Upgrading from D80

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Croosh, May 22, 2008.

  1. Croosh

    Croosh Guest

    Hi Everyine,
    I am thinking about upgrading my camera (D80).
    I have some issues that make the camera not as anjoyable as I wish it
    was:
    1) The camera tends to overexpose in weird ways. My D70 did it to, but
    it was predictable, so I just compensated by 1/3 stop. D80 is hit and
    miss, and I don't always have the luxury of stopping and checking the
    histogram.
    (I am shooting RAW, but blown lights or noisy shadows are an issue...)
    2) In "s" focusing mode the camera mamages to focus little too far.
    With my portrait lense (85mm F1.8 I often have 2-3" on DOF, so two
    inches oiff makes a nice picture of person's ears.) In "C' mode the
    issue doesn't appear as often (if at all), but continuous focus
    requires me to mess with AE/AF lock button...

    Originally I've been thinking about D200, but nobody locally stocks it
    anymore, plus D300 isn't that much more expensive. The question
    is,have the people using both seen much improvement in D300 ove D200,
    besides the obvious stuff? Is autofocus any better in practice? Is the
    CMOS sensor much better than CCD? Menu system, buttons, ergonomics
    etc.?

    Moving to 40D is not an option, as I have a lot of money invested in
    the lenses, and don't feel like going through that process again...

    I'm not a professional photographer, but photography is my main hobby,
    so I try to buy decent equipment is I can afford it without dipping
    into my 401K :) D80 is my second DSLR. Before that I had F4, and FM
    before that. I still think that F4 was the best thing mankind
    invented.
    When using my DSLRs I stay in "P" exposure mode with RAW files and use
    Bibble for the postprocessing.
    I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't care much for the bells
    and whistless that don't affect the image quality...
    Below are some of my observations:

    D200 Pros (over D80):
    1) access to manual lenses (35mm 1.4 isn't made with AF).
    2) Uncompressed NEF
    3) Sealed body (I find myself by the ocean a lot, and salty mist
    doesn't improve camera mechanics...)

    D300 Pros (inaddition to D200):
    1)Sensor cleaner (I use prime lenses, mostly, so the sensor does get
    dusty in a hurry)
    2) CMOS sensor (supposed to be less noisy)


    Things I don't care about:
    1)Megapixels: D80 has 10 and that's plenty for what I print
    2)LiveView (tm?).
    3) LCD size (Histogram is visible in 1" LCD, and i personally can't
    judge anything else on 3" LCD



    Thank you in advance
    Yuriy K.
    Croosh, May 22, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Croosh

    PDM Guest

    > I am thinking about upgrading my camera (D80).
    > I have some issues that make the camera not as anjoyable as I wish it
    > was:
    > 1) The camera tends to overexpose in weird ways. My D70 did it to, but
    > it was predictable, so I just compensated by 1/3 stop. D80 is hit and
    > miss, and I don't always have the luxury of stopping and checking the
    > histogram.

    <snip>

    I'm having the same problem with my D40x. Unpredictable overexposure
    particularly when using matrix mode. It this a Nikon thing? I don't have
    this problem with my Canon or Samsung cameras. Did a comparison with my
    Canon IXUS 950, same shots, conditions, etc. Canon metering spot on; Nikon
    usually overexposed. Have reverted to using my old Weston Master 5.

    Any metering problems with other Nikon cameras?

    PDM
    PDM, May 22, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Croosh

    Croosh Guest

    On May 22, 12:49 am, "PDM" <pdcm99minus this >
    wrote:
    > > I am thinking about upgrading my camera (D80).
    > > I have some issues that make the camera not as anjoyable as I wish it
    > > was:
    > > 1) The camera tends to overexpose in weird ways. My D70 did it to, but
    > > it was predictable, so I just compensated by 1/3 stop. D80 is hit and
    > > miss, and I don't always have the luxury of stopping and checking the
    > > histogram.

