O-kay...now he's gone off the deep end...

[CyberDyneSystems]

MR has a comparison of the MkII vs. the Pro-1 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/8mp-alternatives.shtml

Naturally I couldn't resist doing a comparison.


Oh,,.. Naturally :?

[theflyingkiwi]

for someone that keeps saying people shouldn't be pixel peeping, he is doing a good job of it. :mrgreen:

I guess everyone at somepoint can be guilty of a number things:

1. chimping
2. pixel peeping
3. "L" lense envey
4. having a good camera, but because it just does not feel right have to get a DSLR.
5. taking too many photos of ducks :)

[drisley]

And dont forget being guilty of spelling lens as "lense"
:lol:

[PaulB]

I have developed (sic) a theory as to why people spell LENS as LENSE.

Here goes - seriously now, no sniggering at the back!

When we make a singular into a plural we usually just add an 's' to the end of the word; hence "one lamb" but "two lambs".
We don't have a LEN (excuse me if you are called Len.........) but we have "one Lens", but "two lenses".
People ALWAYS think in the plural when they think photography. "where are all my L lenses and those 1DMk2 bodies?" (Am I in fantasy land here, or just wishful thinking?); so it is very easy to work bacwards from "my L lenses" (the normal thought) to "only one LENSE" (the unthinkable !).

[evilenglishman]

And dont forget being guilty of spelling lens as "lense"
:lol:


hahahaha :mrgreen:

[defordphoto]

Oh good grief! The man is on crack. He has finally gone off the deep end. Talk about the ultimate in pixel peeping! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Geeze! :roll:

One has to wonder if he will ever write another worthy review. Ever.

[ron chappel]

for someone that keeps saying people shouldn't be pixel peeping, he is doing a good job of it. :mrgreen:


Oh puleeze ...actually what he's saying is the oposite to pixel peeping :lol:

Pixel peepers aren't even satisfied with the best available-he's saing that the Pro1 is all that many need............

[defordphoto]

[quote=nzl-g3user]for someone that keeps saying people shouldn't be pixel peeping, he is doing a good job of it. :mrgreen:
quote]

Oh puleeze ...actually what he's saying is the oposite to pixel peeping :lol:

Pixel peepers aren't even satisfied with the best available-he's saing that the Pro1 is all that many need............

But you never, ever compare apples and tuna. The entire article is useless babbling.

[ron chappel]

Yeah-whatever

[timmyquest]

What the....

Did anyone care?

[defordphoto]

Yeah-whatever

Exactly! Now you've got it! :D

[PacAce]

"Is There a $3,500+ Difference in Image Quality?" is the title of MR's article. One would agree that that would be a good title and a good reason for a comparison between two cameras had everything else between the two cameras been the same except for the prices. But they're not! As Jim pointed out, it's like comparing "apples and tunas".

And there's more to a camera than prices and image quality, isn't there? Such as camera build and robustness, functionalities, flexibilites, etc., etc. Heck, while he's at it, he might as well start comparing the IDMkII with the digicam built into one of those cool looking cell phones. I'm sure a lot of people would that very useful, too. Or at least it'll make them feel better that they have a camera in their cell phone and can pictures without having to resort to buying a 1DmkII and shelling out a lot of dough for it. :mrgreen: :lol:

No, Mr. MR, there was nothing flawed with your comparison testing of the images from the two cameras. Your only flaw, as I saw it, was in the titling of your article and the relevance of the comparison. The only thing in common with the two cameras for doing the comparison was the fact that you had them both in your hand at the time.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think it's pretty freaking hilarious that "Mr.-Image-Quality-Doesn't-matter -anymore" does a test comparing ONLY the image quality of two totally different cameras with NO comparison of there ergonomics, usability etc....

I thought "form now on" he was only going to critique who the Camera "feels" and not how they "look"

[defordphoto]

He never fails to amaze us doesn't he? I think he dreams up these troll-reviews late at night over a dim lamp in a smoke-filled room. And then he posts it waiting for the backlash and laughs and screaches like the Wicked Witch of the South! :lol:

[drisley]

I have developed (sic) a theory as to why people spell LENS as LENSE.

Here goes - seriously now, no sniggering at the back!

When we make a singular into a plural we usually just add an 's' to the end of the word; hence "one lamb" but "two lambs".
We don't have a LEN (excuse me if you are called Len.........) but we have "one Lens", but "two lenses".
People ALWAYS think in the plural when they think photography. "where are all my L lenses and those 1DMk2 bodies?" (Am I in fantasy land here, or just wishful thinking?); so it is very easy to work bacwards from "my L lenses" (the normal thought) to "only one LENSE" (the unthinkable !).

Yes, I totally agree. I've had that exact theory for a while now too.

[SoCal69]

...critique who the Camera "feels" and not how they "look"

Who the camera feels?? Get serious! My camera and I are monogamous. I am the only person my camera feels! :shock: