 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2007Lack of reviews of 2 new cameras
Could be user base is too small, but dpreview (for e.g.) hasn't reviewed the Fuji S5 or the Sigma SD14. I'd be curious to see the S5 contrasted against the Nikon D200, given it costs $500 more and shares the same body...Previously, dpreview refused to review the Olympus's E-400 owing to fact it wasn't released in North America. > Could be user base is too small, but dpreview (for e.g.) hasn't > reviewed the Fuji S5 or the Sigma SD14. I'd be curious to see the S5 > contrasted against the Nikon D200, given it costs $500 more and shares > the same body...Previously, dpreview refused to review the Olympus's > E-400 owing to fact it wasn't released in North America. Somebody call a Troll Truck! > > Could be user base is too small, but dpreview (for e.g.) hasn't > > reviewed the Fuji S5 or the Sigma SD14. I'd be curious to see the S5 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Somebody call a Troll Truck! Canondroid. >>> Could be user base is too small, but dpreview (for e.g.) hasn't >>> reviewed the Fuji S5 or the Sigma SD14. I'd be curious to see the S5 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Canondroid. Actually I don't use Canon or Nikon, but I do own dSLR cameras, unlike you who only has a Fisher-Price; My First Camera. > >>> Could be user base is too small, but dpreview (for e.g.) hasn't > >>> reviewed the Fuji S5 or the Sigma SD14. I'd be curious to see the S5 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Actually I don't use Canon or Nikon, but I do own dSLR cameras, unlike > you who only has a Fisher-Price; My First Camera. No, I'd say it's a far better bet what you are shooting with is plastic. >>>>> Could be user base is too small, but dpreview (for e.g.) hasn't >>>>> reviewed the Fuji S5 or the Sigma SD14. I'd be curious to see the S5 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > No, I'd say it's a far better bet what you are shooting with is > plastic. Who the f.ck cares what the camera is made if, it's the artist that creates the image not magnesium! Guess what film is plastic and gelatin. > Could be user base is too small, but dpreview (for e.g.) hasn't > reviewed the Fuji S5 or the Sigma SD14. I'd be curious to see the S5 > contrasted against the Nikon D200, given it costs $500 more and shares > the same body...Previously, dpreview refused to review the Olympus's > E-400 owing to fact it wasn't released in North America. Has he actually been given one? He only reviews what he is given. I assume you did ask Phil? In article <4610b1a9$0$15041$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D <no@email.com> wrote: > > Could be user base is too small, but dpreview (for e.g.) hasn't > > reviewed the Fuji S5 or the Sigma SD14. I'd be curious to see the S5 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Has he actually been given one? He only reviews what he is given. I assume > you did ask Phil? neither of those cameras have been out for very long. there's no way phil would be done with a review that fast, even if he had no other cameras in the queue. > In article > <4610b1a9$0$15041$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > phil would be done with a review that fast, even if he had no other > cameras in the queue. How long was the D40 out when this appeared? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/ > > neither of those cameras have been out for very long. there's no way > > phil would be done with a review that fast, even if he had no other [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/ the d40 was announced november 6th and that review was posted december 20th. that's six weeks. phil also had a d40 prior to its release. the sd-14 began shipping four weeks ago, so he still has two weeks to go to match it. and judging by the comments in the sigma forum, it is probably best (for sigma) that he take his time. <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06110601nikond40.asp> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0612/06122003nikond40review.asp> > In article <1175523946.228319.208...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the d40 was announced november 6th and that review was posted december > 20th. that's six weeks. phil also had a d40 prior to its release. Announced? Ok, here's the Fuji S5 announcement. Note the date. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092502fujifilms5pro.asp > Announced? Ok, here's the Fuji S5 announcement. Note the date. > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06092502fujifilms5pro.asp note the last line just before the specifications: The FinePix S5 Pro is scheduled for launch in February 2007. Pricing and stockists will be announced nearer to the date of retail launch.* although it was announced in september, it began shipping at the end of february. that's not really a whole lot of time to test it and write a review, assuming phil received one right away and has nothing else going on. >> Could be user base is too small, but dpreview (for e.g.) hasn't >> reviewed the Fuji S5 or the Sigma SD14. I'd be curious to see the S5 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Has he actually been given one? He only reviews what he is given. I assume >you did ask Phil? Don't be silly - asking Phil is a logical and positive action, but Rich doesn't do "positive" or "logical".  SignatureJohn Bean > >> Could be user base is too small, but dpreview (for e.g.) hasn't > >> reviewed the Fuji S5 or the Sigma SD14. I'd be curious to see the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Don't be silly - asking Phil is a logical and positive > action, but Rich doesn't do "positive" or "logical". No, but Rich does do "blathering" and "trolling" *very* well. Signature"My first thought was, he lied in every word, That hoary cripple, with malicious eye Askance to watch the working of his lie" - Browning (remove 'invalid domain' to reply) Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html On Apr 2, 3:49 pm, "evadnikufesin" <evadnikufe...@gmail.invalidcom.domain> wrote: > > >> Could be user base is too small, but dpreview (for e.g.) hasn't > > >> reviewed the Fuji S5 or the Sigma SD14. I'd be curious to see the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No, but Rich does do "blathering" and "trolling" *very* well. Don't be surprised if "Phil" doesn't review either camera. Like the E-400 Olympus that never came to North America and therefore isn't worthy of review, maybe the appeal of the Fuji and Sigma are just to narrow to be "business worthy?" > On Apr 2, 3:49 pm, "evadnikufesin" > <evadnikufe...