Dpreview loses its nerve, scores 5DIII same as D800!!!

[Rich]

They have to be kidding.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/29

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/30

[Bowser]

Why? Because each cam has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and that
they see a balance? I think they came to the corect conclusion.

BTW, check the "DR" page. Surprising, to say the least.

[RichA]

On May 23, 8:37 am, Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:03:30 -0500, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >They have to be kidding.
>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/29
>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/30
>
> Why? Because each cam has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and that
> they see a balance? I think they came to the corect conclusion.

By most measures the D800/E is the better camera. It should have won.

> BTW, check the "DR" page. Surprising, to say the least.

Will do.

[Bowser]

On Thu, 24 May 2012 06:48:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 23, 8:37 am, Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:03:30 -0500, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >They have to be kidding.
>>
>> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/29
>>
>> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/30
>>
>> Why? Because each cam has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and that
>> they see a balance? I think they came to the corect conclusion.
>
>By most measures the D800/E is the better camera. It should have won.

If you base the value of the camera on the sensor alone, yes. But when
you throw in the AF, metering, speed, and handling, it's a tossup. If
you read the D800 review they make no bones about it: you need to take
great care when shooting in order to get the most out of that
beautiful sensor.

[Floyd L. Davidson]

Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 May 2012 06:48:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On May 23, 8:37 am, Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:03:30 -0500, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >They have to be kidding.
>>>
>>> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/29
>>>
>>> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/30
>>>
>>> Why? Because each cam has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and that
>>> they see a balance? I think they came to the corect conclusion.
>>
>>By most measures the D800/E is the better camera. It should have won.
>
>If you base the value of the camera on the sensor alone, yes. But when
>you throw in the AF, metering, speed, and handling, it's a tossup.

Whatever you say, but few people seem to agree.

>If
>you read the D800 review they make no bones about it: you need to take
>great care when shooting in order to get the most out of that
>beautiful sensor.

You have to take care with *any* sensor.

If one takes X amount of care with a camera that has a
lower resolution and gets an X quality image... that is
at least what the D800 would also produce. Of course,
with the D800 adding a bit more care will in fact get
more quality, while with some other camera that might
not happen.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com

[RichA]

On May 24, 6:35 pm, Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 06:48:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On May 23, 8:37 am, Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:03:30 -0500, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >They have to be kidding.
>
> >> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/29
>
> >> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/30
>
> >> Why? Because each cam has it's own strengths and weaknesses, and that
> >> they see a balance? I think they came to the corect conclusion.
>
> >By most measures the D800/E is the better camera.  It should have won.
>
> If you base the value of the camera on the sensor alone, yes. But when
> you throw in the AF, metering, speed, and handling, it's a tossup. If
> you read the D800 review they make no bones about it: you need to take
> great care when shooting in order to get the most out of that
> beautiful sensor.
>

I'm hoping the buyers of such a camera won't be sloppy when shooting
with it. Precision (as defined here by mp's) means you need to
operate the thing within a tight set of parameters. Whereas the Canon
can be used more cavalierly as its sensor is not nearly as fine. But
in most cases, when you shoot with it correctly, it will produce
better results than the Canon. That tips the balance in its favour
and that is why it is the better camera.

[Bruce]

I'm surprised that you, of all people, omitted to mention DPReview's
long-standing strong bias towards Canon, which dates from long before
Amazon bought DPReview.

DPReview's verdicts on Nikon equipment have always been lukewarm,
whereas they get very excited indeed about Canon products. Many
people believed that DPReview was funded by Canon or somehow in
Canon's pocket, although I personally doubt that. It is more likely
that Phil Askey is a Canon fanboi.

We will never know, but the pro-Canon bias seems to have remained.

[Rob]

I was surprised when I read the reviews and could not understand how
they concluded the results.

There were so many things which did not compare.

[Bruce]

'Twas ever thus.

A whole generation of photographers have grown to believe that
DPReview is some kind of authoritative resource when it comes to
photographic equipment. Articles such as this should remind them that
DPReview is not a site that people can trust.

