Nikon reviews?

[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.

[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.

[peety3]

It's not hard mate
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Yes, it is. Brevity is one thing, but being so absent in your commentary is disruptive to the boards here.


Amongst other things, I'm not in front of a PC where I've configured RSS to follow anything. As a result, I hadn't seen the "news" posting that Bryan was beginning to post Nikon information. Just to understand what you were after, I took the time to go check. So, congratulations, you gave me the run-around when you could have made your point clearer from the word go.

[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?