« Last post by ritholtz on Today at 02:11:01 AM »
Fair enough Rishi. Looking at your D5 release articles and later 1DX2 article with reference to D5, you portrayed D5 as revolutionary kind of camera and 1DX2 as a evalutionary kind. Why do you think D5 is some kind of revolution and 1DX2 is a evalution.It's fine if you'd rather us not do our job, but that's not going to stop us from doing it, nor does it make what we say 'passive aggressive biased garbage'.
Sure, you're unbiased.Quote from: rishi on DPRThe metering sensor on the 1D X II has experienced a significant increase in resolution. With 360,000 RGB+IR pixels, it's the highest resolution metering sensor we've ever seen. This should lead to accurate metering...Quote from: rishi on DPR[The D5's] all-new AF system is coupled with a new 180K pixel RGB metering system and Advanced Scene Recognition System, helping to achieve optimally balanced exposures and accurate white balance in even the most challenging light.
This is one of the silliest exchanges I've seen on this forum and that says a lot.
If there is supposed to be some grand point you are trying to illustrate by juxtaposing these two quotes, it's a massive fail. Why don't we all take off the tinfoil hats, grow up and just accept that people may have different opinions and different perspectives without assuming some ulterior motive and parsing every word that a reviewer might write. I like Canon as much as the next person (probably more), but that doesn't mean I assume that anyone who is mildly critical is on the take.
Personally, I find DPR's reviews quite helpful and wish they'd hurry up and do a complete review of the 1DX II. I learn a lot more from criticism than I do from effusive compliments.
That those two quotes were used to 'prove' some sort of grand conspiracy about how DPR has been bought off by everyone but Canon shows how much your own bias can shape the 'lens' through which you see everything. When we dared suggest the a7 II was an under-performer with respect to low light image quality, we received numerous complaints about our apparent inability to evaluate Sony products with any sort of objectivity, finding any excuse we could to put down Sony. One such user even trying to get me fired for my anti-Sony ramblings.
Bias can be a powerful thing. Especially when it stops requiring any reason before casting aspersions - why would we have any brand bias to begin with?
If you're going to suggest financial motivations, would your own bias and justification system stop you from questioning how somehow the biggest, arguably most profitable camera company has somehow forgotten to buy off one of the biggest review sites? But I'm sure a conspiracy theory could be concocted for that as well. Here I'll help: 'they're so big they don't need you so they don't care to buy you off.'
Justifications on top of justifications. Unnecessarily overcomplicated explanations that overfit the data.
Of course, none of these claims of simply anti-Canon bias explain why some years back, Nikon owners harassed us to no end as to why we were so pro-Canon back before Nikon joined the CMOS bandwagon. Or the recent allegations in the Nikon forums for my Canon fanboyism b/c I dared suggest that Nikon VR with certain lenses interacts parasitically with mirror shock while having a personal portfolio shot 95% with Canon cameras.
It's human nature, of course, to nitpick the pieces of evidence, no matter how small, that fit your theory, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. One might hope, though, that at least more compelling evidence than what neuroanatomist has presented might be available.