luminous-landscape.com Mark II field test review

[Pekka]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/canon-1d-mkii.shtml

Couple of things which caught my eye:

DxO noise analysis http://www.dolabs.com/pressroom/release_dxo_analyzer.html analyzes gray scale noise only - not visual noise characteristics. Maybe we are entering high end audio type empirical opinion field here but the difference in noise between 10D and Mark II seems much bigger than those graphs suggest. Gray area noise is not a good indicator of how real life noise is contained in real photos. Especially when you post process those high ISO images.

Other comment, about colors: as Reichmann complains about weak yellows and reds out of box, I'd like to say that after doing Linearsharpen RAW conversion actions for weeks and weeks: Canon made the right decision. If you take a normal exposure you may see slighly "weak" yellows and reds. But when you go to e.g. bright sunshine with strong colors those tints can have so powerful intensity that "normally" tweaked colors will clip without mercy - keeping them initially slightly lower will retain good histogram in extreme conditions and make bright, deep colors seem brighter and deeper and not just stay the same while clipping the bits.

Of course these matters can be verified when Mark II is here....

[GenEOS]

You beat me to the punch Pekka...Reading now..

[CyberDyneSystems]

Oh Cool! 8)

I was wondering what I was going to do with my last hour at work this afternoon!


8) <<< --- Those are my "reading glasses"

[GenEOS]

Seen these yet Pekka?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1080585999.html

[robekert]

I was interested in the performance of the RAW Conversion Software included with the 1D MarkII. :?: ??? Everything else sounds so sweet.
Rob

[Tom W]

....carved from a solid block of unobtainium....

Mr. Reichmann has a way with words, doesn't he?

Nice review - I think he likes it.

[CyberDyneSystems]

....carved from a solid block of unobtainium....

Mr. Reichmann has a way with words, doesn't he?

Nice review - I think he likes it.

lol

I was just going to post that same quote! :wink:

But seeing as you beat me to it ,. I'll add

The Canon 1D Mark II offers the photojournalist, wildlife and sports photographer possibly the finest shooting tool yet seen.

:mrgreen:

Sounds "nifty" :wink:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Seen these yet Pekka?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1080585999.html

Like all dedicated Canon owners.. he took the time to post the requisite "Goose" photo!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Pekka]

Seen these yet Pekka?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1080585999.html

Yes. I'll say couple of things about the whole Mark II demo shot extravaganza going on.

With 10D I have shots that require sharpening, I have shots that require lots of sharpening and shots that do not require no sharpening at all. I can see lens quality, I can see DoF and how DoF plane travels through the image. Even with 10D it is hard to take really the most out of its resolving power in non-test situations. It takes 1/1000 or more shutter speed and sweet spot aperture of the lens used. If that effort can be seen that is a good indicator the camera used is good enough.

In shorter sentence more megapixels means more care must be taken in taking the shot which puts those megapixels to full use.

Now, I have (just counted: 68) Mark II images from various sites on my disk. All JPEG, many saved twice. All show the same things: lens quality matters, camera is capable of making a difference between them, showing very fine detail if there is fine detail to shoot, showing blur where lens is crap, showing sharper images with primes.

We really do not know what all those camera settings really affect, because I'm pretty sure retail firmware is not finished yet in that area. For example some with test cameras were unable to change settings in camera.

I have not handled any Mark II RAW shot in C1 or DPP - important fact because I use only RAW because I seek for certain qualities in image when processing it to TIFF or JPEG and consider post processing part of art of photography.

But, if you can make a relatively "bad" lens shot, saved as sRGB JPEG and sharpened this good (http://photography-on-the.net/IR_demo_sharp_or_not.jpg)
and get all the detail out with simple post process action, I have absolutely no doubt the camera has enough acutance for my purposes, aside of fact that there are dozens of more variables in image quality and camera features which are to me much more important than perfect acutance and which all seem to be in good hands with Mark II.

