Why all the D2H bashing?

Escaping said:

To be honest, I care little about all the bashers who complain
about everything including the camera being late to the camera
having too much noise to the camera only having 4Mp etc. Those
people dont use the camera and I wonder if they use any camera at
all, or do they just look at pictures to complain and to bash.
What I do care is to see the comments from the few people who truly
have the camera and have tried it. So far, those people have great
things to say about the D2H and they seem to be quite happy. Those
comments represent the real opinions. I am also thankful for them
for taking the time to share with us a few pictures and to give us
their true opinions in real life situations instead of bashing
without having a real camera.

--
Escaping (from CT)

Click to expand...

--

My stake in the D2h was the breaking of the strangle hold Canon has on the digital Pro camera market. At this moment I do not need the necessary must have investment into digital capture. But all other entries has been a bust. The 14n works in limited usage, just not good and flexable enough,

the D2h seems to suffer from the same issues a year later???. For a specific PJ work it is an instrument to die for, but could fall short if it is expected to be pressed into other work. Is the noise issue a valid one??? To be fair it has to be tested properly. Never the less, if the noise issue is a problem to some, puting them down will not lessen the visible image quality issue on your say so. One consideration is beig missed, will the noisy RGB file be usable in CMYK press conditions??? And since when is it an advance to have a PJ camera "maxed" out at 400ISO???
Tony K

And just what comprehensive testing have you seen that leads you to this conclusion? I, for one, haven't seen that yet myself. I guess that there are a select bunch of you folks that have more knowledge than the rest of us? Now, I may just be blink, stupid and a idiot, all of which is positive, but I am having a lot of trouble finding horrible noise in the images I have seen posted. When I compare them to ISO 1600 and 3200 from my D1H, they are miles ahead. Do they need some post process to really clean up? Sure, but from what I have seen it doesn't take nearly as much work as my D1H, which cleans up pretty darned good.

So, to cut this short, would you please point me to the comprehenvise reviews that support your opinion?

And, while you are at it, please point me to what isn't happening from the press release? Include the quotes you are referring to, as well as the link please.

Ogilvy said:

Tim O'Connor said:

From what I have seen and heard, this camera is going to be a sport
shooters wet dream.

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com

Please educate me on how the D2H is "maxed out" as ISO 400. Is this from some comprehensive test you did? I'll ask you the same questions as I did of another poster. Point me to the factual, unbiased, comprehensive testing that supports your comments. If you can't, then your comments are nothing more than opinion, and you should post as such. Have you tested this to come to this conclusion yourself? If not, then what are you basing this on?

Iusefilm said:

Escaping said:

To be honest, I care little about all the bashers who complain
about everything including the camera being late to the camera
having too much noise to the camera only having 4Mp etc. Those
people dont use the camera and I wonder if they use any camera at
all, or do they just look at pictures to complain and to bash.
What I do care is to see the comments from the few people who truly
have the camera and have tried it. So far, those people have great
things to say about the D2H and they seem to be quite happy. Those
comments represent the real opinions. I am also thankful for them
for taking the time to share with us a few pictures and to give us
their true opinions in real life situations instead of bashing
without having a real camera.

--
Escaping (from CT)

Click to expand...

--
My stake in the D2h was the breaking of the strangle hold Canon has
on the digital Pro camera market. At this moment I do not need the
necessary must have investment into digital capture. But all other
entries has been a bust. The 14n works in limited usage, just not
good and flexable enough,
the D2h seems to suffer from the same issues a year later???. For a
specific PJ work it is an instrument to die for, but could fall
short if it is expected to be pressed into other work. Is the noise
issue a valid one??? To be fair it has to be tested properly. Never
the less, if the noise issue is a problem to some, puting them down
will not lessen the visible image quality issue on your say so. One
consideration is beig missed, will the noisy RGB file be usable in
CMYK press conditions??? And since when is it an advance to have a
PJ camera "maxed" out at 400ISO???
Tony K

Click to expand...

--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com

Bill,

Now that I've seen some true production comparison shots (Carol S thread) from the D2H I can say a few things:

1) It seems to produce images with about the same noise as a D1x at comparable ISO's.

2) It seems to have slightly more accurate color rendition (or should I say more pleasing to the eye) when set to the same wb.

3) It seems to require less or no sharpening straight out in comparison to D1x shots of similar scene and settings.

