that not all copies are the same. In cases like this where something appears wrong testing a 2nd copy could be worth considering.

Dave

He owns the Canon 70-300mm IS or the 70-300mm IS L??

[Dave Throgmartin]

He owns the Canon 70-300mm IS or the 70-300mm IS L??

He has the Canon 70-300 IS (non-L) and Tamron 70-300 VC. I'm not trying to say the Tamron is an L lens, but most people who've used both or other review sites who've reviewed both typically have them at least as a push when it comes to sharpness.

From what he's told me image quality between the two are similar, but his keeper rate with the Tamron is higher due to faster autofocus and better vibration control than his Canon lens.

Any criticism of TDP bias seems to be tied to 3rd party lenses. I don't think this is true and can point to the Sigma 35 and Tamron 150-600 as evidence that very good 3rd party lenses are shown to be quite good on TDP.

Dave

[HDNitehawk]

Dave if that is the case look at the ISO charts again, it looks to me that the Tamron is arguably a bit better than the Non L IS 70-300mm.

I say arguably because in different parts of the frame one or the other might be a bit ahead.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Dave if that is the case look at the ISO charts again, it looks to me that the Tamron is arguably a bit better than the Non L IS 70-300mm.

I say arguably because in different parts of the frame one or the other might be a bit ahead.

Sorry, I didn't intend to derail iND's thread!

I should have been more clear. I'd agree that the 100, 135, and 200mm shots look like you would expect and are equivalent to 70-300 IS, but the Tamron 300mm shots in the center fall off and, IMHO, are clearly in the poor range. You're right that the 70-300 IS is poor at 300mm in the mid-frame and corners, but looks decent for the price point in the center.

I hesitate to post other people's pictures in forum threads (but it's family right?), but IMHO this is a pretty good result for a $350 lens for a 2298 x 1532 crop at 300mm length likely SOOC without any unsharp mask, etc... applied.

(This is the Tamron 70-300 VC)

https://v4s1.yimg.com/te/8376/8497337586_3a472bff48_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/80097516@N08/8497337586/)
IMG_3379 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/80097516@N08/8497337586/) by kmohr60 (http://www.flickr.com/people/80097516@N08/), on Flickr

Dave

[DavidEccleston]

Flickr says it was shot at f/8. The full res pic compared to Bryan's Iso chart at f/8 don't seem that different to me. Both slightly soft, but usable.

[HDNitehawk]

I owned the 70-300mm Non IS, I bought it as part of my first digital kit a 50D. The lens did a good job, no doubt from what we see on the ISO the Tamron would be capable as well.

Rather than real world examples a fair comparison would be setting up a cave man chart and controlled lighting and test the two lenses yourself, if your father in law would loan them to you. A little pixel peeping could tell you if the ISO charts are accurate to what you have in hand.

I am sure IND would mind if we high jack the thread a little. He pointed out the decline in posting, high jacking a thread to get more post occasionally might be a good thing for this site.

[Raid]

I came to TDP after using DPR for many years. There were a number of things about their reviewers and reviews that really annoyed me. There were always minor pet issues that they would complain about. Their favourite at the time was opening the card access door would stop the transfer. When Canon made a change they then bleated about Canon finally listening to their customers. I got the impression that this was more about showing the power of DPR than a major flaw in the design.

When I first came across TDP I found the reviews very refreshing. I never thought that the reviews were in anyway biased. If a Canon Lens or body had issues it would be clearly detailed without glossing over it or going into a rant. When Tamron has a better feature, like warranty the facts are stated "Tamron USA's 6-year warranty far surpasses Canon USA's standard 1 year warranty".

What sets TDP apart from the others are the Tools, they are simple to use and easy to understand. Most reviews are purely subjective but when you include the objective results from the tools you understand that its not just one persons opinion. Sites like DPR have attempted to add these features but I have yet to find anybody who understands how to use them.

The Forum is not overly moderated there are no juvenile rules about what you can and cannot post. The technical advice from the Forum is second to none. The most popular Aus. site Australian "Bogan" Photography, it's all about posting as many "Great Shot" comments as you can. The technical advice is crap to give you some examples:


"The smaller the sensor pixels the greater the noise... its a fundamental law of physics so just accept it". No Stephen Hawking's here!
"The faster your Flash Card the less buffering, so buy the fastest you can". The user had a 40D so the transfer rate was limited by the body.


Note: Pointing out the garbage just gets the post deleted for "Flaming", sad I know.

I have sent many people to this site and they do use the reviews and tools a lot. The problem for those in Aus. is that your sponsored links are to US sites, which for us is Grey Market (and we cannot claim the rebates).

So I regard this site, and the experts who inhabit it as the best DSLR site on the web, you should all be very proud of what you have been able to create.