[nospam]

In article <c1uur7hlqim45726c...@4ax.com>, Bruce

<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm surprised that you, of all people, omitted to mention DPReview's
> long-standing strong bias towards Canon, which dates from long before
> Amazon bought DPReview.

there isn't any such bias.

> DPReview's verdicts on Nikon equipment have always been lukewarm,
> whereas they get very excited indeed about Canon products. Many
> people believed that DPReview was funded by Canon or somehow in
> Canon's pocket, although I personally doubt that. It is more likely
> that Phil Askey is a Canon fanboi.

bullshit and phil hasn't done reviews for a long time.

<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3/34>
If there is an EOS-1Ds Mark III - bating 'D3X' coming this year it
will have quite a job to do to better the D3; possibly the most
compelling, capable and well-rounded professional digital SLR ever
made.

<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/33>
However, if you can afford the D3X, you will buy yourself the best
image detail that's currently on the market and a very versatile
photographic tools...Therefore, despite its eye-watering price tag,
the Nikon D3X without a shadow of doubt earns itself our highest
award.

> We will never know, but the pro-Canon bias seems to have remained.

it was never there, except in the minds of bashers.

[Mike]

Simple solution, is for Rich to open his own review website.


--
Mike

[Bowser]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:21:13 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>I'm surprised that you, of all people, omitted to mention DPReview's
>long-standing strong bias towards Canon, which dates from long before
>Amazon bought DPReview.

Utter nonsense. They have given Nikon gear glowing reviews pretty
consistently since Nikon upgraded their sensors. I'd love to see your
proof of this claim.

[Bruce]

It was discussed many, many times on Usenet's photo newsgroups.

A search on Google Groups will take only a few minutes of your time
and provide all the "proof" that any intelligent person would need.

Whether it is enough for you is of course moot. ;-)

[Bowser]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:06:06 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:21:13 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>I'm surprised that you, of all people, omitted to mention DPReview's
>>>long-standing strong bias towards Canon, which dates from long before
>>>Amazon bought DPReview.
>>
>>Utter nonsense. They have given Nikon gear glowing reviews pretty
>>consistently since Nikon upgraded their sensors. I'd love to see your
>>proof of this claim.
>
>
>It was discussed many, many times on Usenet's photo newsgroups.

Lots of things are discussed on usenet that bear no resembalce to
reality. For me this is just one more instance of "fanboy colored
glasses."

>
>A search on Google Groups will take only a few minutes of your time
>and provide all the "proof" that any intelligent person would need.

See above...

>
>Whether it is enough for you is of course moot. ;-)

See above. Usenet discussion frequency means nothing. I'd like for you
to show me a review of Nikon gear on DP Review that you think was
unfair. Just one.

(...theme from Jeopardy plays in the background...)

[Bruce]

Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:

>See above. Usenet discussion frequency means nothing.

There's a guy called Bowser who posts here often but has never said
anything useful. So I suppose you must be right.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Floyd L. Davidson <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:

> Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:

>>If you base the value of the camera on the sensor alone, yes. But when
>>you throw in the AF, metering, speed, and handling, it's a tossup.

> Whatever you say, but few people seem to agree.

Lets see: RichA, you, a couple Nikon fanboys ... the rest

seem to agree.

>>If
>>you read the D800 review they make no bones about it: you need to take
>>great care when shooting in order to get the most out of that
>>beautiful sensor.

> You have to take care with *any* sensor.

Nope.

> If one takes X amount of care with a camera that has a
> lower resolution and gets an X quality image... that is
> at least what the D800 would also produce.

Unfortunately, the AF and FPS are not up to the task in the
D800, so the D800 produces worse, if at all.

> Of course,
> with the D800 adding a bit more care will in fact get
> more quality, while with some other camera that might
> not happen.

Yep, properly framing a soccer goal being shot, with critical
focus and tripod and all is no problem with the D800 ... if you
have enough cold spray to freeze everyone long enough. If you
travel lighter than that, you need to walk another path.


The D800 is an amazing camera ... but it's not better in
everything.

-Wolfgang

[nospam]

In article <rrlvr79ocvt9b8qj0...@4ax.com>, Bruce

<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>I'm surprised that you, of all people, omitted to mention DPReview's
> >>long-standing strong bias towards Canon, which dates from long before
> >>Amazon bought DPReview.
> >
> >Utter nonsense. They have given Nikon gear glowing reviews pretty
> >consistently since Nikon upgraded their sensors. I'd love to see your
> >proof of this claim.
>
> It was discussed many, many times on Usenet's photo newsgroups.
>
> A search on Google Groups will take only a few minutes of your time
> and provide all the "proof" that any intelligent person would need.

lots of things are discussed on usenet. that's not proof of anything.

i posted two links where dpreview said the nikon d3 and d3x were the
best they've ever tested, which completely blows your claim to bits.

the fact is that dpreview has been accused of bias for every single
manufacturer at one time or another.

[Rob]

hence is why I asked here for users of the Nikon 70-300 lens, the replys
have been what I'm after - users reviews not glossy reviews.

[Andrew Haley]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> A whole generation of photographers have grown to believe that
> DPReview is some kind of authoritative resource when it comes to
> photographic equipment. Articles such as this should remind them
> that DPReview is not a site that people can trust.

If you go to the conclusion
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/29 and compare
D800 and EOS 5D, you'll see it's a wash in 5 categories, Nikon is
better in 5 categories, and Canon is better in one ("performance",
presumably referring to FPS).

I agree that the 82% rating is rather silly when you compare the
results, but the test itself looks fair.

Andrew.

[Bowser]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:53:08 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Well, I am right about one thing: you have nothing to support your
bullshit.

[Bowser]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 18:31:15 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

I asked Bruce to provide me a link to just one instance where a Nikon
was treated unfairly by DP Review. He can't, so he did the usual Bruce
thing and resorted to insults. The last vestage of a weak mind.

[Bruce]

There is plenty of evidence to support my statements. I told you
where to find it and how, and pointed out that it would take you only
a few minutes to find it. But you were too lazy to make even that
tiny amount of effort. Just like you were too lazy to make a tiny
amount of effort when you were "running" the SI, or hastening its
death, to be more precise.

A leopard doesn't change its spots, and one thing that will forever be
true in your case is that you will never make even a tiny amount of
effort when the option of doing absolutely nothing is available.

[Bowser]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 00:25:57 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>

Correct, a leopard can't change it's spots, nor can you change your
line of BS. I've never seen a review on DP Review biased against
Nikon, and you claim a bias. Searching usenet is useless since
searches are likely to turn up only opinion totally devoid of facts,
like your recent posts about Nikon and DP Review. You have NO facts to
support your claim. Why not just admit it rather than blaming someone
else?

[Robert Coe]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 22:28:24 +1000, Rob <mesa...@google.com> wrote:

I haven't seen anyone yet mention Nikon's vastly superior implementation of
auto-ISO, one of the features that can ease the burden of "operating within a
tight set of parameters". Does that difference carry over in the D800 vs the
5D3?

BTW, if the 5D3 is so much less finicky than the D800, why does Canon think it
needs a $2300 walking-around lens?

Bob

[Bruce]

Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:

>Correct, a leopard can't change it's spots, nor can you change your
>line of BS. I've never seen a review on DP Review biased against
>Nikon, and you claim a bias.

You should read more carefully before replying. I know comprehension
isn't your strong point, as you prefer to lash out against what you
think what people are saying instead of what they actually write.

I reported that many people saw a pro-Canon bias on DPReview which was
widely discussed including on Usenet. You quite incorrectly jumped to
the conclusion that I had claimed there was an anti-Nikon bias. I did
not make any such claim.

At that time I was using Pentax and Leica gear, later Canon and Leica,
and had very little contact with Nikon equipment - to the point where
I am not sure that I read *any* reviews of any Nikon SLR on DPReview
for several years. I had, and still have, a very low opinion of Phil
Askey's ability and knowledge and that deterred me from taking any
interest in what he wrote.

