5DIV review from The-digital-picture.com

[Loswr]

If a review isn't finished then it shouldn't be marketed as a review, irrespective of how good or bad it eventually is.

Yes, DPR's practice of having multiple articles, including a preview, a few articles advertainment pieces, and eventually a review which doesn't aggregate everything, all on the same camera...that makes much more sense, and makes it easy to find their information.

You should publish your own 5DIV preview, you could call it, "Some musings on why any Sony camera is better than the 5DIV plus lots of incorrect facts and misinformation about stuff." :

 

[AlanF]

Dilbert's signature on each post is: "Let me introduce you to your new PHB - Canon"

So, I looked up PHB to find out what it stands for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointy-haired_Boss

"The pointy-haired boss (often abbreviated to just PHB or "The Boss") is Dilbert's boss in the Dilbert comic strip. He is notable for his micromanagement, gross incompetence, obliviousness to his surroundings, and unhelpful buzzword usage; yet somehow retains power in the workplace."

That shows where CR-Dilbert is coming from.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Help. I seem to once again have a Dilbert virus on my computer.

Jack

 

[AlanF]

That might seem strange to you, but the Dilbert comic strip is not known (or maybe just little known) in my part of the world. What struck me was that the description of Dilbert's boss should really have been the description of Dilbert himself. But, I have never seen the comic strip so I am just deducing that.

 

[IglooEater]

At well over 2000 posts, AlanF can hardly be ignorant of Dilbert's basic bias against canon.. I dare say this was either for newcomers, or just a case of stating the obvious.
Dilbert is trying to demonstrate that nothing he says in regards to canon can be trustworthy due to the opinion he had to start with.
Either that or he may be trying to state by his name that he works in an office with no sense of pride or desire for accomplishment, trying to do the least possible for the most money possible. I doubt it.

My personal belief about Dilbert is that he's hired by Canon, to ignite fanboy-ism among Canon users by means of reverse-psychological arguments towards the contrary. The more a person argues against what is opposed to Canon, the more sold on Canon he or she is likely to become, even if the anti-canon sentiment is flagrantly idiotic to begin with. This ensures a fidelity of canon users and future income for Canon. It's pretty clever, really.

 

[privatebydesign]

That might seem strange to you, but the Dilbert comic strip is not known (or maybe just little known) in my part of the world. What struck me was that the description of Dilbert's boss should really have been the description of Dilbert himself. But, I have never seen the comic strip so I am just deducing that.

Alan, you could easily be forgiven for getting it wrong.

Dilbert, the cartoon strip, normally makes a great point, is accurate and does those with more than a little humor and self deprecation, so is just about as diametrically opposed to CR's Dilbert as possible.

I find people who identify with something else they would like to be normally fall far short of that persona, managing to fall short of a cartoon is as much as we could expect from CR's Dilbert.

if you applied that logic to my avatar then I aspire to be a fat lazy cat with an attitude problem, on the whole I think most would agree I hit that low bar often enough

 

[TeT]

I don't know why people like TDP reviews.

This one, of the 5DIV, is an excellent example of a camera being reviewed without it actually being used. There are no sample shots on the page taken by the reviewer, nothing in it reads as though it is based on first hand experience. Which is to say that anyone here could have written that TDP story on the 5D4.

Which makes it less like a review and more like an extended press piece.

Interesting comment coming from someone who constantly praises Sony (and other non-Canon) cameras without actually using them and with no first-hand experience.

And apparently you didn't even have any first hand experience reading the review, which in the very first sentence mentions that the review is not done and will be updated.

Ok, but in this particular case, is he wrong? I would say no.

This is a good overview/preview... but it is in no way a review, and for all the reasons dilbert stated.

The ppl who put it out there (Bryan) do not say it is a reveiw.... So Dilbert is wrong in his criticism in this case.... Later after the review is completed Dilbert will come back and say that the review is a puff piece by a Canon Fanboy... He will still be wrong, but at least that will be an opinion that can be debated...

 

[tpatana]

Waiting for full review...

 

[IglooEater]

I don't know why people like TDP reviews.