@gmail.invalidcom.domain> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > worthy of review, maybe the appeal of the Fuji and Sigma are just to > narrow to be "business worthy?" Maby Phil is in shock on how great the SD14 was, and now in a coma. > Maby Phil is in shock on how great the SD14 was, and now in a coma. Not likely, yet another $2,000(cdn) 4.5 megapixel dSLR that NOBODY IS GOING TO BUY! > Don't be surprised if "Phil" doesn't review either camera. Like the > E-400 Olympus that never came to North America and therefore isn't > worthy of review, maybe the appeal of the Fuji and Sigma are just to > narrow to be "business worthy?" ? Less of a conspiracy theory would be that as (I assume) he is based in the USA then they only send lend him models released in the USA to review. Of course that does leave the small issue of the rest of the world outside the USA existing but... ;-) Interesting review of the S5 in AP. Perhaps more interesting than the SD14 is that sigma are releasing a compact with an APS sized sensor. Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >> Don't be surprised if "Phil" doesn't review either camera. Like the >> E-400 Olympus that never came to North America and therefore isn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Of course that does leave the small issue of the rest of the world outside >the USA existing but... ;-) He's English. Dpreview is English, but it's hosted on US servers. SignatureJohn Bean >>> Don't be surprised if "Phil" doesn't review either camera. Like the >>> E-400 Olympus that never came to North America and therefore isn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>Of course that does leave the small issue of the rest of the world outside >>the USA existing but... ;-) > He's English. Definitely. He's less than a mile from Tower Bridge, judging by the test shots. Andrew. >>>> Don't be surprised if "Phil" doesn't review either camera. Like the >>>> E-400 Olympus that never came to North America and therefore isn't [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Definitely. He's less than a mile from Tower Bridge, judging by the >test shots. He might not live/work where those shots are taken from. More likely, he is merely returning to a location that was used for many years for test shots by "Amateur Photograher" magazine. > He might not live/work where those shots are taken from. > > More likely, he is merely returning to a location that was used for > many years for test shots by "Amateur Photograher" magazine. Well, I suppose that all shows me up for not researching dpreview - but I think my comments about conspiacy theories were still valid :-) Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > >>>> Don't be surprised if "Phil" doesn't review either camera. Like the > >>>> E-400 Olympus that never came to North America and therefore isn't [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > More likely, he is merely returning to a location that was used for > many years for test shots by "Amateur Photograher" magazine. A far more interesting subject than that frigging "London Eye" that keeps showing up in Brit magazines. >> >>>> Don't be surprised if "Phil" doesn't review either camera. Like the >> >>>> E-400 Olympus that never came to North America and therefore isn't [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >A far more interesting subject than that frigging "London Eye" that >keeps showing up in Brit magazines. If whinging was an Olympic event you'd win a gold every time. Have you ever said anything positive in you whole miserable existence? SignatureJohn Bean >If whinging was an Olympic event you'd win a gold every >time. Have you ever said anything positive in you whole >miserable existence? Just tell him the London Eye is made of plastic, and watch him go ballistic, then crash and burn. > >If whinging was an Olympic event you'd win a gold every > >time. Have you ever said anything positive in you whole > >miserable existence? > > Just tell him the London Eye is made of plastic, and watch him go > ballistic, then crash and burn. I figured the recent controversy over photos of it being intellectual property of the owners was due to it's overexposure in some many magazines. > >> >>>> Don't be surprised if "Phil" doesn't review either camera. Like the > >> >>>> E-400 Olympus that never came to North America and therefore isn't [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > -- > John Bean I liked doing your mother? >> If whinging was an Olympic event you'd win a gold every >> time. Have you ever said anything positive in you whole [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I liked doing your mother? Now that was classy, why do you bother getting out of bed each day? > >> If whinging was an Olympic event you'd win a gold every > >> time. Have you ever said anything positive in you whole [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Now that was classy, why do you bother getting out of bed each day? You frigging hypocrites. You dish it out but you SURE can't take it. In every case, it's you people who start the invective. > A far more interesting subject than that frigging "London Eye" that > keeps showing up in Brit magazines. But the wheel is metal!!! Oh, please Phil only reviews those products that make his site money. He has more ads and more dedication to keep those ads going on his site than anything else. Why do you think he bans people from the forums anytime they say something bad about Nikon or Canon? The only time he does anything not Nikon or Canon is when he has free time or is board. =(8) > Why do you think he bans people from the forums anytime they > say something bad about Nikon or Canon? he doesn't. there are plenty of people bashing every camera in the forums. phil will delete a thread or ban a person if there is a violation of the terms of service, but disliking a camera is not one of those. > The only time he does anything not Nikon or Canon is when he has free time > or is board. nonense. <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/> of the 41 cameras reviewed in the last year (the ones with thumbnails), only 15 are nikon or canon. that's about 1/3. >> Why do you think he bans people from the forums anytime they >> say something bad about Nikon or Canon? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > of the 41 cameras reviewed in the last year (the ones with thumbnails), > only 15 are nikon or canon. that's about 1/3. He was quick to test the Sony Alpha, and the Pentax K100D and K10D. Just FYI one of the Japanese photo mags did a test on the S5 comparing it to the D200 and it was superior in many areas, including dynamic range (by far), noise at 3200 ISO, color fidelity at 3200 ISO and resolution. I can't read Japanese that well, though, so I will be interested to see what the English-language reviewers have to say. Toby > Could be user base is too small, but dpreview (for e.g.) hasn't > reviewed the Fuji S5 or the Sigma SD14. I'd be curious to see the S5 > contrasted against the Nikon D200, given it costs $500 more and shares > the same body...Previously, dpreview refused to review the Olympus's > E-400 owing to fact it wasn't released in North America. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.