Announcing The Canon EOS-1D X Mark II

[eninja]

And one more thing.

If d5 has 153 af points 99 are cross type = 65% are cross type.

canon has 61 af points, 41 are cross type = 67% are cross type.

If my logic is right, canon has more cross type. I scratch my head when I read people say D5 got more cross type. d5 got more af point. but not user selectable, then how can one tell.

Hope someone can do the math, area covered by af point divide by number of selectable point.
Then we can compare number of af with the same criteria.

 

[eninja]

In fact, I was pointing out that DPR is biased, nothing more...

...Not a problem...unless I'm the editor of Zagats and I allow my bias to influence my reviews and ratings...

...Nikon's auto AF fine tune is a new feature that 'will help address a major shortcoming of dSLRs' (it's a great feature, but that shortcoming has been manually addressable by both Nikon and Canon for years...

...DPR's viewpoint can be summarized as: 'Nikon cameras deliver awesome performance and stellar images, and Canon cameras take decent pictures.'

The problem is you are equating reviews with objective reporting. Reviews are never objective. Nor should they be. Every reviewer brings their own biases to the table. That's a given.

You mention restaurant reviews. But, what good would a restaurant review be if the reviewer did not interject their own opinion into the review? Without that opinion, it's simply reporting and as important as objective (notwithstanding the very real debate over whether or not any reporter can be truly objective) reporting might be, that's not what reviews are about.

You seem to equate a positive comment about a Nikon feature as a slight against Canon. But the one is not exclusive of the other. Nikon can have a new, innovative feature on its cameras, and that doesn't take anything away from Canon. Let's keep the audience in mind as well. At the 1D and D5 level, there is very little switching between brands. Commending Nikon for a feature new to its cameras need not imply that the feature or a similar one is not available on other brands.

This is far different than a company that purports to offer "scientific" tests of products and uses a deeply flawed and oversimplified system that results in every test beginning with one product already disadvantaged.

You are free to disagree with any reviewer and even to feel that a particular reviewer is biased. In fact, they are biased – everyone is. That reviewers are biased is as newsworthy as reporting with great excitement that grass is green. Reviewers are biased? No Sh*t Sherlock.

i understand when you said reviewers bring their own biase on the table. But it is different when they intentionally bias one product over the other. And then they try to be blind on some features. Pretending they dont know about it. Most readers dont know about anti flicker and dpaf anyway.

disclaimer: i assume reviewer did not praise anti flicker n dpaf. 4k at 60fps, for 30min. wow.
why nikon only 3 min?

 

[Jack Douglas]

"Commending Nikon for a feature new to its cameras need not imply that the feature or a similar one is not available on other brands."

Couldn't agree more.

However, what is happening in some reviews is not unlike face to face speech where someone may be rolling their eyes as they speak the truth, thus implying they are not really speaking the truth. Some folk are very capable of discerning "a positive statement framed with subtle negativity" and it bugs them because frankly it is misleading. Do you want to encourage more of that? Surely, the politicians give us enough of it.

On the other hand I'm not going to get all twisted because of biased reviewers so in that sense I agree with you. Still, if I see some poor fool being duped of his money I feel obligated to at least make a modest effort to help him. That's just proper behaviour.

Jack

 

[rishi_sanyal]

And one more thing.

If d5 has 153 af points 99 are cross type = 65% are cross type.

canon has 61 af points, 41 are cross type = 67% are cross type.

If my logic is right, canon has more cross type. I scratch my head when I read people say D5 got more cross type. d5 got more af point. but not user selectable, then how can one tell.

Hope someone can do the math, area covered by af point divide by number of selectable point.
Then we can compare number of af with the same criteria.

By that logic, a Canon Rebel T5i with 9/9 cross-type AF points has 100% cross-type - so the math suggests it's better than a 1D X II, right?

As our reports have already explained, user-selectable or not matters very little when you have a system as accurate as Nikon's 3D tracking. But many Canon users can't even conceive of how that's possible, because many of them have never seen it. I can't really blame them either, for not knowing or understanding what they haven't seen, but what is sad is that when we're trying to inform about these very things that readers may not be aware of, the information content is ignored and we're just blamed as being biased and doing our math wrong.

That helps nobody but people who wish to simply retain a certain level of blindness, for whatever reason. The problem comes when that person then wishes to claim an entire site trying to inform to the best of their ability is the one who's biased.

And as some others have pointed out here, it's correct that everyone is biased in some way or another. Personally, I'm biased towards technologies and ergonomics that help photo making (particularly, increasing hit rates) across a wide variety of use-cases, particularly fast-paced (since slow-paced shooting is more forgiving to technological and ergonomic shortcomings).

But we in general at DPR are very careful to consider different opinions, and not just regurgitate manufacturer marketing. For example, note that in our latest coverage of the Sony a6300, we didn't go around claiming 'Sony is finally going Pro' as some others have.

Because we won't know that until we've tested it to see if it does have pro potential. Yet we're the site that's biased towards Sony, right? Or was it Nikon? I can't keep these things straight anymore.

P.S. To answer Rithotlz, I don't think the D5 is revolutionary. I don't believe I ever wrote or suggested that.

 

[unfocused]

...Some folk are very capable of discerning "a positive statement framed with subtle negativity" and it bugs them because frankly it is misleading. Do you want to encourage more of that?

...On the other hand I'm not going to get all twisted because of biased reviewers so in that sense I agree with you. Still, if I see some poor fool being duped of his money I feel obligated to at least make a modest effort to help him. That's just proper behaviour.

Jack

I generally agree with what you are saying. I think we both are trying to bring some rational perspective back into the discussion.

Since this seems to be a conversation specifically aimed at DPReview (at least that's what it appears to be as near as I can tell), I was a little surprised.

I've read dozens of reviews from DPR over the years and never felt they were biased (biased being far different from expressing an opinion). About the most negative thing about Canon I recall was when the 6D came out and they said that it seemed like Canon was trying to put the minimum specs into their budget full frame camera.

Honestly, that was a very common criticism, not unique to DPR, but expressed similarly by many other reviewers. Now, in my opinion, what Canon does is tend to under-promise and over-deliver. Thus, in initial reviews, Canon products often don't fare as well as others, because the reviewers don't have the benefit or the experience of months of use.

I suspect the same will be true of the 1DX II. At first glance, it looks to be a modest upgrade, but I suspect that once it gets into users hands, that opinion will change.

Anyway...I think I had a point here...Oh yes... it was this...

I don't believe that people who seek out the kinds of detailed reviews that DPR does are folks that are uninformed or easily swayed. To wade through one of their almost interminably detailed reviews requires a commitment that few casual buyers have.

As a reader, my personal preference is to learn the downsides (or at least perceived downsides) to any product. That is much more beneficial to me than simply reading how great a product is. (And frankly, DPR has more than it's share of boosterism in all its reviews – after all, if people don't buy new cameras they don't have a business, so it's in their best interest to make the most of, and to write excitedly about, any new product.)

I stand by my original view that people are making way too much of minor slights and reading far more into things than is really there. In addition, I believe that the typical reader of a review on this particular site is sophisticated enough to check out other opinions and to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The problem is you are equating reviews with objective reporting. Reviews are never objective. Nor should they be. Every reviewer brings their own biases to the table. That's a given.

You are free to disagree with any reviewer and even to feel that a particular reviewer is biased. In fact, they are biased – everyone is. That reviewers are biased is as newsworthy as reporting with great excitement that grass is green. Reviewers are biased? No Sh*t Sherlock.

The problem is that instead of responding to accusations of bias with a statement like yours, Rishi/DPR are here trying to refute those accusations. If they came out and stated, "We're biased in favor of Nikon, it's our website and our choice," that would be one thing. But by defending themselves as unbiased (and here I'm assuming Rishi is speaking for DPR), they are being deceptive. Of course, there's a logical revenue-based rationale for DPR to promote themselves as unbiased.

FWIW, a strategy that make organizations/publishers adopt to avoid the appearance of bias is to publish reviews from multiple people with different (often opposing) biases. I've not seen any evidence of that from DPR.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

It's fine if you'd rather us not do our job, but that's not going to stop us from doing it, nor does it make what we say 'passive aggressive biased garbage'.

Sure, you're unbiased. :

Motivation for the bias? No idea, and none required.

Fascinating. So when you do science, you might have any number of models that fit the data. You don't prioritize models based on underlying how reasonable the underlying causes and assumptions that model requires are? To make sure you're not overfitting the data, or simply fitting it with a wrong model?

This is the same logic people use to claim X politician is of Y religion because they saw a picture of him in what looks like garments people of Y religion wear (not that there would be anything wrong with it either way). Just a couple of random pieces of so-called 'evidence' that fit your 'hypothesis' that doesn't need to have any sort of basis in reality, as you're saying. No explanation needed.

How convenient. Also doesn't explain why we flipped biases, or flip biases daily based on which audience member is doing the accusing.

The bottom line is that DPR's 'reviews' are replete with examples of that bias. Nikon's auto AF fine tune is a new feature that 'will help address a major shortcoming of dSLRs' (it's a great feature, but that shortcoming has been manually addressable by both Nikon and Canon for years, and never mind that Canon's implementation allows two values for zooms which are far more common than primes, oh, and I missed that being mentioned when the 1D X launched).

Perhaps you haven't been a professional photographer at a wedding where that day your pre-adjusted microadjustment value for your 85/1.2 is just way off. Every shot you take and check is blurry. Unable to at that moment quickly optimize AFMA for that day and for that subject distance, you start asking your subjects to stand still so you AF in Live View...

Yes, automated AFMA is huge; not only does it make things easy and feasible at live events without requiring you to set up a LensAlign on a tripod, etc., it takes human error out of the equation. It also addresses one of the biggest shortcomings of DSLR relative to mirrorless.

Perhaps you're just further removed than we are from actual shooting scenarios where this has the potential to be really significant?

and never mind that Canon's implementation allows two values for zooms which are far more common than primes, oh, and I missed that being mentioned when the 1D X launched).