So I could not personally comment on whether DPReview had an
anti-Nikon bias, and certainly could not claim that it did, not having
read any reviews of Nikon equipment on that site during those years.
It was only when the D700 was announced that I took an interest in
Nikon gear again. By then, DPReview was firmly under Amazon's control
in any case.

So, as usual, you are criticising me for something I never said or
claimed. That's not something an intelligent person would do, but it
is apparently par for the course for Bowser.

[Bruce]

Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>
>BTW, if the 5D3 is so much less finicky than the D800, why does Canon think it
>needs a $2300 walking-around lens?

Because until a few months ago, everyone (apparently including Canon)
expected the 5D III or another new Canon DSLR to have the 34.5 MP
sensor that had been extensively tested around the world. But it
never appeared. No-one knows why, because it doesn't appear to have
been a bad sensor.

Perhaps, when it because clear just how good the Sony sensor in the
D800 was going to be, Canon pulled theirs to give themselves time to
develop something better that could compete? I don't know, that's
just speculation, but it is the only logical explanation that I can
think of.

So, assuming that by "the $2300 walk-around lens" you mean the EF
24-70mm f/2.8L II, it is still likely that there will soon be a Canon
sensor that can make use of its superior optics. I feel sure that the
Canon DSLR range will not be limited to 22 MP for very long.

The 7D II is on the way soon, probably for Photokina 2012.

[Robert Coe]

It needs two things for sure:
- The 61-point AF system, which it certainly won't get, and
- A more versatile auto-ISO, which it damn well ought to get. (Isn't that just
a firmware enhancement? If they leave out some of the more obscure languages
in order to cram it in, I won't object.)

I suppose they may give it more megapixels (but where does that leave the
5D3?), although a case can be made that 18 is enough for that sensor size.

What else? It's a little hard to know. Given the constraints of the smaller
sensor, there's not a lot that the 7D lacks. Better high-ISO performance? I
suppose that's always nice to have.

Don't make it heavier. Two of those doggies around one's neck are plenty (say
I from experience).

But why do I care? I already have two 7D's and can't afford a 5D3. It will be
a cold day in Hell before I buy another camera, unless my wife relents on the
weight issue and decides she wants a 7D.

Bob

[Bruce]

It's probably getting to the point where only incremental improvements
are needed. Better AF, lower noise at higher ISOs, more dynamic range
... all these should come before an increase in the pixel count. But
more pixels still sell more cameras, even if there really is no need
for them. And in the 7D's market, I doubt there is such a need, but
the marketing department may consider it essential to maintain or
increase sales.

I have no idea what's coming, but the Canon rep did warn me that
something is on the way. It's important for ordering; our orders go
in typically three months in advance.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:
>>On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:21:13 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>I'm surprised that you, of all people, omitted to mention DPReview's
>>>long-standing strong bias towards Canon, which dates from long before
>>>Amazon bought DPReview.

>>Utter nonsense. They have given Nikon gear glowing reviews pretty
>>consistently since Nikon upgraded their sensors. I'd love to see your
>>proof of this claim.

> It was discussed many, many times on Usenet's photo newsgroups.

So are alien sightings and abductions on the relevant Usenet
groups. So are all kinds of conspiracy theories in relevant
and non-relevant Usenet groups.

> A search on Google Groups will take only a few minutes of your time
> and provide all the "proof" that any intelligent person would need.

Same wit alien sightings, alien abductions and conspiracy theories.

> Whether it is enough for you is of course moot. ;-)

What would you consider proof that DPreview is not biassed as
you claim? Nothing? Then you're a fanatic.

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:

>>Correct, a leopard can't change it's spots, nor can you change your
>>line of BS. I've never seen a review on DP Review biased against
>>Nikon, and you claim a bias.

> You should read more carefully before replying. I know comprehension
> isn't your strong point, as you prefer to lash out against what you
> think what people are saying instead of what they actually write.

> I reported that many people saw a pro-Canon bias on DPReview which was
> widely discussed including on Usenet.

