Nikon reviews?

[clemmb]

Am I missing something here?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I must be, I don't know what you are referring to...
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Thanks for the pretty screen shot with the circle around the title. At the time, my question was what about Nikon reviews?


Should this site have had them already, should the site never get them, should the site never mention the name Nikon.


What exactly does "Nikon reviews?" mean? Seemed like an innocent question of not understanding the OP. I guess now I know the universal meaning of Nikon reviews?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I saw this appear just today so I assumed that is what your question was.


I would love to see Nikon reviews here but not at the expense of the speed and quality of the canon reviews.


Mark

[Keith B]

Natural progression in order to double ones revenue.


Surprised it took this long. Good for him.

[Jarhead5811]

Why not? What's the big deal?

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

Bryan plans to review Nikon lenses and DSLRs, I think this is great because it widens the playing field.

[Keith B]

I like it.


Looking at the ISO Charts, I feel really good about being a Canon shooter. Especially when it comes to primes.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

I just looked at the ISO Charts for superteles, one thing I notice that the 300 f/2.8 VR300 f/2.8 VRII and the 400 f/2.8 VR are very soft wide open compare to the Canon counterparts. I think there's something wrong there, what do you think Bryan

[wickerprints]

My only concern with regard to including Nikon equipment reviews on TDP is the increased potential for certain people to post vitriolic missives against one brand or the other. When the site was Canon-only, there was an implicit understanding that such comparisons between Canon and Nikon were not on-topic.


Now let me be absolutely clear that I welcome Bryan's ISO charts and I think that more data is always a good thing. I just feel that the level of bias against either brand is so strong, and the consistent lack of maturity among many self-professed "photographers" who use the excuse that the choice of brand actually matters when it comes to the quality of the image, rather than their own skill and vision, threatens to pollute what has been a largely civil forum.


These days, I'm finding it quite difficult to spend any of my time reading online photo forums, as the evidence keeps mounting that there are an extraordinary number of people whose stupidity is exceeded only by their wealth. Too much money in their wallets and too little education is a volatile combination, and I would hate to see them defile this forum like dogs marking their territory.


Now that I've made my position known, let's talk about the actual test charts. I suspect that the 300/2.8 VR II results must be skewed or something, because the VR I performed much better--so I wonder if it has to do with a bad copy or some other issue. Something else I have noticed (and anyone else who has looked, surely has seen it too) is the very consistent reddish shift on nearly every single Nikon lens shot wide open. What is especially strange is that it diminishes when stopped down, so it cannot be purely caused by the sensor or Nikon's processing. Maybe Bryan can help shed some light on this phenomenon.


One last footnote--seeing the 14-24/2.8 results was quite literally jaw-dropping. Wow.