5DIV review from The-digital-picture.com

[3kramd5]

...
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.

Ah. So in that case I'd say both analogies hold.

I disagree, but even if it did, the analogy is flawed because it suggests that the writer only uses, owns, or reviews canon products, which is demonstrably false.

 

[FramerMCB]

For dilbert, the step from unknowledgeable criticism of Canon products to unknowledgeable criticism of reviews of Canon products was a short and easy one. Ill-informed baby steps are common in dilbertland.

Finally...a comment that made me laugh! And makes me laugh! And brings a smile to my face! And... And...

 

[FramerMCB]

How about we all start over? I appreciate, rather much, TDP's (Bryan C's.) reviews and site very much. His and the sites credibility are second to none - for Canon cameras, lenses, and 3rd-party lenses for Canon. His reviews are well thought-out, and very, very thorough. He is also very willing and able to reply to comments you leave for him at the bottom of any of his postings where commenting is available (I try to always be positive...it's just a personality flaw with me I suppose, and one I can blame on my mother).

And the link the original OPer shared is taking us to Bryan's REVIEW page for the Canon 5D Mk IV. Now, whilst it may not have originally contained much review material, does not mean that it was not useful for review purposes by any reader with half a brain and some kind of heart-beat.

All I have to say about dilbert is a question: Dilbert, who peed in your cornflakes when you were a little boy? (For those unfamiliar with Cornflakes it is a breakfast cereal made by food giant, Kellogg's.)

 

[FramerMCB]

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.

An excellent comment.
I might add, that I've gotten stellar photographs with, wait for it....a CANON 40D. And a 7D. And still do get great, and even stellar photos with both cameras. Mounted with a 70-200mm 2.8L IS (version I (egads!)) and at times with a 24-85mm 4.0-5.6 EOS USM (yes, a few of these are still out there (from my Elan IIe film days...). And I've rented (from LensRentals) the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 ART (a fantastic lens and which I had very, very few autofocus issues on my 40D).

Many of you may be wondering, dilbert in particular, how in the world I could get good-to-great photos with such atrocious and antiquated equipment...because, just like most of the other posters here, I know how to use it (well, at least most of the time...). And just so you all know I'm not blowing smoke, I'll share a couple shots.

 

[FramerMCB]

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.

An excellent comment.
I might add, that I've gotten stellar photographs with, wait for it....a CANON 40D. And a 7D. And still do get great, and even stellar photos with both cameras. Mounted with a 70-200mm 2.8L IS (version I (egads!)) and at times with a 24-85mm 4.0-5.6 EOS USM (yes, a few of these are still out there (from my Elan IIe film days...). And I've rented (from LensRentals) the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 ART (a fantastic lens and which I had very, very few autofocus issues on my 40D).

Many of you may be wondering, dilbert in particular, how in the world I could get good-to-great photos with such atrocious and antiquated equipment...because, just like most of the other posters here, I know how to use it (well, at least most of the time...). And just so you all know I'm not blowing smoke, I'll share a couple shots.

And one more...

 

[LordofTackle]

An excellent comment.
I might add, that I've gotten stellar photographs with, wait for it....a CANON 40D. And a 7D. And still do get great, and even stellar photos with both cameras. Mounted with a 70-200mm 2.8L IS (version I (egads!)) and at times with a 24-85mm 4.0-5.6 EOS USM (yes, a few of these are still out there (from my Elan IIe film days...). And I've rented (from LensRentals) the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 ART (a fantastic lens and which I had very, very few autofocus issues on my 40D).

Many of you may be wondering, dilbert in particular, how in the world I could get good-to-great photos with such atrocious and antiquated equipment...because, just like most of the other posters here, I know how to use it (well, at least most of the time...). And just so you all know I'm not blowing smoke, I'll share a couple shots.

And one more...

Very nice picture
After reading CR for well over 4 years I am still wondering A LOT why dilbert hasn't just bought one of the Sony cameras he likes so much and goes out taking pictures with it, instead of whining about those unbearable, useless canon cameras!

 

[FramerMCB]

Very nice picture
After reading CR for well over 4 years I am still wondering A LOT why dilbert hasn't just bought one of the Sony cameras he likes so much and goes out taking pictures with it, instead of whining about those unbearable, useless canon cameras!
[/quote]


Thank you! I appreciate the kind words. As to your last statement, I too wonder why he (or she) doesn't.

 

[IglooEater]

Very nice picture
After reading CR for well over 4 years I am still wondering A LOT why dilbert hasn't just bought one of the Sony cameras he likes so much and goes out taking pictures with it, instead of whining about those unbearable, useless canon cameras!

Wait. We don't actually know that Dilbert even has a camera- or that he takes pictures. Ever. Why would he bother to buy a Sony he wouldn't ever use? What a waste. No, in Dilbertland taking pictures is irrelevant, it's only the theoretical specifications of a camera that are important, not the actual use.

 

[d]

You do realise that I have posted my own pictures to CR, don't you?

Or are you just trying to jump on the band wagon and look cool with that little bit of diatribe?

It's true - I found this penguin:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5334.0