As far as point 1) given the larger photosites and lower pixel density this is a slight suprise. I was expecting a bit better performance than the D1x but this is not the case, matching the performance is great as the D1x had an outstanding noise profile but I was hoping for better based on theory. I talked about weather or not LBCAST could scale comparatively to CCD or Canon CMOS in many posts in the last few months and it appears (at least in the first generation chip) it does not have the same scalability (though it's very close). In short, If we had a 6mp LBCAST sensor based on the same tech. as in the current D2h sensor the noise performance would likely be under that of the over 3 year old D1x and the 2 year old D100 currently using 6mp class CCD's, hopefully the nature of the LBCAST technology allows for drastic reductions in noise with increased density due to reduced onsite transistors as Nikon engineers have been claiming. This would allow it to scale comparably to CCD and Canon CMOS...but the first generation LBCAST though very good, is a bit under the curves of the existing CCD and Canon CMOS tech. IMO. Point 3) is interesting as sharpening introduces noise and if the D2h image needs less or none of it in comparison to a D1x shot it effectively aids the noise performance at increasing ISO (since sharpening increases noise)..so this would mitigate against the apparent parity with the D1x as far as noise is concerned, yielding performance which is slightly better after this fact is taken under consideration. However, the D1x image is also over 20% larger, to make a fair comparison of the grain size of the noise we'd need to downsample the D1x shots to the size of the D2h image, when this is done the D1x pulls away a bit more from the D2h as far as noise is concerned which would not be the case if the technologies (CCD and LBCAST) scaled comparably and assuming similar processing and algorithms(which gives much to the D2h as it's processing and algorithms are likely more refined than the ones in the D2x).

Overall, I think Nikon did a great job though they didn't succeed in making class leading noise performance as many had hoped. By roughly matching parity with the D1x, Nikon shows that the LBCAST tech. is very close (but not clearly better or worse in comparison) to CCD/Canon CMOS tech. in it's very first public iteration. The big question is "How much better will the second generation LBCAST be, especially if the photosites are reduced to provide for 6mp sensors ? or larger sensors?" I posited that this was one of the most important question for the viability of the technology months ago, Nikon's confidence in the technologies scalability will reflect itself in what happens next year. Will the D2x have a high density LBCAST sensor or will it be 3rd party CCD again? will the D100 successor go LBCAST or CCD? Will cost advantages that Nikon has touted for LBCAST allow the technology to go into FF sensors to mitigate against it's gentler scalability curve with pixel density in comparison to Sony CCD and Canon CMOS tech? I would like to see Nikon go FF for the D2x with LBCAST and I'd like to see the D100 replacement use a 6mp second generation LBCAST sensor with improved sensitivity over the first gen. D2h sensor..this would prove that the technology is both high yield and extremely scalable as Nikon engineers have claimed (see Q&A at http://www.digitalreview.ca site) and paint quite a rosy picture for the future of Nikon DSLR's. If however we see CCD's again in the D2x, and D100 replacement I think we can read that as a vote of confidence away from LBCAST technology by Nikon. The next 6 months will tell the tale.

Regards,

Bill Dewey said:

Iusefilm said:

Escaping said:

To be honest, I care little about all the bashers who complain
about everything including the camera being late to the camera
having too much noise to the camera only having 4Mp etc. Those
people dont use the camera and I wonder if they use any camera at
all, or do they just look at pictures to complain and to bash.
What I do care is to see the comments from the few people who truly
have the camera and have tried it. So far, those people have great
things to say about the D2H and they seem to be quite happy. Those
comments represent the real opinions. I am also thankful for them
for taking the time to share with us a few pictures and to give us
their true opinions in real life situations instead of bashing
without having a real camera.

--
Escaping (from CT)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

From the examples I've seen are we supposed to compare the D2H to a Canon 10D or a Canon 1D. It beats the 1D noise wise and has some other things topping the 1D.

Dennis

Where are these examples of unexpected dynamic range. We have already seen some noise comparisons between the 1D and the D2H but where is the dynamic range test from which you obtained your info.

Dennis

Ogilvy said:

I think Nikon oversold it's image quality, Nikon was bragging in
it's press release that the camera was going to have amazing image
quality and dynamic range, also very good noise performance. While
the d2h images aren't too bad and are comparable to other similar
dslrs, noise performance and dynamic range haven't been what was
expected.

Click to expand...