[Kayaker72]

I would consider the site "Canon centric" but I wouldn't really consider the site "biased." Part of that is just me being technical, but type "bias" into Bing and the first definition is "1. preference: an unfair preference for or dislike of something." I think we have a preference, but I wouldn't call it unfair. For example, when upgrading from the 7D to the 5DIII I spent months comparing it to the D800. This included technical but also evaluating the cost of the system and comparable lenses. I concluded the 5DIII and Canon were the better "systems" for the way I shoot. If I was primarily a landscape photographer, honestly, I would have gone Nikon. Part of my decision, but I just like the Canon look. I don't think that is "unfair." As an example, I've been evaluating the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art (arrived yesterday). My final step before investing in a lens is to scroll through photo groups on flickr. I've held off on the Sigma for awhile because I just wasn't seeing enough shots that I loved taken with it. Frankly, I still find it odd how many of the shots posted on flickr that don't stand out for me. Last week I dove into that a little more and it turns out most of the shots I liked, taken with a Canon body. Most of the shots I didn't like, Nikon. I don't totally know why, although there is something in the color scheme, but it was a definite pattern. So, after seeing the pattern, I decided to give the lens a shot.

That said, if anything right now I think a number of us have converged to a similar line of thinking. Consider filters, how many of us use B+W filters? I think there is a lot of general consensus right now in the forum. Part of that is Canon's fault...the 6D turned out to be a good camera with obvious differentiators compared to the 5DIII. There isn't much to discuss. You want FF but don't need 61 AF points, get the 6D. Need the AF points, get the 5DIII. Need a machine gun or to AE each AF point, get the 1DX. Not much to discuss. Similarly, iND brought up mirrorless systems and the comon response was about the EOS-M. But, I think for most of us the reasons are simple, we view the EOS-M as a back up to our DSLRs and the EOS-M backs-up Canon systems better/more cost effective than other mirrorless systems. I know of a couple of people that went Fuji, but they didn't chime in.

I still find this to be a great website. As Canon introduces more gear, I am sure there will be more discussion of the gear. I am sure it will bring an influx of new interested members. But as the market matures and evolves, so, to an extent will the forum. I still come here for the interaction, I still appreciate the perspective and advice I get and and I am still inspired by by the shots I see posted here.

[MontyMoonBeam]

Hi,

The thing that strikes me most about this site is that it is filled with millions and millions of WORDS. Yet this is a photography site so would it not be helpful to catalogue the huge number of members pics that have been submitted into a lens and camera database. So you can see first hand real world examples versus the lens charts. I am sure from the many competitions there must be a huge picture database

Thanx, Neil

[Dave Throgmartin]

One lens I've seen that sparks debate on the forums is the TDP ISO crops of the Tamron 70-300. My father in law owns both the Canon 70-300 IS and the Tamron. His A1 goto tele lens is the Tamron. When you compare the IQ results on various review sites these two lenses are basically the same.

The ISO crops for the Tamron 70-300 are abysmal on the long end. It appears something was wrong with Bryan's copy when you compare versus images people capture and some of the other review sites.

Some people cry bias, but I think they don't understand that not all copies are the same. In cases like this where something appears wrong testing a 2nd copy could be worth considering.

Dave

I don't use 70-200 f/4 L USM a lot so given that I'm cleaning house a bit (have sold EOS M, EF-M 22mm, 135mm f/2) it made sense to do a comparison with the Tamron 70-300 VC that brings more features to the table for a lot less money, but figured to lack on image quality.

I did a quick test at a local camera store taking pictures of a store front across the street from the sidewalk outside the shop. I used hand held phase detect AF on my 60D primarily because of the 60D not having AFMA capability and that if I was using 300mm there'd be a decent chance I would be using the crop body. I used my normal 60D JPG picture style settings of 5, 1, 2, 0.

I understand this is not a great of a test for a variety of reasons, but if you're interested read on. If not please don't flame :) I was trying to work within the constraints of testing at a camera shop.

70mm @ f/5.6 - Normal viewing is a push, Tamron is a fair deal better at 1:1.
135mm @ f/5.6 - Normal viewing is a push and 1:1 viewing is nearly a push as well. Slight edge to Tamron.
200mm @ f/5.6 - Canon clearly wins in normal viewing.
Tamron @ 300 f/5.6 vs f/8 - The wide open shot does not look very good and the f/8 shot is a lot better. I think if I had my 1.4 extender for the Canon it would have been better at either aperture.

For me the deal breaker was autofocus. The Canon is significantly faster when going from near to far and then from far to near. I did not buy the Tamron.

All of that said, it is not an unusual occurrence when going on group photo trips (eagles, etc...) to see the Tamron 70-300 images better my Canon + extender setup. But, the sample I used at the camera shop today likely would be a very close match for Bryan's ISO crops. Especially if the interpretation of the 300mm f/8 ISO crops is a bit soft, but usable.

Dave