Reality: out of a couple Billion people, a very few claim a
bias, and vent lots of hot air in Usenet. If that's proof,
Elvis is alife.

> for several years. I had, and still have, a very low opinion of Phil
> Askey's ability and knowledge and that deterred me from taking any
> interest in what he wrote.

So you have a KNOWN, PROVEN anti-DPreview and anti-Phil-Askey
bias. And you're the one who has a neutral view?

> Nikon gear again. By then, DPReview was firmly under Amazon's control
> in any case.

So Amazon now has a pro-Canon bias, too? What next? The aliens
who control the government (Proof that that is absolutely true:
it's widely discussed on Usenet) also have a pro-Canon bias
and excert their powers on Amazon?

> That's not something an intelligent person would do, but

... you don't have any personal experience with intelligent
persons, right?

-Wolfgang

[Bowser]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:11:36 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:
>

>
>So, as usual, you are criticising me for something I never said or
>claimed. That's not something an intelligent person would do, but it
>is apparently par for the course for Bowser.
>
>

By claiming that there was plenty of "evidence" to support the bias
claim, in the form of usenet discussions, you did claim a bias by DP
Review. And previous posts also show that you are unaware that Phil
Askey has long since left DP Review.

OK, since you claim you never said DP Review is biased, I'll ask you
straightforward: in your opinion, does DP Review exhibit a bias
towards or against any specific brand?

[Bowser]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:11:36 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
wrote:


>
>

>You should read more carefully before replying. I know comprehension
>isn't your strong point, as you prefer to lash out against what you
>think what people are saying instead of what they actually write.
>

You wrote this:

>>On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:21:13 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>I'm surprised that you, of all people, omitted to mention DPReview's
>>>long-standing strong bias towards Canon, which dates from long before
>>>Amazon bought DPReview.

Maybe you can explain how this isn't a claim of bias?

[Bruce]

Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:11:36 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:
>>
>
>>
>>So, as usual, you are criticising me for something I never said or
>>claimed. That's not something an intelligent person would do, but it
>>is apparently par for the course for Bowser.
>>
>>
>
>By claiming that there was plenty of "evidence" to support the bias
>claim, in the form of usenet discussions, you did claim a bias by DP
>Review.

I reported that a pro-Canon bias was claimed by many people, and that
evidence of those claims was to be found in Usenet discussions. As I
said before, comprehension is not your strong point. It helps to read
before replying.

>And previous posts also show that you are unaware that Phil
>Askey has long since left DP Review.

You're right, I didn't know that. I take very little interest in what
goes on at DPReview because I have always had a low opinion of the
site. Almost my only contact with it is via links posted on Usenet
photo newsgroups by Rich Anderson. Otherwise, the site has very
little value to me. I don't know any other working photographer who
takes any interest in it either. It just isn't relevant.

I know I know there are several new faces, at least two of whom worked
for "Amateur Photographer" here in the UK and were prepared to move to
Seattle. They are good guys and I wish them well. The site can only
improve with their input.

>OK, since you claim you never said DP Review is biased, I'll ask you
>straightforward: in your opinion, does DP Review exhibit a bias
>towards or against any specific brand?

I reported that a pro-Canon bias was claimed by many people, and that
evidence of those claims was to be found in Usenet discussions. If
you're interested, look it up. Otherwise, best to keep schtum in the
hope of avoiding further exposure of your ignorance. ;-)

I have no further interest in any of this. You can have the last word.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I reported that a pro-Canon bias was claimed by many people, and that
> evidence of those claims was to be found in Usenet discussions. If
> you're interested, look it up.

I just read about another "moon 'horax'" proof here on Usenet.

Basically NASA has said "don't land straight next to the historic
Apollo landing sites (and thus fling rocks and sand against them)
and treat them with proper care, try not to destroy anything there"
and only the first part was read by the poster, and he conveniently
forgot that walking 2 km is easily doable on the moon, and that
NASA cannot *tell* others what to do (merely ask), since the moon
isn't their property ... because, *obviously*, NASA is afraid that
one (the Chinese, the Russians, the whatever-non-friendly-power)
might see the non-existence of the landing sites.

