Originally posted by Macario The pixelshift conclusion is wrong. The dynamic pixel shift is an extra, you can still use the tradidional pixel shift
Correct.
Originally posted by beholder3 All what their are doing now is peanuts and not addressing their credibility / integrity / professionalism issue at all.
They swapped out a key data file silently days after it was presented as evidence for their conclusions and then one of the responsible persons denied it even happened against all evidence.
The kid has been caught in the act on security cam with the hand in the pot of marmelade and when questioned said "I did't touch the marmelade."
The misbehaviour is not solved by the kid now agreeing to wash his hands. Nor does this restore integrity or credibility at all.
Correct. And a very relevant analogy.
Originally posted by Kunzite I believe there are some good people at DPR. Simon Joinson apologized, two years ago, for the WaterFAILS article.
But others are ruining their efforts.
If there are good people there, they should speak up, set things right, or leave.
Let's be honest. DPreview is probably the best-known source of photography information on the web. They have a unique position. And they take advantage of that position to push the brands they like (or get paid to like), criticize unfairly brands they don't like, ignore what could cast a shadow on the brands they like (remember the K-3 review fiasco?).
The least we could expect is some sort of objectivity, rigorous testing, and giving credit where credit is due. As it is, they sound like Apple fanboys claiming "you totally invented that!"
As a reviewer (and optical designer regularly designing and performing equipment tests) I feel insulted that they get so much credit for doing such a crappy job.