Of course he's going to say that the new CP995 is a "GREAT" camera,
since the CP990 has been discontinued and he needs to sell his
book. (I find his “review” very bias because of that)
I trust Phil’s reviews more than any other reviewer online.
He proves his points with examples (crops) and compares cameras
side-by-side. Of course there is no "perfect" review but I think
Phil gets always close to the truth. (That’s why his site is
so popular IMO).
I put a lot of trust in Phil's reviews. He goes to great trouble to
slice and dice the characteristics of each camera he encounters and
he often comes up with things that persuade me about the qualities
of this or that model. I trust his work implicitly right up to the
point of discovering what appears to be empirical evidence in my
own lap that contradicts it.
When that happens what would you do? Shut up about it? I don't
THINK so. Like you, I don't hold my opinions to myself.
Sometimes you have to touch the real thing and see what's what.
When I encountered the 995, the sample in my hand was created some
15,000 or more units AFTER the early serial numbered sample that
Phil was given. If you know manufacturing, you know that you don't
simply throw the switch and expect everything to pop off the
assembly line perfectly identical. You tweak, adjust, streamline,
improve, make more efficient, and refine the line as it settles in.
This goes for the manufacture of all the modules that feed the line
as well.
One of the very first things I noticed had to do with image
sharpness. It was distinctly NOT showing the characteristics that
Phil observed. I think the sample Phil received was out of spec.
I was ready to muddle through this model upgrade if indeed it had
been as flawed as Phil's review showed, for after all, it did have
a lot of other nice features, but to my pleasant surprise, I don't
have to. That's the point.
Of course, there is always the off chance that the one I got was
somehow accidentally manufactured to better standards than the
designers had in mind. Make of it what you will.
The dynamic range of the image was quite demonstrably greater than
the same test run on my 990. Get one and try it for yourself. No
bias there, just a demonstration of that which is true.
The noise floor of the 995 was quite obviously less, the color
depth in shadows was quite obviously greater and the zoom lens was
quite self-evidently longer. Both of those first two qualities are
just as inherent as the length of the zoom. But you have to LOOK
for them to see them.
So where is the review bias for self-serving reasons in those?
I'm not creating this review to be a deep technical analysis, and
much of it has to do with the practical, photographer-oriented
touch points that this model embodies. It is quite definitely a
"Personal Review" that would be difficult to compare to Phil's.
I shoot images for part of my work as Creative Director of
Metavision virtually every day. The things I expect from a camera
tie directly to my work. I've done large-format moving special
effects with the images from my digicams and I need them to insert
into a production stream without causing new problems. That's the
eye I use to inspect the goods. After I find out the limits or
bonuses, I write about them.
But with all the opinion that flowed from the reviewers' 995
samples from this site, Steve's and Imaging-Resource, the air has
been thick with people expressing grave doubts that the Camelot of
quality inherent in the 990 was somehow lost to the past.
Not so! You can purchase a 995 without the Fear Factor.
He had different opinions about the CP995 (images were soft, etc..)
and I will take his word (and research) on it.
And his review sample was Firmware 1.1 and mine was 1.6. And his
lens was showing characteristics mine simply and flatly does NOT.
The image side-by-side from both 990 and 995 was at the left
extreme edge of both shots made virtually in-register from the same
tripod position.
By assuming that Phil's word on this camera was the last word, you
would be violating his own attitude on the subject. Phil knows that
mid-manufacture samples often show up with early "issues" resolved.
He knows others have a different point of view on each model that
comes out and he graciously directs our attention to many other
reviews so that we all can gain a consensus.
I'm particularly keen to see Phil's retest on the 995. He uses a
much-superior dynamic range testing procedure than mine (read the
caveats all over that section of my Personal Review). With the
diminished noise and greater shadow chroma depth that is so
abundantly obvious compared to the 990, I can't wait to see if the
more than one-stop results in my test bear out in his procedure.
-iNova
Several sites were stating that the Nikon D1x was great, noiseless,
etc..... Everything got really confirmed when I read his review.
Now I believe the D1X is a great camera. (Even though I still think
the D30 has less noise at ISO 100).
One more motive to trust Phil’s D1x review is because he owns
a Canon D30 and was very objective on his opinion. We all hope
Canon could read what he said and come up with something even
better (and fast!)
Best,
FRED
PS
Patrick Farber has not posted here before. He also posted the same
"complaint" in more than one place to stirr up responses. At least,
Fred, you have been around here as a frequent contributor and
valuable correspondent.