    >
    > <snip>
    >
    > I'm having the same problem with my D40x. Unpredictable overexposure
    > particularly when using matrix mode. It this a Nikon thing? I don't have
    > this problem with my Canon or Samsung cameras. Did a comparison with my
    > Canon IXUS 950, same shots, conditions, etc. Canon metering spot on; Nikon
    > usually overexposed. Have reverted to using my old Weston Master 5.
    >
    > Any metering problems with other Nikon cameras?
    >
    > PDM


    I used to have D70, and AE was very predictable. Since I was shooting
    RAW, I set it to underexpose by 1/3 EV and seldom had any problems.
    D80 is definitely much worse (at lest the one I have). This is mostly
    the issue in the matrix mode. Spot metering is right on.
    Croosh, May 22, 2008
    #3
  4. Croosh

    flaming-o Guest

    The nature of your exposure problems suggests a combination of your
    technique and misunderstanding of what a digital sensor can capture.
    The D300 is not going to change that.
    You would be better served by calibrating yourself as well as polishing a
    raw workflow to try to optimize your results.
    Your own special Zone system.
    No matter what you do there will be a lot of misses: the cost advantage of
    digital allows for endless bracketing and experimentation compared to film.
    Do it.
    Increasing skills in Photoshop will improve your results more than any
    camera upgrade.
    I really do not think there is a technical advantage that is worth updating
    to the D300 apart from use of non-AF lenses, hardly a real issue, and, if
    you really need it, less noise at higher ISOs. I seriously doubt most people
    shoot at higher than ISO 400 anyway.
    I too have a D80 but am sitting out the Nikon upgrade cycle until they
    increase color bit depth and dynamic range, much as I would love a new toy,
    because for my amateur purposes the technical differences in these cameras
    is not as significant as my aesthetic deficiencies.
    One consideration: as the cost of petroleum rises the cost of everything
    will rise commensurately. The 12,000 mile supply line from Asia is going to
    be impossible to disguise any longer.
    flaming-o, May 23, 2008
    #4
  5. Croosh

    PDM Guest

    <snip>
    > I suspect that you're right - the D70 matrix metering is better than the
    > D80. I don't know if the D300 metering is better than the D70, or if the
    > reduced highlight clipping when using matrix is because of better sensor,
    > or possibly a bit of both. The results are much better - and that's what
    > counts.



    Thought my camera was faulty; half glad it appears to be a general fault.
    Hopefully, Nikon will rectify this problem with a firmware update and
    correct it if we all bombard them with requests.

    PDM.
    PDM, May 23, 2008
    #5
  6. Croosh

    Croosh Guest

    On May 22, 4:28 pm, "flaming-o" <> wrote:
    > The nature of your exposure problems suggests a combination of your
    > technique and misunderstanding of what a digital sensor can capture.
    > The D300 is not going to change that.
    > You would be better served by calibrating yourself as well as polishing a
    > raw workflow to try to optimize your results.
    > Your own special Zone system.
    > No matter what you do there will be a lot of misses: the cost advantage of
    > digital allows for endless bracketing and experimentation compared to film..
    > Do it.
    > Increasing skills in Photoshop will improve your results more than any
    > camera upgrade.
    > I really do not think there is a technical advantage that is worth updating
    > to the D300 apart from use of non-AF lenses, hardly a real issue, and, if
    > you really need it, less noise at higher ISOs. I seriously doubt most people
    > shoot at higher than ISO 400 anyway.
    > I too have a D80 but am sitting out the Nikon upgrade cycle until they
    > increase color bit depth and dynamic range, much as I would love a new toy,
    > because for my amateur purposes the technical differences in these cameras
    > is not as significant as my aesthetic deficiencies.
    > One consideration: as the cost of petroleum rises the cost of everything
    > will rise commensurately. The 12,000 mile supply line from Asia is going to
    > be impossible to disguise any longer.


