DPreview tilts review samples in favour of Canon

Had I not taken the time to compare reviews of the 40D and Nikon's
nearly obsolete D200 and seen the "studio shots" from side by side
comparisons, I might not have realized how unequal their reviews are.
I couldn't believe the reviewer's comments that the D200 produced a
better quality image than the 40D but then went on to say the only
gripes he found were minor, pointing the serious failure of the White
balance system to meter correctly in artificial light!

In the studio shots (RAW comparison) The tester concedes there is more
detail in the shadows of the D200 yet when you look at the samples
from the gallery, many of the D200 samples were taken in glaring
sunlight of very high contrast subjects whilst all the 40D samples
were taken in much more even light and lacked the contrast of the ones
used with the D200.

If this is not blatant manipulation of test results to favour their
largest sponsor, what is?

Doug

 

you dont like that part ?

Overall Image Quality / Specifics
I always go into a review such as this half-hoping to discover Canon has
finally slipped up and we could find something critical to say about image
quality, but I'm afraid for the competition the EOS 40D is another strong
performer. Despite sharing identical specifications (10.5 total megapixels,
22.2 x 14.8 mm) the EOS 40D's sensor does appear to be different (or at
least its backend electronics) to the EOS 400D (Digital Rebel XTi) as it did
manage to deliver lower noise and higher dynamic range (topping nine stops,
which is, apart from the Fujifilm S5 Pro, the best out-of-the-camera SLR
performance we've had to date).



Anf btw may D200 owners switch to the 30D because of the IQ of the Canon.

The D200 has way to much noise , even at ISO 800.

 

The noise is easily removed during development of RAW images. I
personally prefer it this way than how Canon do it with an on board
computer.

 

Where does he say this? I could only find "Disappointing automatic
white balance performance under artificial light" for the D200 and
"Average automatic white balance performance, still very poor under
incandescent light" for the 40D, neither of which have anything to do
with corect metering.

Andrew.

 

Bullshit. The D200 absolutely dusts the 30D, and I bet you can't name
one (real) person who has switched from the D200 to any canon
products.

 

The D200 is the shit, lol. Just go in the Canon 30D forum on dpreview and
ask if anyone switched from a D200 to a 30D, you will found more that you
need to look stupid (but we already know you are stupid anyway).

 

on board computer ? lol

We know we can remove noise, that what we do when we shoot ISO 3200,
hahahahaa

 

Can't argue with that logic.

If it's on the dpreview forums then it _must_ be true.

 

I must be stupid too. I sold a 20D to buy a Fuji s5 which is just a D200
with a HDR sensor. Call me stupid, stupid. I kinda like the ideal of being
in the same class as Matt Clara. Had you ever seen his work Yvon, you
wouldn't so easily dismiss his opinion.

The Canon forum? You must be joking. On dpreview? Now I know you are.

Douglas

 

Price to use a 30D instead of my camera: one 30D
Price to use a D200 instead of my camera: one D200, half a dozen
very good glasses, a handfull flashes.

Well, nice dusting there, many handfull of dollars worth.

And can you name one real person who has switched from the
30D to the D200?

-Wolfgang

 

What is more interesting is that people compare the 30D and the D200
directly. They are "seen" as direct competitors while one is clearly
more expensive than the other. When I bought my first body (30D),
price was a major issue, and that prohibited me from even looking at
Nikon's offerings (since at that point there were clear advantages to
going with the 30D over a D70, for example).

People have their own tastes - I'm sure there are equally ambiguous
reviews out there for Nikon or Pentax or what have you.

Toodles,

Adam.

 

Are only things competitors that cost the same?

-Wolfgang

 

I did.

Not that this proves anything except that at least one person did it

 

Hand up here too!

I have one 20D left from the 3, I started with. The news from Canon
yesterday that the remaining 20D I put in for routine (annual) servicing 3
weeks ago is awaiting appraisal of it's repair cost... Led me to ponder the
merits of having bought a 1D Mk III two weeks ago so...

I took it back under Australia's Trade Practices Act. A refund is pending.
I'll buy either Nikon or Fujifilm bodies and Nikon lenses and speedlites.
Canon cannot.

Disgusting situation that the supposed leading maker of DSLRs can take over
3 weeks just toassessed the condition of a camera. At least Nikon empower
local independent repair centres to do their work. Days instead of weeks and
I get a real person to talk to.

You disciples of EOS can probably pick up some really good Canon gear from
me on eBay over the next few weeks as I dump the lot and put my faith in a
brand that a fancy talking salesman managed to talk me out of five years
ago.

Douglas

 

I'll be sure to look for the auctions.
Might even make a bid or three.

D-Mac, you've been bitching about Canon cameras for years. You claim
the service sucks, the cameras aren't reliable, and even a Crapasonic
produces better images. And yet you keep buying Canons.

So are you an idiot or just a liar?

As you know, I have 4 Canons, the Fabulous EOS-1V, the Totally Digital
D60, the 20D, and the 40D. I've never had any real problems with any
of them and I don't exactly pamper them like some people do with their
gear. They get knocked around quite a bit. I've had them crash down
from my crappy tripod many times. One time I dropped the 20D on a
hard wood floor and it did break the battery door off. Bought a new
one online for $15 and had it in two days.

Other Canon shooters like myself experience years of trouble-free use
from their Canons. So how do you explain your track record?

 

"acl" is not the name of a real person.
While there might be a real person behind that handle, the ID
papers sure use a different name.

-Wolfgang