Not happy with Dpreview

PixelPix wrote:
On Jul 26, 5:20 am, "Focus" wrote:
Someone is not happy with DPreview's Canon 1000D review:

http://dpreviewed.com/

Life is too short for **** like that... People should just pick up a
camera (any camera of "personal choice") and go take pictures with the
sucker.

I chuckle when I see some of the stuff thrown up on the Internet. I
don't believe any product reviews I read from a for profit web site,
magazine or television show. The real fact is that all the DSLRs are
better cameras than 99% of us are photographers. You're right, people
should just pick a camera and take some pictures. There is too much
"bench racing" going on by people who think they are experts.

Michael Johnson wrote:
PixelPix wrote:
On Jul 26, 5:20 am, "Focus" wrote:
Someone is not happy with DPreview's Canon 1000D review:

http://dpreviewed.com/

Life is too short for **** like that... People should just pick up a
camera (any camera of "personal choice") and go take pictures with the
sucker.

I chuckle when I see some of the stuff thrown up on the Internet. I
don't believe any product reviews I read from a for profit web site,
magazine or television show. The real fact is that all the DSLRs are
better cameras than 99% of us are photographers. You're right, people
should just pick a camera and take some pictures. There is too much
"bench racing" going on by people who think they are experts.

I was on World of Warcraft the other day, and somebody was asking about
Digital SLRs. I talked with them for a couple minutes, and found out
their parents were looking for one, and had a bunch of Nikon 35mm stuff.
So I recommended they find out the latest Nikon entry level camera, and
then buy the model that got replaced by that.

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]

Doug Jewell wrote:
2SQUID wrote:
Focus wrote:

Someone is not happy with DPreview's Canon 1000D review:

http://dpreviewed.com/

Focus, please do correct your page. Apart from factual errors
and wrongly represented facts --- yes, we've been throug all your
arguments here in the past months --- the HTML is kaputt:
http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...eviewed.com%2F

And do add your real name to the text. Anonymous ad hominem
attacks are so ... yellow.

I can't
remember which camera it was now, but one I saw they had
side-by-side shots with a Canon, the Canon looked slightly
worse (but not much in it), and the reviewer said that the
other camera was significantly behind the Canon.

Please go back and find the URL, so that we can decide
ourselves. Maybe the Canon was weaker in contrast while the
other camera was weaker in resolution --- the first is easily
corrected but looks worse at first sight.

And then please look up the definition(s) of "significant".

-Wolfgang

"Focus" wrote in message
...
Someone is not happy with DPreview's Canon 1000D review:

He was probably banned.

IK wrote:
Hmm, obviously you have failed to notice the fact that DPReview has
not review the last two professional Canon cameras released...if they
are so "pro" Canon why haven't they been shilling the lemon Mark III?
Hmm? I thought so.


IF you can't write something good, don't write anything at all. Canon -
despite having a megapixel advantage, can't come close to the D3 in most
image quality areas. DPreView could hardly do a review of a Canon pro
camera without comparing it to a Nikon Pro camera.

* 2SQUID wrote :
IK wrote:
Hmm, obviously you have failed to notice the fact that DPReview has
not review the last two professional Canon cameras released...if they
are so "pro" Canon why haven't they been shilling the lemon Mark III?
Hmm? I thought so.

IF you can't write something good, don't write anything at
all.
snip /

Please practice what you preach. Thanks.

--
Troy Piggins

"2SQUID" wrote in message
...
IK wrote:
Hmm, obviously you have failed to notice the fact that DPReview has
not review the last two professional Canon cameras released...if they
are so "pro" Canon why haven't they been shilling the lemon Mark III?
Hmm? I thought so.


IF you can't write something good, don't write anything at all. Canon -
despite having a megapixel advantage, can't come close to the D3 in most
image quality areas. DPreView could hardly do a review of a Canon pro
camera without comparing it to a Nikon Pro camera.

I think they had a problem getting a picture straight and in focus ;-)

Annika1980 wrote:
While us DSLR users like to go back and forth a bit, it seems that the
real backbiting is among the cheapo P&S users. It's like, "My $300
cammy is better than yours!"

Who cares? They both suck!

The real fun starts with some fool claims that a Crapasonic P&S will
outperform a DSLR and proper lenses.

That'd be "we DSLR users'.... and why are you adding a new troll to an
existing baited thread??

--
john mcwilliams

John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 28/07/2008 9:47 AM:
Annika1980 wrote:
While us DSLR users like to go back and forth a bit, it seems that the
real backbiting is among the cheapo P&S users. It's like, "My $300
cammy is better than yours!"

Who cares? They both suck!

The real fun starts with some fool claims that a Crapasonic P&S will
outperform a DSLR and proper lenses.

That'd be "we DSLR users'.... and why are you adding a new troll to an
existing baited thread??


because he IS a troll, you MORON!

"Richard" wrote in message
...
If you don't like the review at Dpreview demand your money back!
Yes, because doing things "for free" gives people a license to spin.

And you actually think newspapers, magazines and pay TV networks are
completely un-biased ?

MrT.