gooble wrote in post #3868297
I am not personally offended by anything that is said on POTN. I neither own a 40D, 5D or any 1D camera, nor have I used any of them. I was simply interested in the LL article and welcome the possibility that the 40D matches, or perhaps surpasses, the performance of the 5D. Given the opportunity I would like to purchase a 5D and a 40D.
I am surprised that all hell has broken loose because of the article and the strident and outright rejection of the articles assumption. "Guilty till proven innocent" as somebody put it. I find it funny and a little odd that people have reacted this way. I on the other hand thought it was interesting and that it would be great if it were true. I'd also like to wait until other impressions/reviews are published and see what they say. But some here though, immediately point and shout "Impossible! Where's the proof?" I think it is a little petty and premature.
This will probably be the last that I say about MR's credibility in the realm of image quality judgments, because I find myself saying the same things over and over again, which is both boring to me and annoying to others. Gooble, did you do what I asked you to do (pretty please with sprinkles on top?) in one of my previous posts--look at the 1DIII ISO 3200 vs. 1DIIN ISO 1600? If so, do you agree with me that the 1DIII's ISO 3200 is noisier than the 1DIIN's ISO 1600, hence the 1DIII's noise improvement is less than 1 stop? Hard evidence like this that doesn't line up with his subjective impressions of image quality (1-2 stops improvement, he said) is why I tend to be immediately skeptical about any comparative image quality claims he makes, including the one about the 40D vs. 5D. I'm not saying you have to be the same way; I'm just asking you to understand the reasoning and see that it's not exactly unreasonable to think this way.
How do you know whether to trust a review? You look at the reviewer's track record. IMO (which you certainly don't have to agree with), MR has shown a tendency to make strong statements comparing image quality of 2 cameras that go against conventional wisdom without backing it up with hard evidence. When this is the case, considering his track record in this area, I tend to disbelieve him until I see proof to corroborate his claims, because his claims have been shown to be off the mark in the past. Exaggerated and over-exuberant, if you will. I'm not impugning his integrity as a person--he's probably absolutely convinced of the truth of his judgment and as such is simply giving his sincere opinion. I just hold what I consider a healthy suspicion of any such claims he makes based on prior performance, that's all. I've never gone so far as to say that his claims are impossible; just that they shouldn't be swallowed whole because IMO he's not the most reliable authority in this area.
And now, back to the fun stuff--comparing 40D vs. 5D images. Anybody else find comparison tests that you can post here? Early comparisons are looking really good for the 40D!
).