There may be a Canon bias here but who cares. The first day I came to work at my job as a Whitewater Photographer I had two Nikon F2's and my boss was using the AE1. For 20 years we never got along because of it. The whole business went Nikon but it was over his "dead" body. We put the AE1's in concrete parking stops...they were just too slow.

Dennis

Bill Dewey said:

And just what comprehensive testing have you seen that leads you to
this conclusion?

Click to expand...

Sample pictures from Nikon and from initial pictures viewed here on this site.

I, for one, haven't seen that yet myself. I

Bill Dewey said:

guess that there are a select bunch of you folks that have more
knowledge than the rest of us?

Click to expand...

probably
Now, I may just be blink, stupid

Bill Dewey said:

and a idiot, all of which is positive, but I am having a lot of
trouble finding horrible noise in the images I have seen posted.
When I compare them to ISO 1600 and 3200 from my D1H, they are
miles ahead.

Click to expand...

Compare them to the canon stuff, the 10d/300d in particular

Do they need some post process to really clean up?

Bill Dewey said:

Sure, but from what I have seen it doesn't take nearly as much work
as my D1H, which cleans up pretty darned good.

Click to expand...

Again, compare to the 1d which it's cheif rival.

Bill Dewey said:

So, to cut this short, would you please point me to the
comprehenvise reviews that support your opinion?

Click to expand...

good grief, examine the photographs and study the noise, do you always need someone else's opinion to formulate your own? are you a man or a sheep?

Bill Dewey said:

And, while you are at it, please point me to what isn't happening
from the press release? Include the quotes you are referring to,
as well as the link please.

Click to expand...

look up the old Nikon d2h press release and see what they were saying and promising about image quality and tell me if the product lived up to the hype, you may be convinced but I'm not.

Just answer if me if the d2h has amazing low noise, amazing image quality, the truth is it doesn't, that's why it didn't live up to it's press release.

Bill Dewey said:

Ogilvy said:

Tim O'Connor said:

From what I have seen and heard, this camera is going to be a sport
shooters wet dream.

--

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Bill Dewey
http://www.deweydrive.com

Click to expand...

Dennis S said:

Where are these examples of unexpected dynamic range. We have
already seen some noise comparisons between the 1D and the D2H but
where is the dynamic range test from which you obtained your info.

Click to expand...

That's my point, dynamic range exhibited from the pictures look pretty average, hardly lives up to the claims made in the press release.

Member said:

Dennis

Ogilvy said:

I think Nikon oversold it's image quality, Nikon was bragging in
it's press release that the camera was going to have amazing image
quality and dynamic range, also very good noise performance. While
the d2h images aren't too bad and are comparable to other similar
dslrs, noise performance and dynamic range haven't been what was
expected.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes, you do owe Phil a big apology! I personally find Phil's reviews to be most comprehensive and objective reviews on the web. There is a BIG difference between objective measures, and subjective measures. Objective points of measurement are things that you can concretely measure. Subjective points of measurement are things you can't really measure- they are opinions. Opinions are like armpits-- everyone has one. And lots of them stink. I would much rather have objective tests, rather than someone who "knows all system details, like lenses, previous bodies etc." because that person probably has a lot of money and emotion invested in that particular brand, and is much less likely to give an objective, hard-nosed review and assessment of a particular product. Concrete, repeatable, irrefutable measurements of performance are very useful and definitely have a place in product reviews. I'll take a lab test and MTF measurement over a "he said/she said great things" from a brand loyalist anyday. Why? Because the lab bench and MTF chart doesn't play favorites. If you want to just read glowing, subjective, fluff reviews from long-time users of a particular brand, then that's fine! But don't disparage people who are putting out much more concrete, objective, scientific tests.

joan gusafsen said:

OKOK, i appologize to Phil, he has put down some excellent work
here. I still remain a critic, and Steve and other reviewers have
done an excellent job as well.

Still, he does review the 1Ds, the 1D, the D1 and also the D100,
S2Pro, 10D and D60 as a no-full-time photographer. His concern with
the product is weather it is going to fulfill the gadget-peoples
dream of a low noise machine, while the photographer goes out, and
checks weather he can get some good pictures with the tool.

And I could sum up by asking; would you only read an MTF table
before buying a lens ? No, you would not. You would want to hear
from someone who actually work with Photography, not from someone
who puts it through some lab test.

johanG.

Click to expand...

joan gusafsen said:

One example is that phil said he wouldn't review some cameras
because the change was only a minor one. What about the G1 G2 G3 G5
reviews ? Thoose cameras had only minor changes between some of
them.

