Nikon reviews?

[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.

[JamesG]

^this, our camera systems are not football teams. I am not a "Canon fanboy," for the sake of using a Canon camera; they are at the end of the day just that, cameras and bits of glass I have spent a great deal of money on.


I posted the above out of genuine surprise if truth be known. Whilst I can sort of see why Bryan might be now including Nikon products as part of his website's appeal; by stating his preferred operating system is Canon is never going to shake future stigma of a pro-Canon stance with his reviews; however generous and honest they may be. This being the internet, people who have plonked their photographic investment elsewhere simply won't trust his reviews to be honest and accurate. This website already is viewed with deep suspicion by lots of people on the internet who simply can't except he is independent of Canon; and now he has revealed he owns a pair of D3 bodies and every Nikon lens on the page; how deep are his pockets and simply why? If I owned all the best Canon glass I could hope to own and had the means to buy even more gear of my hobby, I would aim upwards, not for glass and bodies so similar it would simply render the shelf space pointless.


Just for the record, I am not being antagonistic or argumentative! I am simply puzzled. My humble apologies if I seemed crass yesterday. I have actually had a personal replies from him to emails, so ultimately don't really doubt the guy; i'm just wondering what is the point for the reasons above.


[]









<div>



</div>

[neuroanatomist]

This being the internet, people who have plonked their photographic investment elsewhere simply won't trust his reviews to be honest and accurate.

Two words. Ken. Rockwell.


'Nuf said.

[JamesG]

I think I agree with that; Ken has to be the biggest plonker on the internet when it comes to photography; and obviously has figured how to make quite healthy living from his website; but his delivery is as shambolic as it is like reading a red-top newspaper. This place has always seemed much more detailed and focused than 'camera-god' Ken's slightly random views and opinions. The last time I visited his website he was ranting about boycotting some Nikon 1D camera because it was 'to expensive,' whilst at the same time stating some Leica was the best digital camera in the world. The guy clearly has issues

[Jarhead5811]

I for one look forward to reading Bryan's reviews to see just what he thinks of brand "N". I imagine it was a bussiness decision. Besides, wouldn't you love to play with all of that gear? Is he gonna change the Canon News tab to photography news?

[Jon Ruyle]

Awesome. That must have been a ton of work. Cool to be able to compare, say, Nikon's 135 f/2 to Canon's (though, of course, we necessarily get different resolutions, still...)

[JamesG]

Do you not find this statement a bit odd: "Even though I have all of the Nikon lenses and a pair of D3x bodies (all purchased retail - no assistance from Nikon - same as Canon) at my disposal, my personal preference remains Canon, and I will continue to make reviews of new Canon gear my top priority.



But, if I was forced to change brands"


Hahaha Change brands!!!! You already own all of it mate! No change there!

[wickerprints]

Just for the record, I am not being antagonistic or argumentative! I am simply puzzled. My humble apologies if I seemed crass yesterday. I have actually had a personal replies from him to emails, so ultimately don't really doubt the guy; i'm just wondering what is the point for the reasons above.

<div>
</div>


Since it seems to be lost upon you, I feel it necessary to point out the specific behavior that left some people with a bad taste in their mouth. In particular:

1. You are a new poster, with all or nearly all of your posts belonging to this thread, which you started.
2. Your choice of thread title is vague and your initial post in this thread did not explain what your question was.
3. Your subsequent posts were similarly short and failed to explain why you started the thread and what exactly you are seeking to communicate.

It is generally the case that the above points are associated with internet trolls or otherwise uncivil or inappropriate behavior. If you are sincere about your intent to contribute positively to this forum, I strongly suggest that in the future, you communicate clearly and effectively. I'm not saying you have to write a novel for each post, but five-word posts are, to put it bluntly, LAME and USELESS.


Could it really have been that difficult for you to simply write, "I noticed that this site plans/is planning to publish reviews of Nikon equipment. I am wondering whether this is a good idea. What are your thoughts?" You could probably even pare that down to "Nikon reviews: good idea? Your thoughts?" Six words, and I still managed to say more than "Am I missing something here?"


And for what it's worth there have been previous trolls and other arrogant/annoying jerks that have contaminated this forum, small as it may be. But because this place isn't POTN, FM, photo.net, DPR, or any of the other multitudes of giant forum sites, and caters specifically to Canon shooters, they don't last long around here.

[JamesG]

*Sigh*


Guess i'll leave it then. I'm a bit old to waste my time being a 'troll,' and being branded one for quite a harmless question stretches my patience to be bothered to be honest. See ya []