Other moon hoax claims can be found in Usenet and on the Web, and
there's discussion with further ample proof to be found there, too.
There's even a whole Wikipedia entry about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
and it details that very many people believe that it was a hoax,
despite lots of third party evidence (including the hostile USSR)
to the contrary.

By *your* logic, that means there never was a moon landing,
in fact, the claim that there never was a moon landing is much
better established and proven than the claim of some DPreview bias.

-Wolfgang

[PeterN]

Did you really expect a clear and straightforward answer.

--
Peter

[Bowser]

No, I'm just messing with him. He also said this in a previous
message:

>>On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:21:13 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>I'm surprised that you, of all people, omitted to mention DPReview's
>>>long-standing strong bias towards Canon, which dates from long before
>>>Amazon bought DPReview.

Sounds like a claim of bias to me, dontcha think?

[PeterN]

I also noticed that he claimed forum chatter was evidence.

Be careful, though, lest you wind up with Alan, I and others, on
non-existent no response list.

--
Peter

[nospam]

In article <tdp2s7dv67u6irb1s...@4ax.com>, Bruce

<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>There's a guy called Bowser who posts here often but has never said
> >>anything useful. So I suppose you must be right.
> >
> >Well, I am right about one thing: you have nothing to support your
> >bullshit.
>
> There is plenty of evidence to support my statements. I told you
> where to find it and how, and pointed out that it would take you only
> a few minutes to find it.

if there's plenty of evidence then it should take you even less time to
post some of it.

> But you were too lazy to make even that
> tiny amount of effort. Just like you were too lazy to make a tiny
> amount of effort when you were "running" the SI, or hastening its
> death, to be more precise.

he didn't bother because he knows you're full of shit.

> A leopard doesn't change its spots, and one thing that will forever be
> true in your case is that you will never make even a tiny amount of
> effort when the option of doing absolutely nothing is available.

sounds like a description of yourself.

you won't make a tiny amount of effort to provide some of this
plentiful evidence.

[nospam]

In article <ul57s757rb0n2sice...@4ax.com>, Bruce

<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I reported that a pro-Canon bias was claimed by many people, and that
> evidence of those claims was to be found in Usenet discussions. As I
> said before, comprehension is not your strong point. It helps to read
> before replying.

there are people who claim dpreview has a nikon bias too.

in fact, dpreview even commented about this so called bias a while
back. it turns out they are accused of being biased for and against
*every* brand, which can only mean they are unbiased.

> >And previous posts also show that you are unaware that Phil
> >Askey has long since left DP Review.
>
> You're right, I didn't know that. I take very little interest in what
> goes on at DPReview because I have always had a low opinion of the
> site. Almost my only contact with it is via links posted on Usenet
> photo newsgroups by Rich Anderson. Otherwise, the site has very
> little value to me. I don't know any other working photographer who
> takes any interest in it either. It just isn't relevant.

so you somehow know dpreview has a canon bias but have no idea what
really goes on there?

you're so full of shit it's not even funny.

> I know I know there are several new faces, at least two of whom worked
> for "Amateur Photographer" here in the UK and were prepared to move to
> Seattle. They are good guys and I wish them well. The site can only
> improve with their input.

there are quite a few new faces.

> >OK, since you claim you never said DP Review is biased, I'll ask you
> >straightforward: in your opinion, does DP Review exhibit a bias
> >towards or against any specific brand?
>
> I reported that a pro-Canon bias was claimed by many people, and that
> evidence of those claims was to be found in Usenet discussions. If
> you're interested, look it up. Otherwise, best to keep schtum in the
> hope of avoiding further exposure of your ignorance. ;-)
>
> I have no further interest in any of this. You can have the last word.

of course you don't because you've been cornered, again.

[Bowser]

On Mon, 28 May 2012 21:45:36 -0400, PeterN

I've already been put there a few times. Each time I care even less.