Click to expand...

I just checked on these cameras you mentioned. Each one is a different product with different changes. I noticed changes in sensors, resolutions, body designs, lenses, features, frame rates, buffers, etc. So many changes between each one! Why do you think Phil shouldn't review each one? Because they all are similar in that they all start with "G"? And because of that, you think they are all the same camera? Look at each product! Each one was new and deserved a review. I think you don't know what you are talking about and just making an excuse to say bad things about Phil. That makes you a dork.

why do you even follow these threads? I would think you would just go out and shoot your 1D or whatever you have that is better. Shucks us Nikon users don't mind this terrible camera as you put it......so just leave us with our less then Canon tools and be happy with your stuff and stop bashing the Nikon product. I thought this was a Nikon forum anyway.
Ken

Who are you to even question the validity of my following this thread? This is a public forum, i was curious about the d2h, looked at the sample images and joined the discussion, someone else answered, i answered back, i never said it was a terrible camera, I simply expected higher image quality based on the press release from Nikon that i saw before. read my initial post and tell me where i even compared it to Canon.

Ken Seal said:

why do you even follow these threads? I would think you would just
go out and shoot your 1D or whatever you have that is better.
Shucks us Nikon users don't mind this terrible camera as you put
it......so just leave us with our less then Canon tools and be
happy with your stuff and stop bashing the Nikon product. I thought
this was a Nikon forum anyway.
Ken

Click to expand...

I just tire of the nay sayers.....I wouldn't think of telling you when and how to post....I just wish if you don't like it so much that you just go post somewhere or something that is more helpful to others here, instead of I guess your disappointment of Nikon's new camera is all.
Ken

Dennis S said:

From the examples I've seen are we supposed to compare the D2H to a
Canon 10D or a Canon 1D.

Click to expand...

Depends. My previous post basically highlights the possibilities of the scalability of the LBCAST technology. I think we'll know just how much faith Nikon has in this new tech. as new body announcements are made (hopefully) in the next 6 months. As far as comparison, I think it's fair to compare it to the best currently available, especially when that "best" utilizes smaller and more numerous pixels. It forces us to ask the questions concerning scalability which are so critical to the future of the technology and its use in Nikons digital line IMO.

Member said:

It beats the 1D noise wise and has some
other things topping the 1D.

Click to expand...

I agree, pretty much all the existing Nikon D** series and Canon D* cameras beat the Canon 1D in noise as it is a pretty old model, however will Canon be soon releasing a say... 6mp 8fps camera in the near future based on CMOS that is just as feature filled as the D2h but with greater resolution? We know from both the 300d and 10D that Canon can pack 6mp of very low noise pixels into a 1/2 frame sensor like that used in the 10D ...imagine if they used the larger 1.3x frame of the 1D or even a full frame sensor for even larger photosites, it would make competition very tough for the newly released D2h.

Your comment got me to thinking that maybe the current noise performance of the D2h is somehow restricted by the aspects of LBCAST technology that allow it to fire 8 frames per second, could it be that it requires additional transistors to do this and these are eating up valuable photosite area that would otherwise go into better sensitivity/reduced noise? If so, this could easily explain the scalability issue and allow us to hold out hope for 6mp or greater LBCAST sensors on a half frame with comparable or better noise performance than provided by 6mp CCD or Canon CMOS. What I wouldn't do for some information on the technical specifications of the LBCAST technology to find out if there is any merit to this conjecture! So far Nikon is not talking, aside from the hints provided by the engineer at the previously mentioned Q&A at http://www.digitalreview.ca , which seem to indicate that the technology facilitates the 8fps via 1 readout buffer (which just may require additional circuitry per photosite thus explaining the fact that image quality is only at parity with 6mp CCD/CMOS instead of visibly better than it) Aside from a basic lack of sensitivity of the technology in comparison to current 6mp CCD and Canon CMOS tech ( in direct contradiction to Nikon's claims), the need for additional (photosensitive area reducing ) circuitry to provide for the 8fps speed is the only other way I can explain the noise performance being only at parity with the smaller pixels in the D1x,D100 and 10D. I hope the latter cause is to blame and hopefully with the release of newer high mp LBCAST bodie(s) over the next 6 months we'll have limited confirmation of the assersion.

Regards,

--

Tim O'Connor said:

From what I have seen and heard, this camera is going to be a sport
shooters wet dream.

