I have been around here on the DPreview forums for a very long time. You can call Phil Askey a lot of things, but dumb is definitely NOT one of them. For those that are old enough to have taken the ride along with him when he was purchasing his first new BMW knows how thorough and market aware he is.

This review is done in spectacular style as far as lab tests and in-depth knowledge goes. Definitely Phil Askey style all the way. The trouble is when you have read reviews and been along for the ride back from the first Canon and Nikon DSLR monsters to the Canon D30 and the Nikon D100 and earlier cameras you get to "know" a persons style and even character too.

This review, while solid, seems to purposely miss the mark (3 to be exact) and this is NOT Phil Askey's way. So while the review is great, there is so much spin in here that Phil seems to think that his long time base is obviously blind and we all just arrived here yesterday.

Unfortunately, I happen to be in agreement with what I "think" Phil Askey is thinking, so the review has pretty much done it's job in terms of what seems like the underlying agenda, but it still merits this thumbs down because I believe the first allegiance is to his own base and not to the power the DPR site wields. The good part for Phil is all the arguments against what I am saying is in place and within easy reach because Canon has provided all that for him on a silver platter.

So to Canon - yuck yuck yuck in the way they have handled their customers and also in the way they handled DPR, who single handily plowed the way for all the praised and accolades they have received over the years.

And to Phil Askey - the spin is very noticeable, but what has it really accomplished??

The D3 and the 1D MK3 are the cameras that go head to head. All of 10 people may own the 1Ds MK3, while the D3 and the 1D MK3 make up for the majority of owners of the pro line of cameras. Yet there is only enough mention of the 1D MK3 so as to at least have mentioned it in the review. Yet the majority of the review is pitted against a camera most folks will never actually ever see. This is not the type of mistake that a Phil Askey review would make. The 1Ds MK3 would be the camera that would have been sprinkled into the review here and there and not the other way around. I agree with why he did it, but it came down to choosing between the camera company and the base of readers here.

Peter

--
'Life is good - eternal life is better'