Tonnes of reasons. One of the big reasons in my reckoning is that Bryan only reviews canon gear. While this may seems fanboy-ish, it's not- it's down to earth practical for several reasons:
1. Most of us have a lens or two, and have yet to see a compelling reason to switch to another brand. That means to switch will be expensive with hardly any gain. So we're only interested in Canon reviews anyways.
2. We have no reason to worry about a directional bias with TDP's reviews- we know there is a Canon bias. That's not a problem because he's open and honest about it, and because he only reviews Canon anyways. (If he adamantly insisted he was unbiased and reviewed Nikon gear negatively he would deserve the good ol' woodshed.) That means he has nothing to sell, and nothing to gain by writing the review one way or another. He'll compare different canon products to each other. The worst bias he could have is liking one body over another, so even if Canon is paying him for his review, it's just a question of selling one canon product vs a different canon product.
3. His reviews are realistic and very thorough. He actually uses the camera for his work, and reviews it afterwords, not just a few snaps in the Seattle city park for a couple of hours. (This by the way is why it takes a while for him to complete a review. Only someone ignorant of TDP could think the review is final the moment it's published-Bryan has always had incremental reviews.)
4. Bryan is always fairly positive in his reviews. That's not just blind love for new products- remember, canon only. He is able to point out flaws, and does so. Also, since he's comparing canons to canons, of course the reviews will be positive. The 70D is actually better than the 60D in almost every way. So goes for the 7D mark II and the 7D, the 1DX mark II and the 1DX, etc etc. We (I) would rather read a review that has an overarching positive attitude to it while pointing out negative aspects when necessary, than a review that harps on minor quibbles and Barely mentions a cameras few saving graces.

Example, If I'm looking at an 80D, the D7100 has a (slightly) better sensor, the K3 II has the (slight) advantage of IBIS, the Sony A6300 has (slightly) faster frame rate, the Fuji goodnessknowswhatmodel is cheaper, and on and on. These things are what most reviewers seem to love talking about. The quandary is that I'm only interested in the Canon 80D vs the 7D mark II. Buying Any other of those cameras is not likely for me, and buying all of them (which I'd have to do to get all the best) is never happening. I'm interested in a review for practical reasons, not merely to engage in some esoteric academic exercise analysing best technology of all cameras in the world.

Yes, I know, he reviews Sigma and Tamron and Tokina, etc stuff. We're talking about a camer body on this thread. Also in regards to 3rd party lenses, he does tend to be a little more harsh. We're aware of that. I already mentioned his Canon bias. On the other hand, it's very difficult to find anything wrong at all with Canon's latest releases, while 3Rd party lenses actually do tend to be a little less pristine.

 

[expatinasia]

My personal belief about Dilbert is that he's hired by Canon, to ignite fanboy-ism among Canon users by means of reverse-psychological arguments towards the contrary. The more a person argues against what is opposed to Canon, the more sold on Canon he or she is likely to become, even if the anti-canon sentiment is flagrantly idiotic to begin with. This ensures a fidelity of canon users and future income for Canon. It's pretty clever, really.

Not Canon, I doubt that very much. But forums are known to use such techniques to help make them look more busy and create discussion of any kind, as it all increases page views and links which makes more page views etc.

Sometimes numerous members can be the same person, even having discussions and arguments with themselves under different member names. Same person, though to the outside world they seem to be different people.

It's much more common than most realise.

 

[Eldar]

...
Tonnes of reasons. One of the big reasons in my reckoning is that Bryan only reviews canon gear. While this may seems fanboy-ish, it's not- it's down to earth practical for several reasons:
1. Most of us have a lens or two, and have yet to see a compelling reason to switch to another brand. That means to switch will be expensive with hardly any gain. So we're only interested in Canon reviews anyways.
...

I suppose for some people this makes sense. It's like only reading reviews of Fords by someone that only ever drives, owns or reviews a Ford motor car. I suppose there's a market for that. To turn that around, for those that watched "Top Gear", how uninteresting would it be if they only reviewed BMW and not Mercedes or only Ferrari and not Lamborghini?

I find TDP good for comparing lens/body combinations but not much else because there's no perspective or acknowledgement of anything happening outside the Canon sphere.

