05-08-2011, 09:46 PM
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1304890569' post='8149']
IR did side-by-side test. You admitted to have never even touched A55. Add to that your previous long history of biased posts, I will take IR (and photoze sports rating) over your "test."
[/quote]
You are biased, you are acting like a sony fan boy on more than one forum with the same factual nonsense.
You discard whatever opinion which is not positive enough for your camera.
While it is painfully obvious something is fishy about that fake IR "test", because the crops shown only show ONE image in focus, and yet we are to believe it is comparable to a 7D with unknown lens, and the described test distances are NOT the ones they actually used, and that they say they did a comparison, but no comparison is published, because IR types a strange ("we feel") line which fits what you want to believe, the IR test is a good source.
Yet, when DPreview reports that the AF tracking is not upto the task, you dismiss it. Without any arguments.
So, we have an IR "test" which is in so many ways doubtful, but positive, and we have a DPR review which is not that poitive on that particular point, and you dismiss it without having any valid point to dismiss it.
And then, I shoot with my EOS 450D according to the IR "test" data, and I get way better results. And that of course gets dismissed by you too, without any real arguments, just flaming and name calling.
Sad stuff.
Have a nice day, biased boy.
IR did side-by-side test. You admitted to have never even touched A55. Add to that your previous long history of biased posts, I will take IR (and photoze sports rating) over your "test."
[/quote]
You are biased, you are acting like a sony fan boy on more than one forum with the same factual nonsense.
You discard whatever opinion which is not positive enough for your camera.
While it is painfully obvious something is fishy about that fake IR "test", because the crops shown only show ONE image in focus, and yet we are to believe it is comparable to a 7D with unknown lens, and the described test distances are NOT the ones they actually used, and that they say they did a comparison, but no comparison is published, because IR types a strange ("we feel") line which fits what you want to believe, the IR test is a good source.
Yet, when DPreview reports that the AF tracking is not upto the task, you dismiss it. Without any arguments.
So, we have an IR "test" which is in so many ways doubtful, but positive, and we have a DPR review which is not that poitive on that particular point, and you dismiss it without having any valid point to dismiss it.
And then, I shoot with my EOS 450D according to the IR "test" data, and I get way better results. And that of course gets dismissed by you too, without any real arguments, just flaming and name calling.
Sad stuff.
Have a nice day, biased boy.