Look, you freely admit that your OP was "inflammatory", so enough said about that.
Well, I ended by saying "provocative" ... but yes, I was trying to provoke responses
to my thread regarding the legitimacy of some of these reviews; I was not trying to provoke "you" into calling me an idiot and a fanboy, nor was I trying to provoke Mr.Leonard (aka: RedHerring) into calling me a rapist
I was looking to get into a heated debate about photo reviews
, I was not looking to be tarred and feathered myself
In truth though, Tony, I do believe it is your own Nikon fanboyism that makes you attack any Canon-slanted folks. I say this not to provoke another argument with you; I just think this is the truth. Yet I think you being an obvious fan of Nikon is a good thing, actually. Being a fan makes a person obsessed and therefore knowledgeable on the subject. Speaking of which ...
Do you have any direct experience using a Nikkor 80-400mm on the D300? If so, how you you rate this particular combination? I have not seen the same direct comparison for Nikon in this combo, as I have seen for the Canon 40D/50D + 100-400 combos.
I know that the Canon/100macro combos and the Nikon/105macro combos are both outstanding and both very close, but I have heard much less favorable results for the Nikkor 80-400mm vs. the Canon 100-400mm.
However, yet again, I have not read about a single review of the specific combination
of a D300 + 80-400mm telephoto. What are your thoughts, if you don't mind sharing?
*Good viewfinder, optional focusing screens
There are 28 other "pros" listed in the conclusion of the review; whereas there are 7 "cons" listed:
* High ISO performance worse than 40D
* Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
* Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
* High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
* Poor white balance performance under artificial light
* Flash must be up for AF assist lamp (although AF is good even in low light)
* Live view not as accurate as on 40D (framing very slightly off-center, in contrast detect AF mode not possible to magnify right out to the extreme corners)
You see what I mean? This is the kind of pure bias (abbreviated BS) I am talking about
There are 28 "pros" for the 50D (yet you only list 2), while there are only 7 "cons" (and of course you list all 7)
This is exactly the kind of deliberately-negative slant I am talking about. A 28-7 ratio is a 4:1 ratio. This means if you are only going to list 2 "pros," you then you shouldn't even mention 1 "con" yet. But you go ahead and omit 26 pros, while listing all 7 cons, which is nothing but anit-fanboyism, is it not?
Further (and again, this is the whole point of my thread topic), all but 2 of these 7 "cons" are BLATANT LIES
Let's examine these 7 "cons" and re-define them:
1. The high ISO performance is actually better
, with the right lens
2. Again, DR is again better in low light, with the right lens
3. Per-pixel data is again better, with the right lens
4. THE BIG KEY HERE: WITH THE RIGHT LENS ALL OF THESE "NEGATIVES" BECOME POSITIVE!
5. Okay, here is a real negative.
6. Again, this could be re-stated as a positive: Autofocus is good, even in low light (Flash must be up for AF assist lamp).
7. Okay, Live view isn't as accurate, another negative.
So you see Tony, 5 out of 7 "negatives" are really the result of DP Review's own negligent (intentional?) choice of lenses ... which would leave the 50D ultimately with 32 positives and only 2 real negatives