    Flaming-o,
    I see your point, but:
    1) I am fairly sure that D80 overexposing is not my technique. I've
    been shooting slides for about 12 years (before getting d70), and I am
    painfully aware of the importance of the exposure.
    I think that matrix metering in D80 is just "flaky", becuase in center
    weighted or spot mode I don't have that issue.
    2) A perfect workflow in Photoshop is a short one. My philosophy is
    that teh shots need to be as close to perfect as possible. Again, I've
    been using photoshop professionally since 4.0 (I used work as art
    director/graphics designer in a small magazine, so again, I'm sure
    there is plenty to lear in PS, but I can say that I got the basics
    nailed down).
    3) Digital has 0 cost advantage over film for misses if it misses one-
    of moments... I can afford misses on a landscape shot from a tripod,
    but not when I'm taking a picture of an eagle taking off after having
    set in the ambush for 2.5 hours. I have virtually forgotten what a
    miss is when I got my F4 (made in 1986), so in 2008 having misses is
    "criminal" :)

    With that said, the reason I am looking at d200 is the ability to use
    AI lenses, better focusing and more predictable matrix metering. I am
    pretty sure thta I want to upgrade, jut not sure what I want to get
    and when. d80 was a HUGE improvement over d70 in the sense that it has
    a lot lower noise and ISO100. hopefully Dx00 will do the same for the
    convenience when one with my name on it appears.

    Regards
    Yuriy
    Croosh, May 23, 2008
    #6
  7. Croosh

    PDM Guest

    I see your point, but:
    1) I am fairly sure that D80 overexposing is not my technique. I've
    been shooting slides for about 12 years (before getting d70), and I am
    painfully aware of the importance of the exposure.
    I think that matrix metering in D80 is just "flaky", becuase in center
    weighted or spot mode I don't have that issue.

    Just been on Ken Rockwell's site http://www.kenrockwell.com/ who also
    mentions the problems with the matrix mode overexposing on the D80 and D40
    D40x. Says these cameras are set to record shadow detail at expense of
    highlights. Also says this not a problem with the D200 (and presumably with
    the D300). So there you are; Nikon have screwed up. Perhaps if we all e-mail
    Nikon and complain they may bring out a firmware update.

    PDM
    PDM, May 24, 2008
    #7
  8. Croosh

    Croosh Guest

    On May 23, 4:17 pm, "PDM" <pdcm99minus this > wrote:
    > I see your point, but:
    > 1) I am fairly sure that D80 overexposing is not my technique. I've
    > been shooting slides for about 12 years (before getting d70), and I am
    > painfully aware of the importance of the exposure.
    > I think that matrix metering in D80 is just "flaky", becuase in center
    > weighted or spot mode I don't have that issue.
    >
    > Just been on Ken Rockwell's sitehttp://www.kenrockwell.com/who also
    > mentions the problems with the matrix mode overexposing on the D80 and D40
    > D40x. Says these cameras are set to record shadow detail at expense of
    > highlights. Also says this not a problem with the D200 (and presumably with
    > the D300). So there you are; Nikon have screwed up. Perhaps if we all e-mail
    > Nikon and complain they may bring out a firmware update.
    >
    > PDM


    OK,
    I came across a D200 with my name on it (almost unused, with the grip
    and an exptra battery and 2 year warranty for 1K$). Average d80 sale
    price on eBay is around $600, so for $400 difference I couldn't
    justify not getting a d200 (vs. d300). BTW, the guy at the store (it's
    a small repair shop) said that he's heard a lot of compalints about
    d80 matrix metering, and how it is unpredictable to a degree.
    I obviously haven't had a chance to take it to the field, but I did a
    couple of shots from my balcony and although both cameras were set to
    the same settings, D80 managed to blow the sky out, whereas d200
    didn't. I will play some more over the long weekend and see how they
    compare. So far I like having the critical functions behind dedicated
    buttons/switches. I newer could change too many things in d80 while
    looking through the viewfinder. One negative thing I've nottices is
    that d200 focuses a tiny bit slower. In a couple of cases d80 locked
    on first pass, where d200 went back and forth...
    Now I can reunite with my 105mm f2.8 AI micro nikkor and get the 35mm
    f2 :)

    Thank's for the suggestions.

