If you've ever read personal ads online or in the newspaper - not that I'm saying that I have, mind you - you probably had the good sense not to fall in love until you, at the very least, actually met the author. If everyone was as beautiful and affable as their advertised selves, we'd have a lot of better looking people in this world.
But in an article on the upcoming Canon 50D, it seems to me that the author makes the mistake of becoming infatuated with a camera before they even date. In "An Upgraded Camera that Only Looks Familiar," writer Marty Katz gushes that "is a hot-rod sibling of the year-old 40D. It’s not just a cosmetic makeover. The 50D looks, feels and weighs the same, but the parts under the hood have been replaced with higher-horsepower components."
First of all, I have problems with that lede. It makes no sense. Katz writes that the 50D is "not just a cosmetic makeover," then explains that it looks, feels and weighs the same. If that's true, then it's not a "cosmetic" makeover at all.
But that's just style. I have a bigger issue when Katz goes on to write that the 50D gives you "faster, cleaner images" and that "the processor also focuses lenses a third faster." (Although, just to be bratty, I probably would have left the word "lenses" out of that sentence. What else would it focus? Its attention?)
My problem is: No where in the article is it stated or even suggested that Katz has ever used a 50D, let alone tested it vigorously enough to makes those assertions. My guess is that those claims came from Canon's press releases. So, shouldn't those sentences have started with "Accoding to Canon..." or some such?
This is the friggin' New York Times, people.
In truth, because the 50D crams a lot more megapixels onto a sensor that's the same size as the 40D's, I think the jury is still out on whether or not the new Digic IV processor can achieve what Katz calls "cleaner" images. If it can, more power to Canon. But I'll believe it when we see it in independent testing.
Take a look at the Times piece and tell me if you agree that it's a little too confident in presenting Canon's marketing claims as if they were proven fact.