TDP is the most consistent and thorough reviewer of Canon equipment and since I know the Canon equipment he refers to, those comparisons are very important and valuable to me and others. I do not have a clue about the details of a Nikon or Sony (I was so turned off by the EVF and the ergonomics that I cancelled my order for a A7RII), so those comparisons has limited value, unless you are spending your days on the internet, dreaming of all this equipment, instead of actually using them for what they were meant for.

FYI, we do read other reviews. I even read reviews of Nikon, Sony, Hasselblad and PhaseOne gear. I may even pop into a Tony Northrup video, read DPR´s (unbiased) reviews and even have fun reading Ken Rockwell. But I would never trust them for advise on what to buy or not to buy.

Your claims on everything you need and how Canon has let you down has never been substantiated with a single image, good or bad. So Dilbert, If you want anyone to take you seriously, stop being an internet freak, get serious and show us!

 

[expatinasia]

Not Canon, I doubt that very much. But forums are known to use such techniques to help make them look more busy and create discussion of any kind, as it all increases page views and links which makes more page views etc.

Sometimes numerous members can be the same person, even having discussions and arguments with themselves under different member names. Same person, though to the outside world they seem to be different people.

It's much more common than most realise.

I believe that CR cleaned that up some time ago.

Anything is possible, but frankly I do not care.

I am going to stop posting in this thread. Frankly I do not know why you even bother going on as much as you do, unless there is some truth in what I said and you are just trying to improve page views, create conversation and as such increase membership etc. It is a common tactic used by forums much busier even than this one.

Over and out.

 

[d]

At well over 2000 posts, AlanF can hardly be ignorant of Dilbert's basic bias against canon.. I dare say this was either for newcomers, or just a case of stating the obvious.

I'm not biased against Canon - if I were, I wouldn't own any Canon equipment.

What I'm biased against (if you were to use those words) are being served rubbish in terms of new cameras from the world's leading camera maker.

The 5DIV is what the 5DIII should have been.

Could you name for me a single camera manufactured in the past five years with a 1" or larger sensor, that could be regarded as "rubbish", as understood in the general sense of it's meaning? I mean a camera that's so unfit for purpose, so useless, so unable to capture a usable image, that it's simply....rubbish?

The 5DIII was (and still is) a runaway success. I managed a commercial studio for a time that relied on 8 or 9 of them, and we never had any issues with them apart from the odd damaged USB socket when a photographer tripped over the tether lead (later rectified with Jerk Stopper camera supports). I'd guess every second commercial shooter I know personally owns a 5DIII (sometimes multiple bodies) - the 5DIII is *exactly* what the 5DIII was supposed to be - rubbish, it ain't.

d.

 

[IglooEater]

...
Tonnes of reasons. One of the big reasons in my reckoning is that Bryan only reviews canon gear. While this may seems fanboy-ish, it's not- it's down to earth practical for several reasons:
1. Most of us have a lens or two, and have yet to see a compelling reason to switch to another brand. That means to switch will be expensive with hardly any gain. So we're only interested in Canon reviews anyways.
...

I suppose for some people this makes sense. It's like only reading reviews of Fords by someone that only ever drives, owns or reviews a Ford motor car. I suppose there's a market for that.

To turn that around, for those that watched "Top Gear", how uninteresting would it be if they only reviewed BMW and not Mercedes or only Ferrari and not Lamborghini?

Neither of you analogies are valid.
It's not as if I have to buy all new trailers in order to switch from Ford to Ram, for example. If I had to replace 3 trucks and 6 trailers in order to replace just one for a different brand, then I'd just stick with whatever brand I started with. Unless, that is there was a spectacularly good reason to do so. In a world where that was the case with trucks, I wouldn't be interested in another brand reviews either.
In regards to Top Gear, 99.9% of us are never going to buy a Ferrari, Lamborghini or any equivalent car. That's an entertainment piece for people who are not in the market for either. The entire show is entirely for entertainment value, not for someone actually considering buying one. (Edit: just realized those last two sentences apply to certain camera review sites too.) I doubt anyone went to TopGear to decide what car to buy. Plus, my first point holds here too.