    Regards
    Yuriy
    Croosh, May 24, 2008
    #8
  9. Croosh

    PDM Guest

    "savvo" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2008-05-23, PDM <pdcm99minus> wrote:
    >> I see your point, but:
    >> 1) I am fairly sure that D80 overexposing is not my technique. I've
    >> been shooting slides for about 12 years (before getting d70), and I am
    >> painfully aware of the importance of the exposure.
    >> I think that matrix metering in D80 is just "flaky", becuase in center
    >> weighted or spot mode I don't have that issue.
    >>
    >> Just been on Ken Rockwell's site http://www.kenrockwell.com/ who also
    >> mentions the problems with the matrix mode overexposing on the D80 and
    >> D40
    >> D40x. Says these cameras are set to record shadow detail at expense of
    >> highlights. Also says this not a problem with the D200 (and presumably
    >> with
    >> the D300). So there you are; Nikon have screwed up. Perhaps if we all
    >> e-mail
    >> Nikon and complain they may bring out a firmware update.

    >
    > <Heresy-warning>
    > Nikon have not 'screwed up'? They researched their target market and
    > released those cameras with the settings that will please the majority
    > of that market -- the people who don't want to be bothered with any
    > technique or technicalities, but expect the camera to deliver the images
    > that they can then print straight away.
    > They also provided those cameras with setting capabilities that a
    > competent user can adjust to provide the results they prefer.
    > No apologies for disagreeing with the great Rockwell. If your conclusion
    > really reflects what that moron says about D80 metering it's just
    > another great reason to never read another word by Mr.Mendacious.
    > </>
    >
    > --
    > savvo orig. invib.
    > man


    So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then? I've only just discovered this site
    and found it quite useful. I don't agree with everything he says, his review
    of the Sigma 10-20 zoom for one. Rockwell did not reach any conclusion he
    just reported the facts. It was me who suggested Nikon screwed up. I still
    think so. No other camera I've got gives such poor exposure. I suspect that
    the majority don't know any better as this camera is designed for people
    upgrading from compacts (or like me who spotted a half price bargain) and
    they will eventually reach the same conclusion as me. Such people still want
    the same correct exposure that their compacts provided. Nikon don't deliver
    here.

    PDM
    PDM, May 25, 2008
    #9
  10. Croosh

    Paul Furman Guest

    PDM wrote:
    >> I am thinking about upgrading my camera (D80).
    >> I have some issues that make the camera not as anjoyable as I wish it
    >> was:
    >> 1) The camera tends to overexpose in weird ways. My D70 did it to, but
    >> it was predictable, so I just compensated by 1/3 stop. D80 is hit and
    >> miss, and I don't always have the luxury of stopping and checking the
    >> histogram.

    > <snip>
    >
    > I'm having the same problem with my D40x. Unpredictable overexposure
    > particularly when using matrix mode. It this a Nikon thing? I don't have
    > this problem with my Canon or Samsung cameras. Did a comparison with my
    > Canon IXUS 950, same shots, conditions, etc. Canon metering spot on; Nikon
    > usually overexposed. Have reverted to using my old Weston Master 5.
    >
    > Any metering problems with other Nikon cameras?


    You might just try center weighted or spot metering. Matrix metering is
    always going to be unpredictable because it's referencing a big library
    of possible scenarios & making a best guess. Hard for humans to predict
    what exactly it is thinking :)

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, May 25, 2008
    #10
  11. Croosh

    Croosh Guest

    On May 23, 10:44 pm, Croosh <> wrote:
    > On May 23, 4:17 pm, "PDM" <pdcm99minus this > wrote:
    >
    > > I see your point, but:
    > > 1) I am fairly sure thatD80overexposing is not my technique. I've
    > > been shooting slides for about 12 years (before getting d70), and I am
    > > painfully aware of the importance of the exposure.
    > > I think that matrix metering inD80is just "flaky", becuase in center
    > > weighted or spot mode I don't have that issue.

