You've been around here long enough to know *that*.  I mean, it's as
self-evident as the indisputable fact that all serious photographers
always shoot everything with super-wide-angle lenses at ISO 1600 or
higher -- or whatever thing it is that Canon does better, I keep
forgetting because it always seems to be something I've never done,
but then, we all know I'm not a serious photographer since we all
know all serious photographers are using a Canon 1Ds2, since nothing
else could ever be adequate.

(Man, the mindless Canon cheerleading squad has reduced my opinion of
Canon about as much as George Preddy has done for Sigma.  It's sad,
really; when I'm out and about, and I see someone with a Canon, my
first thought is, oh look, another equipment collector, I wonder if
he'll come over and start bragging about the size of the sensor in
some other camera of the same brand he'll never actually buy...)

Steven...
As a former magazine publisher I can tell you absolutely that articles,
for magazine or Internet publication can never be free of bias just as
long as there is an advertisement to be sold or a need to continue the
flow of goods for review or undeclared "gifts" of money and goods in the
name of sponsorship.

It may surprise you do hear that none of these sites you list could
exist in any usable way without money. Publishers get money either from
selling advertising or being given money by corporations to publish what
the corporation wants without it seeming to come from the corporation's
press room. It's called sponsorship. Worse than this are the sites that
exist because someone shells out the cash so they can go on a crusade.

None of the sites you list could have access to pre release cameras or
"leaked" information about new models or for that matter new model
cameras to "test" if they published unfavourable reviews about the
products they rely on for their very existence.

Stacey is a little more cynical than me in her condemnation of reviews
but it is true that those sites do not exist to provide you or anyone
else with information, accurate or otherwise. They exist to make money
for the owners.

One day someone could sue dpreview for publishing false and misleading
information which results in them buying entirely the wrong camera,
based on that information. The publishers of that site know this and
will never produce a review which materially favours any particular
brand unless they get an incentive to do it.

I just bought a new Nikon DX2 and the associated lenses to equal my
Canon gear in a lead up to changing back to Nikon and I can tell you
now, the only significant difference between the DX2 and my 1d MkII is
the name on the camera and better quality lenses.

I also own an aging SD9 Sigma and it too is a good camera, despite the
w.nkers here blasting it but never owning one. This camera is in some
ways better than both my 20Ds but cannot equal the features of a 20D.

Nothing wrong with Sigma images and when it was released, it could go
head to head with a 10D for image quality. This Sigma is the only DSLR
camera I have bought in three years which never fails to work. It has
saved the day at 2 weddings and last year's Santa shoot when the Canon's
overheated or locked up and couldn't be revived. Not bad for a camera
the deciples of EOS claim is crap. I'll never part with it, unlike the
Canon gear which is about to get sold.

No where do I see examples of really bad behaviour from the Canon
sensors but as the owner of three Canon DSLRs I have plenty of examples
from 10D, 20D and 1D images which are digital exclusive disasters. All
part of discovering the limitations of these cameras... So why don't the
reviewers report on those limitations?

Because it's not in their best interest to. That task is left to
students and controversial site owners. And anyway... Not many people
will use their cameras in extremes of heat and light and when they do,
will probably just delete the image as a dud without knowing it was only
a dud because of design inadequacies of the camera.

Silly me. I bought a 20D, dual battery grip (no longer called the "Pro
Grip") and the next day set the camera up to shoot Santa pics. Canon
hadn't had enough Speedlights to go around so I figured I'd use the
built in flash until the other camera and speedlights arrived.

That's when limit number one was discovered. Maximum "internal"
operating temperature of the camera is reached before a CFC is filled
when the ambient temperature is 38C or higher ...and the SD9 had to be
unpacked to complete the shoot. When the second camera arrived it shot
29 frames and err 99. Swap the batteries and start again. At frame 398
it died, never to be graced with life again.

"Oh no, these camera are really just high end consumer cameras. If you
want to use one all day long every day, you really need this (as he
opens the display case) 1d MkII which really is a professional camera".

More money than sense, I shelled out all the profit I was about to make
at Christmas and bought the thing. What ever possessed me to buy another
20D after this is still something I need to see a therapist about.

To it's credit, the 1D has been relatively trouble free but many of the
image flaws the 20Ds have are still evident (at a lower grade) so I've
come to the conclusion it's the sensor design, not so much the camera
but as the two are inseparable and I am less than impressed with Canon's
fabled "L" series barrel distortion and other lens flaws, it's get
something better time! What better than the best?

Douglas

It just annoys the hell out of me that they treat the general population so
stupidly. What is wrong with telling the truth? Obviously cigarette smoking
is very bad for you. If nothing else, the carbon monoxide in the smoke kills
your brain cells, and brings on premature senility....That alone should, (if
properly advertised) be able to convince teenagers to not smoke....I could
design a series of ads that would ridicule the smoking teenager to the point
that his peers would laugh out loud in his/her face........

I remember when they haden't identified it as one disease. They were
wondering why there were an increasing number of cases of some kind of skin
cancer that was heretofore peculiar to old Italian men.....(I forget it's
name....Something like Sarcaphys syndrome) Turns out that the reduced immune
systems of aids patients was allowing this disease to take hold......

No, I don't think the number is zero, but my common sense tells me that the
number is less than 10% of the 60,000 they say it is, just based on the
percentage of smoke particles breathed in by non-smokers vs. the amount
breathed in by smokers, plus the death statistics of the smokers. My figures
come from the ads the American Cancer Society puts out on late night radio.
(where they probably don't have to pay for them) For several years it was
50,000 people a year, and several months ago it suddenly jumped to 60,000.
They didn't say, "We were wrong before, but now newer techniques have shown
us....." They just quietly slipped in 60,000 instead of the previous 50,000.
In any case, I have talked with many intelligent people (I worked in a place
heavy with PhD's in physics) who agree that the 50,000 figure was way
overinflated. Of course, they too were only working on their common sense,
since the real figures are impossible to get.

Actually, we are never going to be able to resolve this, since it is
impossible for me to prove a negative, and being able to prove that the
number is less is like being able to prove that Saddam didn't have any
WMD's.
   But my common sense tells me that the number 50,000 is very
overinflated. My guess is less than 10% of that. Ie: the number of people
who die every year in the US due to second hand smoke numbers less than
5,000. Now, there are many factors to consider other than just lung cancer
and heart disease. There is a lot of carbon monoxide in cigarette smoke, and
this kills brain cells, and brings on early senility. (I have been accused
many times from suffering from this) Also, you can drop a lit cigarette in
your lap while driving, and run off the cliff. - Also consider the fact that
smokers too, suffer from second hand smoke, so there is not a clear
separation between the two groups.
   I think that a lot could be learned by studying smaller populations.
Consider studying the difference in death rates between non-smoking (and
drinking) bartenders vs. non-smoking ice cream store clerks. Both doing
about the same thing, but one subjected to a lot more second hand smoke than
the other.
   In any case, I distrust any statistics that do not come with an
information sheet that explains exactly how they were obtained. Call me a
skeptic, if you will, but I have been duped far too many times in my life by
the medical profession to believe anything they say anymore without getting
the raw data to inspect for myself.

I don't know about others, but in my case, I couldn't, "smoke more at home,
or...." It was either smoke, or don't smoke. Since I couldn't smoke at work,
and still do my job, I chose to quit. Everyone benefited from this,
including my children. Only the tobacco industry (including the farmers)
suffered......