--

Click to expand...

The reason is because on this forum, we "professional" photographers are out-weighted by the insane soccer mom and dads who are looking for a toy rather than a tool. They don't plan on ever getting professional results....and certainly wouldn't want to buy any brand name lens because they see no difference other than the price between them.... They come here and ask their beginner type questions and the replys they get are often from people who are at the same level as they are... I am a Canon user myself....yet I really don't care which camera system is better as long as the maker of the system I own manages to make something that can help me get the job done and look decent is just fine with me. However, some people will make a decision based upon the fraction difference between the sensors... like one camera may be a 6.1 MP....and another will be a 6.3......well, they will base their decision on the one that has a very slightly larger size because they feel as though it will serve their needs better....and their needs are:

Little League Sports.
Snap shots of their pets looking funny...
Their kids B-day parties...

Their sister's wedding....pictures of them coming down the isle....(taken from the seats)

Self portraits of themselves......often while hand holding the camera themselves...

Some "landscapes" of the sunset with lots of telephone wires and polls in the way...

Night time shots of friends where they will need a camera with a built in flash....

indoor sports where they will use the pop up flash and under-expose everything other than the guy's head directly in front of the photographer...

Oh, and they need this equipment to make 4x6 prints so they can marvel at the quality of their consumer lenses and tell the world on this forum that they are as good as any "professional" photographer.

Yep, this is what we deal with on the Canon side......care to join us?

JP

--

Check out my nifty website....

http://www.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=6108

That's a lot of unfounded, arrogant, elitist assumptions for someone who only posted their first message 5 hours ago. But I guess that's long enough for you to conclude that we are all insane soccer moms and dads looking for toys rather than tools and only taking bad pictures of pets. Oh, and we choose one camera over another because one camera is 6.3mp versus 6.1mp. Funny guy, you big, important "professional" photographer. Nice to start out with so much credibility in your words.

That One Guy said:

Tim O'Connor said:

From what I have seen and heard, this camera is going to be a sport
shooters wet dream.

--

Click to expand...

The reason is because on this forum, we "professional"
photographers are out-weighted by the insane soccer mom and dads
who are looking for a toy rather than a tool. They don't plan on
ever getting professional results....and certainly wouldn't want to
buy any brand name lens because they see no difference other than
the price between them.... They come here and ask their beginner
type questions and the replys they get are often from people who
are at the same level as they are... I am a Canon user
myself....yet I really don't care which camera system is better as
long as the maker of the system I own manages to make something
that can help me get the job done and look decent is just fine with
me. However, some people will make a decision based upon the
fraction difference between the sensors... like one camera may be a
6.1 MP....and another will be a 6.3......well, they will base their
decision on the one that has a very slightly larger size because
they feel as though it will serve their needs better....and their
needs are:

Little League Sports.
Snap shots of their pets looking funny...
Their kids B-day parties...
Their sister's wedding....pictures of them coming down the
isle....(taken from the seats)
Self portraits of themselves......often while hand holding the
camera themselves...
Some "landscapes" of the sunset with lots of telephone wires and
polls in the way...
Night time shots of friends where they will need a camera with a
built in flash....
indoor sports where they will use the pop up flash and under-expose
everything other than the guy's head directly in front of the
photographer...

Oh, and they need this equipment to make 4x6 prints so they can
marvel at the quality of their consumer lenses and tell the world
on this forum that they are as good as any "professional"
photographer.

Yep, this is what we deal with on the Canon side......care to join us?

JP

--

Check out my nifty website....

http://www.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=610

Click to expand...

James McPeak said:

That One Guy said:

Tim O'Connor said:

From what I have seen and heard, this camera is going to be a sport
shooters wet dream.

--

Click to expand...

The reason is because on this forum, we "professional"
photographers are out-weighted by the insane soccer mom and dads
who are looking for a toy rather than a tool. They don't plan on
ever getting professional results....and certainly wouldn't want to
buy any brand name lens because they see no difference other than
the price between them.... They come here and ask their beginner
type questions and the replys they get are often from people who
are at the same level as they are... I am a Canon user
myself....yet I really don't care which camera system is better as
long as the maker of the system I own manages to make something
that can help me get the job done and look decent is just fine with
me. However, some people will make a decision based upon the
fraction difference between the sensors... like one camera may be a
6.1 MP....and another will be a 6.3......well, they will base their
decision on the one that has a very slightly larger size because
they feel as though it will serve their needs better....and their
needs are:

Little League Sports.
Snap shots of their pets looking funny...
Their kids B-day parties...
Their sister's wedding....pictures of them coming down the
isle....(taken from the seats)
Self portraits of themselves......often while hand holding the
camera themselves...
Some "landscapes" of the sunset with lots of telephone wires and
polls in the way...
Night time shots of friends where they will need a camera with a
built in flash....
indoor sports where they will use the pop up flash and under-expose
everything other than the guy's head directly in front of the
photographer...