    >
    > > Just been on Ken Rockwell's sitehttp://www.kenrockwell.com/whoalso
    > > mentions the problems with the matrix mode overexposing on theD80and D40
    > > D40x. Says these cameras are set to record shadow detail at expense of
    > > highlights. Also says this not a problem with the D200 (and presumably with
    > > the D300). So there you are; Nikon have screwed up. Perhaps if we all e-mail
    > > Nikon and complain they may bring out a firmware update.

    >
    > > PDM

    >
    > OK,
    > I came across a D200 with my name on it (almost unused, with the grip
    > and an exptra battery and 2 year warranty for 1K$). Averaged80sale
    > price on eBay is around $600, so for $400 difference I couldn't
    > justify not getting a d200 (vs. d300). BTW, the guy at the store (it's
    > a small repair shop) said that he's heard a lot of compalints aboutd80matrix metering, and how it is unpredictable to a degree.
    >  I obviously haven't had a chance to take it to the field, but I did a
    > couple of shots from my balcony and although both cameras were set to
    > the same settings,D80managed to blow the sky out, whereas d200
    > didn't. I will play some more over the long weekend and see how they
    > compare. So far I like having the critical functions behind dedicated
    > buttons/switches. I newer could change too many things ind80while
    > looking through the viewfinder. One negative thing I've nottices is
    > that d200 focuses a tiny bit slower. In a couple of casesd80locked
    > on first pass, where d200 went back and forth...
    > Now I can reunite with my 105mm f2.8 AI micro nikkor and get the 35mm
    > f2 :)
    >
    > Thank's for the suggestions.
    >
    > Regards
    > Yuriy


    OK, Little more follow-up info:

    D200 definitely doesn't have the exposure issue. So far, with no
    compenstaion, histograms are where they are supposed to be.
    Now, here is a little twist on the focusing issue: it turns out the
    issue is somehow lens related. I did a little testing with a "focusing
    chart" (AKA a piece of paper with thin parallel lines 1/4" apart) and
    my 50mm 1.8 focuses almost an inch behind the target. I'm still
    buffled how that happens, as I was under impression that the focusing
    system works by comparing contrast, but the issue only manifests
    itself with that lens. 20mm 2.8 and 85mm 1.8 , as well as 80-200 2.8
    focused right on target. (I took the pictures with the apertures wide
    open).

    I'd appreceite any ideas (as to why that happens).

    On the other hand, while the "picture quality" is about the same, and
    even a little more noisy at ISO 400 (which in my case is purely
    theoretical, as I usually stay at 100 except in emergency situations),
    but the camera operation is SO MUCH better. I can change most of the
    parameters without taking my eye off the viewfinder, the shooter feels
    a little faster (might be jut my perception, though), and the extra
    400g of weight make the camera feel a lot more sturdy.
    Croosh, May 25, 2008
    #11
  12. Croosh

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, PDM <
    > wrote:

    > So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then?


    <http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>

    While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you
    aren't a personal friend or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS
    detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction.

    I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
    deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
    things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
    legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is
    that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
    The Onion.

    I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
    hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
    overactive minds as a practical joke.
    nospam, May 25, 2008
    #12
  13. nospam wrote:

    > In article <>, PDM <
    > > wrote:
    >
    >> So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then?

    >
    > <http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>
    >
    > While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you
    > aren't a personal friend or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS
    > detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction.
    >
    > I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
    > deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
    > things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
    > legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is
    > that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
    > The Onion.
    >
    > I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
    > hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
    > overactive minds as a practical joke.


    http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/

    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project --> http://improve-usenet.org
    Found 5/08: a free GG-blocking news *feed* --> http://usenet4all.se
    Blinky the Shark, May 25, 2008
    #13
  14. Croosh

    Croosh Guest

    On May 25, 2:12 pm, Blinky the Shark <> wrote:
    > nospam wrote:
    > > In article <>, PDM <
    > > > wrote:

    >
    > >> So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then?

    >
    > > <http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>

    >
    > > While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you
    > > aren't a personal friend or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS
    > > detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction.

    >
    > > I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
    > > deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
    > > things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
    > > legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is
    > > that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
    > > The Onion.

    >
    > > I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
    > > hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
    > > overactive minds as a practical joke.

    >
    > http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/
    >
    > --
    > Blinky
    > Killing all posts from Google Groups
    > The Usenet Improvement Project -->  http://improve-usenet.org
    > Found 5/08: a free GG-blocking news *feed* -->  http://usenet4all.se- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    LOL. I knew something was watching me last sunday :)
    Croosh, May 25, 2008
    #14
  15. Croosh

    PDM Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:250520081245408191%...
    > In article <>, PDM <
    > > wrote:
    >
    >> So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then?

    >
    > <http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>
    >
    > While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you
    > aren't a personal friend or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS
    > detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction.
    >
    > I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
    > deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
    > things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
    > legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is
    > that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
    > The Onion.
    >
    > I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
    > hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
    > overactive minds as a practical joke.


    Well I still like the site. He still talks some sense to me and I find it
    useful. I've found out by experience that we agree on quite of lot. And I
    enjoy his humorous style.

    PDM
    PDM, May 26, 2008
    #15
  16. Croosh

    PDM Guest

    OK, Little more follow-up info:

    D200 definitely doesn't have the exposure issue. So far, with no
    compenstaion, histograms are where they are supposed to be.
    Now, here is a little twist on the focusing issue: it turns out the
    issue is somehow lens related. I did a little testing with a "focusing
    chart" (AKA a piece of paper with thin parallel lines 1/4" apart) and
    my 50mm 1.8 focuses almost an inch behind the target. I'm still
    buffled how that happens, as I was under impression that the focusing
    system works by comparing contrast, but the issue only manifests
    itself with that lens. 20mm 2.8 and 85mm 1.8 , as well as 80-200 2.8
    focused right on target. (I took the pictures with the apertures wide
    open).
    <SNIP>

    I tried out a 550-200VR a few months ago. Although the focus appeared to
    lock on, when the image was examined it was dreadfully out of focus. We came
    to the conclusion that a lens element was misaligned. You could even tell
    by looking at the screen. So how was the camera able to lock on such a poor
    image? I can't think how.

    PDM
    PDM, May 26, 2008
    #16
  17. Croosh

    Croosh Guest

    On May 25, 12:45 pm, nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, PDM <
    >
    > > wrote:
    > > So what is wrong with Ken Rockwell then?

    >
    > <http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>
    >
    > While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you
    > aren't a personal friend or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS
    > detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction.
    >
    > I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
    > deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
    > things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
    > legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is
    > that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
    > The Onion.
    >
    > I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
    > hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
    > overactive minds as a practical joke.


    Well, as a professional web developer, I can tell you one thing
    Rockwell excells at: SEO (search engine optimization). 90% of my
    searches he came up first.
    On the other hand, if you can get over the fact that he "reviews" the
    products without touching them, his site does have some good info. I
    wouldn't use it as a gospel. Just treat take it for waht it is: the
    guy is a *writer*, not a *photographer*. He makes his living by
    soliciting clicks on his sponsors' products... You'd hope that people
    looking to spend thousand of dollars on a camera don't just go to his
    site, read one page and go for the credit card.

    Just my $0.02 worth.
    Yuriy
    Croosh, May 26, 2008
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. C. Falise
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    273
    sid derra
    Feb 26, 2005
  2. sid derra

    Nikon D80...

    sid derra, Jul 27, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    692
    Denny B
    Jul 29, 2006
  3. PeteD

    Nikion D80 info here.

    PeteD, Aug 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,163
    Digital Photography Now
    Aug 11, 2006
  4. deryck  lant

    Nikon D80 Hands-on Preview

    deryck lant, Aug 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    614
  5. Tully

    Thinking about upgrading from D80 to D300

    Tully, Feb 9, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    348
Loading...

Share This Page