 

[IglooEater]

My personal belief about Dilbert is that he's hired by Canon, to ignite fanboy-ism among Canon users by means of reverse-psychological arguments towards the contrary. The more a person argues against what is opposed to Canon, the more sold on Canon he or she is likely to become, even if the anti-canon sentiment is flagrantly idiotic to begin with. This ensures a fidelity of canon users and future income for Canon. It's pretty clever, really.

Not Canon, I doubt that very much. But forums are known to use such techniques to help make them look more busy and create discussion of any kind, as it all increases page views and links which makes more page views etc.

Sometimes numerous members can be the same person, even having discussions and arguments with themselves under different member names. Same person, though to the outside world they seem to be different people.

It's much more common than most realise.

So Dilbert, Ahsanford, Jrista, AvTvM, Neuro, are only some of Craig's avatar's? ;D

 

[Loswr]

I'm not biased against Canon...

You're biased against correct facts, logic, and admitting your constant mistakes.

 

[3kramd5]

....
When you consider that by Bryan's own admission the review is not yet finished, and despite that already contains more useful info than most other "reviews" on the net then you will perhaps begin to understand just how in-depth and useful his reviews are.
...

If a review isn't finished then it shouldn't be marketed as a review, irrespective of how good or bad it eventually is.

"a formal assessment or examination of something with the possibility or intention of instituting change if necessary."

If one requires the second half, then no camera blog posts reviews as none have the possibility of instituting change. If one does not require the second half, TDP's post is a review.

What a strange fight to pick. It's like Donald Trump and that judge.

...
Tonnes of reasons. One of the big reasons in my reckoning is that Bryan only reviews canon gear. While this may seems fanboy-ish, it's not- it's down to earth practical for several reasons:
1. Most of us have a lens or two, and have yet to see a compelling reason to switch to another brand. That means to switch will be expensive with hardly any gain. So we're only interested in Canon reviews anyways.
...

I suppose for some people this makes sense. It's like only reading reviews of Fords by someone that only ever drives, owns or reviews a Ford motor car.

er, not really. If you want to make an analogy to car mags, it should be "someone who owns things which work almost exclusively with ford motor vehicles only reading reviews of Fords."

 

[Loswr]

Yes, it is an entertainment piece BUT it is also considered to deliver factual information.

Unlike you, who manages to be occasionally mildly entertaining but rarely factual.

Ah, you're referring to the accessory part. That's complementary to but not in disagreement with what I said. The point being that the reviewer never owns, drives or reviews a (say) GM car.

So, Bryan has taken hundreds of shots with a broad range of Nikon lenses for the image quality comparisons, but he's never used a brand other than Canon. Well, that's typical of what passes for 'factual' in dilbertland. :

 

[IglooEater]

...
In regards to Top Gear, 99.9% of us are never going to buy a Ferrari, Lamborghini or any equivalent car. That's an entertainment piece for people who are not in the market for either. The entire show is entirely for entertainment value, not for someone actually considering buying one.
...

Have a look at their awards:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1628033/awards

search for the word "factual". Yes, it is an entertainment piece BUT it is also considered to deliver factual information.

I never said Top Gear doesn't contain facts. Duh. I said no one refers to it as a review helpful to car selection.

 

[3kramd5]

...
Tonnes of reasons. One of the big reasons in my reckoning is that Bryan only reviews canon gear. While this may seems fanboy-ish, it's not- it's down to earth practical for several reasons:
1. Most of us have a lens or two, and have yet to see a compelling reason to switch to another brand. That means to switch will be expensive with hardly any gain. So we're only interested in Canon reviews anyways.
...

I suppose for some people this makes sense. It's like only reading reviews of Fords by someone that only ever drives, owns or reviews a Ford motor car.

er, not really. If you want to make an analogy to car mags, it should be "someone who owns things which work almost exclusively with ford motor vehicles only reading reviews of Fords."

Ah, you're referring to the accessory part. That's complementary to but not in disagreement with what I said. The point being that the reviewer never owns, drives or reviews a (say) GM car.

No, I'm referring to the post you quoted which states "we're only interested in Canon reviews." That speaks to the reader, your analogy speaks to the writer.