Oh, and they need this equipment to make 4x6 prints so they can
marvel at the quality of their consumer lenses and tell the world
on this forum that they are as good as any "professional"
photographer.

Yep, this is what we deal with on the Canon side......care to join us?

JP

--

Check out my nifty website....

http://www.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=610

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

............Hmmmmmm...............Yep..................you can say that again!

Seems like I hit a nerve!!!!! Ten bucks says that I am right....and the fact that I am right is why you are so offended by what I wrote!

Go back to your toys little boy!

JP

--

Check out my nifty website....

http://www.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=6108

Lighten up dude.

You seem to have all the equipment you need, but yet your model picts are boring - they look just like thousands of others. No offense meant though, just my opinion.

That One Guy said:

James McPeak said:

That One Guy said:

Tim O'Connor said:

From what I have seen and heard, this camera is going to be a sport
shooters wet dream.

--

Click to expand...

The reason is because on this forum, we "professional"
photographers are out-weighted by the insane soccer mom and dads
who are looking for a toy rather than a tool. They don't plan on
ever getting professional results....and certainly wouldn't want to
buy any brand name lens because they see no difference other than
the price between them.... They come here and ask their beginner
type questions and the replys they get are often from people who
are at the same level as they are... I am a Canon user
myself....yet I really don't care which camera system is better as
long as the maker of the system I own manages to make something
that can help me get the job done and look decent is just fine with
me. However, some people will make a decision based upon the
fraction difference between the sensors... like one camera may be a
6.1 MP....and another will be a 6.3......well, they will base their
decision on the one that has a very slightly larger size because
they feel as though it will serve their needs better....and their
needs are:

Little League Sports.
Snap shots of their pets looking funny...
Their kids B-day parties...
Their sister's wedding....pictures of them coming down the
isle....(taken from the seats)
Self portraits of themselves......often while hand holding the
camera themselves...
Some "landscapes" of the sunset with lots of telephone wires and
polls in the way...
Night time shots of friends where they will need a camera with a
built in flash....
indoor sports where they will use the pop up flash and under-expose
everything other than the guy's head directly in front of the
photographer...

Oh, and they need this equipment to make 4x6 prints so they can
marvel at the quality of their consumer lenses and tell the world
on this forum that they are as good as any "professional"
photographer.

Yep, this is what we deal with on the Canon side......care to join us?

JP

--

Check out my nifty website....

http://www.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=610

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

............Hmmmmmm...............Yep..................you can say
that again!

Seems like I hit a nerve!!!!! Ten bucks says that I am
right....and the fact that I am right is why you are so offended by
what I wrote!

Go back to your toys little boy!

JP

--

Check out my nifty website....

http://www.onemodelplace.com/photographer_list.cfm?P_ID=6108

Click to expand...

--
Check out my sunset with telephone polls (sic):

http://radio.weblogs.com/0101365/

joan gusafsen said:

Shut up.

The reviews on this site aren't at all made by someone who tries to
pull the most of the camera. A review should be written by someone
who knows all system details, like lenses, previous bodies etc.
Phil doesn't seem to do anything ealse than play around with
cameras and putting out somthing that looks like a propper review.

I am a nikon fan, yes, i am a nikon user, yes, and i have always
resorted to http://www.naturfotograf.com when i have been buying nikon
gear, lenses or anything ealse. My experience of the equipment
always matches with what i red before i bought, and that isn't the
case on dpreview.com.

One example is that phil said he wouldn't review some cameras
because the change was only a minor one. What about the G1 G2 G3 G5
reviews ? Thoose cameras had only minor changes between some of
them.

This site is pure ....... . Doesn't even come close to trying to
pull out some propper user experience when writing about a camera.

And the forums are filled up with kitty people. Only wanting to
have the cleanest possible iso 6400 picture of their old cat.

johanG.

Click to expand...

so why use it? Manners cost nothing, and you haven't got any.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment