# Disappointing SNUB



## YuengLinger (Nov 9, 2015)

Last Saturday's Wall Street Journal reviewed 3 entry level full frame bodies. Canon was not among them. Why did the 6D not 
get at least a mention? Here is the link, though some may not be able to view the whole article.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/full-frame-digital-cameras-not-just-for-pros-anymore-1446743367


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 9, 2015)

How can someone consider an article that specifically mentions three cameras to be a snub against the multitude of other cameras not addressed in the article? 

Does every camera article need to mention every single camera model?

Or does every camera article need to mention Canon?

There are many things to be concerned about in the photography world. This specific article ain't one of them, in my opinion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2015)

"The main drawback of full frame cameras has long been cost...the prices of these once top-end options have been dropping." Thus, you should add the Leica SL – >$10K with a lens – to your shortlist. 

Pretty poor reportage, even for a WSJ tech fluff piece.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 9, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> How can someone consider an article that specifically mentions three cameras to be a snub against the multitude of other cameras not addressed in the article?
> 
> Does every camera article need to mention every single camera model?
> 
> ...



It suggests that a highly regarded US daily doesn't consider Canon to be among the top Three in the horse race...


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> "The main drawback of full frame cameras has long been cost...the prices of these once top-end options have been dropping." Thus, you should add the Leica SL – >$10K with a lens – to your shortlist.
> 
> Pretty poor reportage, even for a WSJ tech fluff piece.



Agreed, non sequiter, but are we shooting the messenger?

As for old lenses that still work on a current mount, I think Canon is hard to beat, even for Nikon.

Despite the article's flaws, we get to see the mainstream doesn't always agree with us CR fan boys.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 9, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Despite the article's flaws, we get to see the mainstream doesn't always agree with us CR fan boys.



Given that Canon has been for over a decade and still remains the market leader, I'd say rather that one WSJ writer/editor doesn't agree with the mainstream.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 9, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > How can someone consider an article that specifically mentions three cameras to be a snub against the multitude of other cameras not addressed in the article?
> ...



Or

It suggests that Canon has such a dominant role in the photographic world that the writer felt it necessary to write about other manufacturers.

Or

It is just a fluff article not really worth worrying about.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 9, 2015)

Neuro is right, it is just a poorly written and researched fluff article. Nothing more. 

You see this all the time when publications step outside their areas of expertise and attempt to show their readers some "new" trend. 

One of my journalism school instructors had a saying: "News is whatever the editor is interested in." We'll never know why they picked the three brands they did, but you can be certain it was entirely arbitrary and personal and not based on any objective research.


----------



## Lurker (Nov 9, 2015)

> Wall Street Journal reviewed 3 entry level full frame bodies



I scanned the article and I didn't get the impression this was about entry level bodies. I wouldn't consider Leica entry level. Maybe SL is entry level for Leica, I don't know or much care as I'll never own one.



> It suggests that a highly regarded US daily doesn't consider Canon to be among the top Three in the horse race...



Maybe to some. I didn't see that it said these were the top 3, just 3 to consider.

Remember this is the Wall Street Journal. Who reads the wall street Journal? For someone like Gates or Trump Leica may be the choice. For students with hopes of joining the ranks of Trump or Gates maybe the choice is the Nikon or Sony.

This article is about image, moving up from cell phone or pocket camera to FF DSLR. This is all about "selling" DSLR as a move up from the lesser technologies. The message is that discerning WSJ readers use a DSLR because the images are better. High school kids use cell phones, people that have made it and care about quality use a DSLR.


----------



## distant.star (Nov 9, 2015)

.
I haven't seen WSJ in many years now. But, I suspect Canon is not a regular advertiser.

One way editorial and advertising work together is to write a piece like this. It may intend to provoke Canon (or some other camera company) to call and talk about why they were not included in the piece. At that point, a channel has been opened and the ad side can walk right in.

Just a thought.


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 9, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> "The main drawback of full frame cameras has long been cost...the prices of these once top-end options have been dropping." Thus, you should add the Leica SL – >$10K with a lens – to your shortlist.
> 
> Pretty poor reportage, even for a WSJ tech fluff piece.



Completely agree. The whole premise of the article was suppose to be how Full Frame is now attainable to every day amateurs and the first camera they highlight is the Leica? :


----------



## Northstar (Nov 9, 2015)

It's definitely a snub...but who really cares.


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 9, 2015)

I think the author is right on.

The Leica is a perfect camera for someone to start with. After they have tossed away their $12K, they can move up to the Hasselblad or Mamiya so see what Medium Format is all about, and then they can toss that and get an iPhone and finally be a PROFESSIONAL photographer. 

More importantly... Deeply disappoint they did not ask the Karadashian's what they use to take their pictures, because after all, that is all that matters


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 10, 2015)

A lot of these replies produced welcomed smiles!

The one that makes the most sense in terms of newspaper machinations was from distant.star:

"One way editorial and advertising work together is to write a piece like this. It may intend to provoke Canon (or some other camera company) to call and talk about why they were not included in the piece. At that point, a channel has been opened and the ad side can walk right in."

I believe this.


----------



## raptor3x (Nov 10, 2015)

The section on the D750 is enough to tell the reader that the author has no clue what he's talking about outside of looking at some spec sheets.

[quote author=WSJ]
And its [D750] functional ISO ceiling of 12800, while still extremely impressive, pales in comparison to the Sony.
[/quote]


----------



## sanj (Nov 10, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> How can someone consider an article that specifically mentions three cameras to be a snub against the multitude of other cameras not addressed in the article?
> 
> Does every camera article need to mention every single camera model?
> 
> ...



I agree. The only reason this is being considered wrong is because Canon was not mentioned. It is a matter of fact, normal article we see printed every now and then.


----------



## plam_1980 (Nov 10, 2015)

sanj said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > How can someone consider an article that specifically mentions three cameras to be a snub against the multitude of other cameras not addressed in the article?
> ...



I agree as well. The article is about full-frame cameras and all of the reviewed ones are much newer than Canon's offerings in the segment. It would be strange for them in the end of 2015 to review cameras from 2012 or early 2013... To me this is plain obvious


----------



## photo212 (Nov 23, 2015)

Is the 6D better optics than the Leica?
Is the 6D more compact than the Sony?
Is the 6D a lower price than the Nikon?

Some may argue the Canon 6D optics, size, and price makes for the best overall deal, but that was not the article's intent. It had three categories and three winners based on the opinion of that author.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 23, 2015)

photo212 said:


> Is the 6D better optics than the Leica?
> Is the 6D more compact than the Sony?
> Is the 6D a lower price than the Nikon?
> 
> Some may argue the Canon 6D optics, size, and price makes for the best overall deal, but that was not the article's intent. It had three categories and three winners based on the opinion of that author.



Well said!


----------



## NancyP (Nov 26, 2015)

The Leica is on no-ones's list of Great First Cameras, but is top of the class for Who cares about actually using it, I just want to show how rich I am. 

Who on earth would expect the WSJ to provide expert camera, or expert any-consumer-goods, reviews? That's not their thing. I suspect that the WSJ wants advertisements from Sony, and uses Leica and Nikon as examples of prestige brands.


----------



## wtlloyd (Nov 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Despite the article's flaws, we get to see the mainstream doesn't always agree with us CR fan boys.
> ...



It's just another Murdoch-owned rag. How long before it sports Page 3 girls? Enjoy your Corporate right wing news, folks!


----------