[GenEOS]

After reading this and looking at the sample images from Nebraska, I was dissappointed in his review. Personally, if I had spent the time to go to Nebraska to shoot Sandhill Cranes and show off a new camera, I would have gotten up a little earlier. All these shots look like mid-day sun, not far from the security of his car.
I like the words he posts, but another photog I know read this and he was not too impressed. Especially his words on the camera loosing focus on a bird in flight.
I expected extraordinary samples from his trip. Sandhills are great birds, large too. How about a nice tight shot showing the red plummage on their head in Mark II detail? Hmm?

When's the dude from England on Dpreview gonna get his hands on one? He knows how to put a new camera through its paces. Better yet.."HEY CANON, YOU LISTENING??, SEND PEKKA A MARK II SO HE CAN SHOW ALL THESE WANNA BE MEASURBATERS HOW TO SHOW OFF A NEW PRODUCT."

The shot of the Sandhills flying over the irrigation system sucked. So did the deer pic, as well as the wide shot of the SH's in flight.

I think what happened here is NIKON bribed him to fudge up the review, so they can sell their remaining D2Hs.....

[CyberDyneSystems]

I did not "click" on a single one of the images in that review for a larger image... none of them interested me in the least.

[defordphoto]

I'm always amazed by the lousy demo photos we see from Canon. My wife works for HP and when they premiere a printer, they produce some kick-butt prints that jump to life on the paper. So far, we've seen maybe two decent photos from these pre-production cameras. There's a shot with some lady and then the soccer (football) players. The shots in that Luminous-Landscape review sucked.

Once this gang here on the forum snags their respective cameras, then we'll see what this thing can really do.

One of the keys here is that what we are seeing is from pre-production cameras. The firmware on the cameras we will get will be much different.

[Canuck]

CDS,
I agree with you and woulda like to see it work w/ really difficult lighting like a sunrise/sunset pic, or into the sun pic, or otherwise difficult shot to get. Now it is time for me to find a way to use the 10D to pay for the 1D Mark II.

On another amusing note, last Friday, I was down at Heathrow Int'l Airport doing more plane pics with a friend and he noticed a really odd looking tail. It would later prove to be the plane I wished I coulda got a ride on prior to decommissioning. So that said we went off to get a better vantage point. I handed the 10D and 120-300mm F2.8EX lens combo to him. I said make me proud, after a crash course in how to use it and I had set the settings up myself. We did what amounts to a drive by with the 10D+Sigma lens and well I was rather impressed with the results. The only bad part was that there was this gate in the way. I was listening as we did the drive by and he burned the 9 frame buffer in 3 sec. That is something I haven't done in a few months. Mind you, said friend has a Fuji Finepix 3MP 6x zoom and failed to realise how heavy it really is. It wasn't too much longer after that, I was asked about how I can do it all day. I have no clue but it makes for a really good workout. Lets see here...the Sigma lens is 5 3/4 lbs...the Canon EOS 10D with Big Ed and 2 batteries is unknown. It must be pushing 9 lbs anyway. This was rather amusing, later on I was having a windup session saying that the lens hood for the Sigma lens weighs more than the Fuji camera. I vow to get him to use the 10D one of these days! There is one caveat, I might not get it back for sometime, after getting the hang of how to use it. It is all good, so long as I get it back that day. I was later asked the big question...what does all this cost? Lots and lots and lots. Well you lot know how much this stuff is so I needn't go into it. It was rather amusing though, this whole situation. I eventually got to the place I wanted and snagged me a few pics of G-BOAB and that was that.

[IanD]

I started reading the LL review and stopped after the first picture. Went out to the kitchen and cleaned my glasses. Back to the review. Second photo. Turned off laptop and went upstairs to the desktop and CRT. Started at picture #1 and realized that my glasses are clean and the CRT ais perfect and that the images suxed. Flat uninspired images. A real pity that they were even posted.

[GenEOS]

Couldn't help but jump into this thread...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?s=996c78bf66186438aa9ae75c1d192b5a;a ct=ST;f=3;t=615;st=0;r=1;&#entry10

[CyberDyneSystems]

You know, the images are sad..

But I re-read the review,. and I have to say I fey\t he made it clear what his own intentions were in the reveiw.

Based on his own opinions,. and intentions,. I think he did what HE set out to do. It may not v\ne what WE wanted,. or expected,. but by reading the referenced Pixel peeepers article we can see where he is comming form.

We do not have to agree with him,. but it does make his own intentions and opinions pretty plane.

His mistake, INHO is that he drifted from his stated mission,. by mentioning the Nebraska trip.. he raised expectations,.


....and he really should not have even posted the images he chose to post.. :roll:

[Jesper]

I was interested in the performance of the RAW Conversion Software included with the 1D MarkII. :?: ??? Everything else sounds so sweet.
Rob

At the bottom of the page on Luminous Landscape there is a note about the new RAW software:

What about the new Canon RAW software?

I wasn't impressed. It is marginally better than what came before, but still not in the same league as Camera RAW or Capture One. I processed my files with a beta version of Camera RAW. I compared results with those from the new Canon software and didn't see any appreciable colour or other differences. This is related to a question I received as to whether this might account for the colour balance issues that I discussed. No, it doesn't.

[defordphoto]

Jesper: I'll definitely take that with a grain...no, 55 gallon drum of salt. Ever since he did that Sony review he's gone to the dogs man. And everyone else that has seen that software says it's awesome.

That review was crap and was not really even a review. Someone mentioned, not sure if it was here, that they could have written that review almost word for word by copying and pasting the Canon stats and then write an opinion on the stats and never touch the camera.

The pre-reviews rarely these days provide any useful and real information about the product these people are supposed to be reviewing.

The photos were total garbage and personally, I am shocked that the folks at LL even let this review go to press. It's like they wanted to purposely downgrade the camera.

I don't want to read glossed over reviews, or reviews that praise any and EVERY product they review saying it's the best, and I don't want to read biased, slanted or uninformed reviews either.

I place this one in the possibly slanted and definitely uninformed category. Positively full of ho-humness.

I think maybe Reichmann has become addicted to the attention he gets for writing crappy and controversial reviews.

Of course, that just my opinion. I could be wrong. ;)

[CyberDyneSystems]

. Someone mentioned, not sure if it was here, that they could have written that review almost word for word by copying and pasting the Canon stats and then write an opinion on the stats and never touch the camera.....



Wow,. really good point,. and sad but true.. :(

[defordphoto]

. Someone mentioned, not sure if it was here, that they could have written that review almost word for word by copying and pasting the Canon stats and then write an opinion on the stats and never touch the camera.....



Wow,. really good point,. and sad but true.. :(

That's why I don't give anything in that review—and probably won't give any of his future reviews—much credence anymore.

[GenEOS]

I know one thing, I will post lots of examples. Test shots of my dog. A fly. Whatever fall infront of the lens when my new baby comes to papa.

I know one other thing too. If Canon trusted me with a 1DMKII to test..I would do just that and share.

Why hasn't canon wised up and sent Pekka a camera?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Pekka should get his pick of free Canon stuff,.
:wink:

...think of all the cameras and lenses sold because of this site! :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

[Pekka]

Couldn't help but jump into this thread...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?s=996c78bf66186438aa9ae75c1d192b5a;a ct=ST;f=3;t=615;st=0;r=1;&#entry10

He says:
"As I noted in my review addendum posted last night, there is in fact little image quality difference between the models in the Canon range, from the sun $1K Rebel to the $7K+ 1Ds. The differences have to do with features and shooting capabilities. But because image quality is something that people can "peep" at and hang their opinion hats on, this is what they focus on."

Strange talk from a guy who reviews also lenses (with detailed sharpness evaluations) has tons of tutorials on post processing and various technical essays.

How come image quality is suddenly not so important any more: only noise is measured - and he comments color perhaps without being aware that Canon did announce those changes to red levels before release and that the camera has very good settings to bring out tone world you prefer.

At least it would be nice to know his opinion if a particular camera can take advantage of best lenses and how it handles backlight, long exposures, how FoV and daily lens usage differs from 1.6X cameras etc.

Those would not have to be scientific tests but empiric comments. He gave Canon 1Ds a five-part field test (starts with resolution comparison), Mark II is merely a comment page. Why?

[timmyquest]

Couldn't help but jump into this thread...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?s=996c78bf66186438aa9ae75c1d192b5a;a ct=ST;f=3;t=615;st=0;r=1;&#entry10

He says:
"As I noted in my review addendum posted last night, there is in fact little image quality difference between the models in the Canon range, from the sun $1K Rebel to the $7K+ 1Ds. The differences have to do with features and shooting capabilities. But because image quality is something that people can "peep" at and hang their opinion hats on, this is what they focus on."

Strange talk from a guy who reviews also lenses (with detailed sharpness evaluations) has tons of tutorials on post processing and various technical essays.

How come image quality is suddenly not so important any more: only noise is measured - and he comments color perhaps without being aware that Canon did announce those changes to red levels before release and that the camera has very good settings to bring out tone world you prefer.

At least it would be nice to know his opinion if a particular camera can take advantage of best lenses and how it handles backlight, long exposures, how FoV and daily lens usage differs from 1.6X cameras etc.

Those would not have to be scientific tests but empiric comments. He gave Canon 1Ds a five-part field test (starts with resolution comparison), Mark II is merely a comment page. Why?

I'm finding this part of the thread very interseting because as i was reading him ramble on about how he wasnt/doesnt/wont post "image quality" pictures i started thinking about how much the camera infact does matter. I mean surely you have to reach a point where you can only do so much. Yes, image quality from an olympus may not be as good as a canon or nikon, but thats to be expected.

But with the same (L :-d) lens on my drebel, and on "your' MKII...cant i get the same image. Relativily anyways. Yes, 8mp vs 6mp vs...1 is going to make a difference, but i still wonder(and was this -> || close to making a thread) what matters more. The camera, or the lens.

This is assuming a few things.

1.) We're talking canon digital SLR's here...none of their digital SLR's produce crappy images

2.) This isnt a picture that requires 20 tries at 1/6000 in an eight and a half second span of time.

Am i neive or is what i'm saying making sence a little.

I've been around computers much longer then cameras and there is one thing that always makes me chuckle. A certain person might spend $500 on the newest fastest video card and it only makes his video games run 5-10 FPS faster. And that may be 5-10 FPS faster then something that is already plenty fast.

I'm starting to wonder if the same is beign applied here. Yes i'd love to be able to afford the MKII, but honestly for me it's more for the shutter speed FPS and 1/8000-wise.

[defordphoto]

He gave Canon 1Ds a five-part field test (starts with resolution comparison), Mark II is merely a comment page. Why?

Maybe he's bored. Maybe it's time that Canon remove him from the preview list. I have never read such a mundane, uninteresting review of any product before. And to make the mirror lockup sequence such a huge part of the review?!?!? Sorry, that's just weird.

[sdommin]

After reading this and looking at the sample images from Nebraska, I was dissappointed in his review. Personally, if I had spent the time to go to Nebraska to shoot Sandhill Cranes and show off a new camera, I would have gotten up a little earlier. All these shots look like mid-day sun, not far from the security of his car.

I'm glad you wrote this, because I was thinking the same thing.

[Belmondo]

What I'm reading here is general dissatisfaction in a few different areas:
1. The reviewer is not a good photographer.
2. The reviewer did not write a long enough piece.
3. The reviewer should not have gone to Nebraska if he wasn’t going to get up earlier.
4. The reviewer spent too much time talking about locking up the mirror.
5. The reviewer’s conclusions were not cogent.
6. The reviewer should not be reviewing because he said favorable things about a Sony P&S.
7. The reviewer should be shot for not writing at least 5 pages extolling the virtues of the Mark II. At the very least, he should not be invited to review any Canon camera ever again.

I think you guys are being a little tough on this fellow. I’m starting to sense a little ‘mob action’ going on here. At a bare minimum, you’re certainly guilty of piling on.

I should point out that within the last two weeks I have driven from California to New York, and back—almost 6,000 miles in 8 ½ days of driving. I carried all my photo equipment with me the entire way, and managed to take a grand total of about a dozen pictures during the entire trip. All of them were in New York on the morning after a snow storm, and the shots are mediocre at best. I’m certainly not bitter about it because photography was not the main purpose of the trip. If I had felt some pressure to take some photographs, I certainly could have found something in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or New York. Unfortunately, the pictures would have been more or less perfunctory, with little preparation or thought given to making them anything more than shots of opportunity (i.e. no setup or planning).

We don’t know what took Mr. Reichmann to Nebraska and the Badlands. Maybe he was just ‘passing through’, in which case he can be forgiven for not planning his photo opportunities a little better with respect to the position of the sun, time of day, etc.. I can guarantee that he fully understands what it takes to get good pictures, especially wildlife fotos, and he shouldn’t be faulted for failing in that regard if that was not the primary purpose of his trip.

It’s okay to disagree with his conclusion, but his impressions are just that and nothing more. Read between the lines and take it for what it’s worth. Apparently the review isn’t worth much to many of you, but this is almost getting personal, and that’s very unlike us.

Tom

[CyberDyneSystems]

But with the same (L :-d) lens on my drebel, and on "your' MKII...cant i get the same image. Relativily anyways. Yes, 8mp vs 6mp vs...1 is going to make a difference, but i still wonder(and was this -> || close to making a thread) what matters more. The camera, or the lens.


Timmy,. I think that eventually this will be the case,..

But for now,. the Digital sensors are so young,. and evolving fast.. that there is indeed a lot of room for improvement... and thus,. every new sensor may have leapfrogged the last.

Soon CCD/CMOS technology may be so far along that retesting each Cameras abilities my be as pointless as resting a specific film would be in each 35mm body that comes down the pike,.

We know What Velvia 50 looks like and the image will look pretty much the same if taken in a $200.00 Rebel "G" as it will in the $1500.00 EOS 1V.. (assuming the same lens is used)

In that sens Michael Reichtman is correct,...

The trouble is, we are a long way away from CCD/CMOS sensor parity :)

Never mind the electronics that back it up.. the same electronics that make a slight difference in image quality even where the SAME CMOS is used,.. (ie: D60/ 10D/ 300D)

The 10D and 300D are virtually identical as far as "image quality".. but the leap in electronics from D60 to 10D did have an effect on the file output,. particularly where noise is concerned.

Essentially right now,.. every time a new high end digital is released, it is likely that it incorporates a new and improved image sensor.

And just like any new type of film,. it is in our interests to know how this new sensor's improvements perform in comparison to last years model :)

[defordphoto]

Well, the real problem is we look to reviews learn more about the product(s) we're interested in. That's why we read them. Michael is pretty well known for his reviews, but something has happened in the last year or so and peaked with the now infamous Sony review.

This review makes little sense, offers absolutely no new information on the camera, well, other than his dislike for the mirror lockup sequence and comes very close to a slam on Canon. We learned nothing from this review.

His review basically says: Kinda like the old 1D, but more megapixels. Kinda like the 1Ds, but less megapixels. Not much new.

Also part of the problem is we have a landscape photographer reviewing a sports camera. That's like having a movie reviewer review a new Porsche.

Timmy, you may like this guy and his reviews, and I have enjoyed many of his reviews over the years, but lately he's become mundane. I appreciate your defense of Michael, but we all know this camera has much, much, much more capability that what's he's shown.

I think we're all pretty disappointed more than anything else. Not that we needed some overbloated cheerleading review on the MKII, but at least we expected an honest forthright review from someone that has actually used the camera.

It's looking like we'll have to wait until we all get ours.

[timmyquest]

I just want to clairify that i'm not in any way defending him. I'm simply raising a question that i have thought about before.

[CyberDyneSystems]

It seems the fallout over this review has sparked a third response...



http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/another-game.shtml




v
v
v
v
v
v
v



v
v
v
v
v

...Did you really read it?

v
v
v
v
v
v
v


v
v
v
v
v




.......now check the date at the bottom of the page :wink:

[Belmondo]

A cynical interpretation of that would lead one to believe that we will soon be at a point where picture quality will be the same among all comparable cameras, and only control layout will matter. I think he should have quit while he was ahead.

[timmyquest]

If a camera's image quality stands out in any particular area I'll comment on it and even analyze it, but otherwise I plan on focusing my attention on what I consider to be of greater significance

I think he makes a pretty vallid point here guys...

[Pekka]

It is a good point to emphasize how a camera feels like, how it handles and how easily you get the job done. But a camera is not a camera if you take its picture quality out of equation. You get a pro camera, L lenses and suddenly picture quality is not that important because "they are all basically the same anyways". Not.

Picture quality can be sliced to several areas which are not equally important to all. I value low noise and wide dynamic rangle - not super resolution or perfect colors. Some value out of camera snappyness, some value smooth AA. For me smooth AA is basis for good quality - e.g. D30 had similar "feel" to its images, D60 had more coarse, "harsh" but crisp look and 10D somewhere inbetween, with hard-to-sharpen noise quality. It's all like listening to different loudspeakers - they all are basically devices which produce waveforms in 20-20000 Hertz area in 10-110 Db volume (simplified), they look about same but are SOOO different when you take them out to real world.

To get a clear picture of a device picture quality must be discussed, too. But it can be done in civilized manner and also with "non technical" terms like how it feels like compared to some other model etc.

And it is important to know how far photos can be processed or salvaged - this is where Mark II is very strong contender.

I think Reichmann has missed this point alltogether and being unnecessarily defensive and even hostile against people who just "want to know".

[Canuck]

How do I get on the Canon new stuff review board? I'd be more than happy to test new Canon kit and do a real review of it. There is nothing better than being able to play with new toys! Heck, even if it was a preproduction camera I'd note that so that you can't miss it.

Another question...is there an MTF chart for the 1D Mark II to compare to the original 1D, 1Ds, and 10D for giggles?

I too feel that the review was seriously amiss. There was no justice to a new camera of that quality which I have seen other review sites talk about.

[defordphoto]

Well said, Pekka and I'm riding the same train. As fas as I'm concerned Reichmann's off my list. If that's the "game" he's going to play it ain't going to be on my computer. I think Canon ought to write him off their reviewer list.

And what's with the deal that Canon uses Sony sensors? It's my longtime understanding that Canon makes their own sensors.

Anyway, Reichmann's horse is beaten dead now.

[Belmondo]

Well said, Pekka and I'm riding the same train. As fas as I'm concerned Reichmann's off my list. If that's the "game" he's going to play it ain't going to be on my computer. I think Canon ought to write him off their reviewer list.

And what's with the deal that Canon uses Sony sensors? It's my longtime understanding that Canon makes their own sensors.

Anyway, Reichmann's horse is beaten dead now.

Jim:
I'm concerned. :cry: :( Where is our dear, sweet, lovable RFMSports? You seem to have taken this whole field test issue much too personally. Maybe you just need a few days down here in the desert; running around barefoot in the warm sand will make a new man out of you. (watch out for the big red ants)

When you finally do get the Mk II in your hands, let go with one of them long enough to thumb your nose at poor Mr. Reichmann. Then, you'll be completely over it. :wink:

Repeat after me:

Neener, neener. :D :D

[Canuck]

Well said, Pekka and I'm riding the same train. As fas as I'm concerned Reichmann's off my list. If that's the "game" he's going to play it ain't going to be on my computer. I think Canon ought to write him off their reviewer list.

And what's with the deal that Canon uses Sony sensors? It's my longtime understanding that Canon makes their own sensors.

Anyway, Reichmann's horse is beaten dead now.

Jim,
Wasn't that the major cool of Canon making their own stuff? Last one I think that wasn't Canon made was on the origian 1D which was CMOS made by...Panasonic, I think. On the 10D the 3 major component including CMOS sensor are Canon made. Rememeber that was the selling point. I am looking up the site now...this is incredibly slow for some reason. I can't find it but it is there...somewhere!

[GenEOS]

Think it's all a set up for April Fool's? Or is HE the April FOOL?
Personally I think all the pictures I have seen on his site thus far are on the down side. But hey, who am I, I don't have a photo resource website to call my own.

Did ya'll hear about Adobe ending it's Photoshop support and sales?

That's a good April prank going around also..

[defordphoto]

Tom: I am not taking it personally. I'm just tired of everyone saying what a great reviewer he is and he's writing crap. He's doing Canon a disservice and will soon do other camera makers the same disservice if they allow him to continue to review their equipment. Enough already. I'm done here.

[Canuck]

A cynical interpretation of that would lead one to believe that we will soon be at a point where picture quality will be the same among all comparable cameras, and only control layout will matter. I think he should have quit while he was ahead.


I was thinking that verbatim and add that he only dug the grave deeper. To some extent there will be only minor differences in the image quality, but only amungst same class cameras. You can't compare the new 1D Mark II to the 10D that isn't fair, nor can you compare a P&S to the 10D or even 1Ds. The 1Ds/L glass would eat them as for fun, not even worthy of a snack. But that is bearing in mid what he said. What he is selling, I am not buying. Basically I feel he can only dig deeper and he is full dung. I'm waiting on the backlash of those that really matter, the real pros to include you now, Jim. Did you see that pic of the trees, on the bit he said? I coulda done better blindfolded w/ a P&S...ok not really but you know what I am getting at. That pic was the epitome of lackluster! Now, I am done.
/exits stage left.

[D60DIETER]

If you like to see some more themn go to

www.dforum.de Kamera, 1D MK II

At that point you can switch to english. Dirk Wächter did a great job.
especially the ISO test 50-3200 is very intresting. Its amazing - nearly no noise at 800!!

Dieter

[defordphoto]

If you like to see some more themn go to

www.dforum.de Kamera, 1D MK II

At that point you can switch to english. Dirk Wächter did a great job.
especially the ISO test 50-3200 is very intresting. Its amazing - nearly no noise at 800!!

Dieter

There ya go! Now THAT is a review. Not all sugar and candy either. A full, honest review.

Thanks for the link Dieter.

[Canuck]

If you like to see some more themn go to

www.dforum.de Kamera, 1D MK II

At that point you can switch to english. Dirk Wächter did a great job.
especially the ISO test 50-3200 is very intresting. Its amazing - nearly no noise at 800!!

Dieter

There ya go! Now THAT is a review. Not all sugar and candy either. A full, honest review.

Thanks for the link Dieter.

Like Jim said, a review that does it justice!! I just wish that the LL person coulda done the same. There are other places too like www.steves-digicams.com, www.imagingresource.com, www.dcresource.com, www.dprevies and others. I would take the one that doesn't match the rest with a grain of salt. Wait, make that a salt lick! The trend is that we can no longer rely on that preson and must go elsewhere. Can you believe for even a second that the 1D Mark II would be a dog. I don't not now, compared to the rest of the lot that is available now. I can see it one day being a dog, but that is true of most items in due time. Do we remember the then blazing 486 DX 33Mhz? Now that is mostly in museums, I'd imagine. Given enough time anything is possible. For now and the next year (given Canon's track record), I can't see it happening.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Hmmm... seems the repercussions from thi review continue...

Check it out;

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29099

http://www.pixelpeeping.com/

[GenEOS]

I like the logo.

[defordphoto]

http://www.pixelpeeping.com/

I love it!! :lol:

[KiwiRob]

Some people are pretty harsh on Reichmann's review. He didn't say the camera was a bad camera I got the impression he liked it quite a lot, all he was really upset about was the mirror lock up.

With regards to some of the people who have bagged his review what are your qualifications, are you as successfull a photographer as he is, one of you has only just been published, and I believe that person hasn't even used one yet! Maybe some some people should pull finger and stop acting like children, it was a good review and Reichmann made some very valid points.

[Tom W]

Asbestos may not be enough. :)

Plenty of the folks here are professionals. As such, they are looking for the best equipment for their trade.

In honesty, I enjoyed reading Reichmann's "review" myself, and I also got the sense that he liked the camera. However, outside of some nitpicking over minor issues, there wasn't any real substance to his review. And he really could have used some better images to show off the new camera.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think that your intentions on this forum were to stir things up a bit. A pattern is developing.

[CoolToolGuy]

Asbestos may not be enough. :)

If I didn't know any better, I'd think that your intentions on this forum were to stir things up a bit. A pattern is developing.

Tom,

You may be onto something. I guess things are a little slow in OZ this time of year...

[ilya]

Hmmm... seems the repercussions from thi review continue...

Check it out;

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29099

http://www.pixelpeeping.com/


Hmmmmmmmmm........

Pekka, what do you think of this new pixelpeeping.com site?

Would love to hear your opinion 8)

[KiwiRob]

Cooltoolguy OZ as in Wizzard of, or OZ as in the place which is full of crazy people because their heads get baked in the sun every day. If you mean OZ as in the place I don't see any Aussies here-abouts.

[defordphoto]

If I didn't know any better, I'd think that your intentions on this forum were to stir things up a bit. A pattern is developing.

Yeah...I think you're onto something there Tom...

[defordphoto]

Hmmm... seems the repercussions from thi review continue...

Check it out;

http://www.pixelpeeping.com/

Heh...I see who the owner is now. 8)

[GenEOS]

Some people are pretty harsh on Reichmann's review. He didn't say the camera was a bad camera I got the impression he liked it quite a lot, all he was really upset about was the mirror lock up.

With regards to some of the people who have bagged his review what are your qualifications, are you as successfull a photographer as he is, one of you has only just been published, and I believe that person hasn't even used one yet! Maybe some some people should pull finger and stop acting like children, it was a good review and Reichmann made some very valid points.

If you claim yourself to be a reviewer, then you better be tough skinned. How many times have people slammed Siskel & Ebert, yet read their reviews every time. (I know one has passed away, but you get the point). People will still see the movies, and don't put much weight to their bad reviews. They go see them anyways.

Do only published photogs words count? I have been published hundreds of times, but I could learn a lot from RMF on motorsports photography. That theory doesn't fly.

The fact is, the guy wrote a poor review. In content and test shots. I still claim that anyone who knows their gear should be able to change any setting within just a few seconds, no matter what the setting is. To slam the mirror lock up function is ludacris, most 1 series photogs are serious pros that know their gear...inside and out. Does anyone practice changing the settings they will need to change on an upcomming shoot? You should. If you have to stuble through menus, you are unfamiliar with, I would gripe about it too!

I bet his site has seen far more traffic with all this negative publicity than it ever saw before. So in that aspect, he has done one thing...gotten people to his sight. Now he just needs to figure out how to make money from it..