Wow, we actually called that out in almost every launch piece of content related to the Nikon cameras. Isn't that exactly what you and others here wanted - for us to call out weaknesses relative to Canon in the Nikon pieces? Yet that's what we did and you just ignore it? Or missed it?

That's why it's important to make sure have all your pieces of evidence lined up and considered all other pieces of evidence, and fit to a model that actually makes sense.

Meanwhile, Canon's anti-flicker technology 'syncs up with fluctuations that occur in some artificial lighting'. Nothing interesting, move along.

Which is exactly the treatment we gave it in the Nikon pieces. You do realize Nikon has this now too, right? What's your point? We didn't hype it up in one or the other, we just stated it in an unbiased manner.

Impossible to list all the examples, and really there is no point.

Not asking for all the examples - I'm asking for one valid example, which you haven't been able to provide.

DPR's viewpoint can be summarized as: 'Nikon cameras deliver awesome performance and stellar images, and Canon cameras take decent pictures.'

Sure, and the world is flat too. Because I don't see any curvature on the horizon. No further evidence or valid model required.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

The problem is you are equating reviews with objective reporting. Reviews are never objective. Nor should they be. Every reviewer brings their own biases to the table. That's a given.

You are free to disagree with any reviewer and even to feel that a particular reviewer is biased. In fact, they are biased – everyone is. That reviewers are biased is as newsworthy as reporting with great excitement that grass is green. Reviewers are biased? No Sh*t Sherlock.

The problem is that instead of responding to accusations of bias with a statement like yours, Rishi/DPR are here trying to refute those accusations. If they came out and stated, "We're biased in favor of Nikon, it's our website and our choice," that would be one thing. But by defending themselves as unbiased (and here I'm assuming Rishi is speaking for DPR), they are being deceptive. Of course, there's a logical revenue-based rationale for DPR to promote themselves as unbiased.

Oh I see. So if we get accused of something, and don't admit to, yes, being exactly what you accused us of, then we're misleading everyone.

You've presented impeccable logic in all you arguments here. This should be a case study in the ramifications of bias.

Oh, and btw, you're wrong: I responded with exactly what I am biased towards. It just wasn't Nikon. In case you missed it, it was (speaking for myself, not DPR): "And as some others have pointed out here, it's correct that everyone is biased in some way or another. Personally, I'm biased towards technologies and ergonomics that help photo making (particularly, increasing hit rates) across a wide variety of use-cases, particularly fast-paced (since slow-paced shooting is more forgiving to technological and ergonomic shortcomings)."

Jack Douglas and unfocused and others - thanks for trying to be a voice of reason on this site.

 

[Jack Douglas]

unfocused, you and I are not really at odds on this. Most reviews are acceptable and the odd one is poor. That's life, we must simply use discernment.

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

rishi_sanyal, it may not "feel" good but this little tempest in a tea pot probably will make you a slightly better reviewer when it's all said and done. Emotions cloud logic for all of us!

The main thing is that you can look in the mirror privately and say I do the best I can. Really that's all that matters. Keep up the good work and improve where feasible.

Sometimes we on CR are nit pickers.

Jack

 

[rishi_sanyal]

rishi_sanyal, it may not "feel" good but this little tempest in a tea pot probably will make you a slightly better reviewer when it's all said and done. Emotions cloud logic for all of us!

The main thing is that you can look in the mirror privately and say I do the best I can. Really that's all that matters. Keep up the good work and improve where feasible.

I agree with this. Thanks for your perspective.

 

[tpatana]

I think the Olympics will be good indicator. If sideline has mode D5 bodies than 1DX2, I believe D5 AF is better.

Of course there's plenty other reasons to decide which body to use, but for sports AF is important af.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sure, and the world is flat too. Because I don't see any curvature on the horizon. No further evidence or valid model required.

You know what you know. Fair enough.

 

[unfocused]

...Sometimes we on CR are nit pickers.

Hah! I don't think there is any "sometimes" about it.

 

[unfocused]

Perhaps you haven't been a professional photographer at a wedding where that day your pre-adjusted microadjustment value for your 85/1.2 is just way off...

...Yes, automated AFMA is huge; not only does it make things easy and feasible at live events without requiring you to set up a LensAlign on a tripod, etc., it takes human error out of the equation. It also addresses one of the biggest shortcomings of DSLR relative to mirrorless.

Really, really off-topic, but I'd love to know more about this feature. I'm actually disappointed and surprised that Canon has yet to implement automatic AFMA as it seems like dual pixel technology is perfect for this. Not being a technical person, it seems logical that one could establish a feedback loop in which the focus on the DPAF sensor sends information to the viewfinder sensor to align the two.

What I'm wondering about, though, is really how useful or practical the Nikon implementation will be. I thinking about real world situations. Let's say I'm at a sporting event and I want to check the accuracy of my autofocus. I pick someone in the stands to focus on. Do I first focus with live view and then somehow compare that to the focus in the viewfinder. If I'm not using a tripod, how can I possible be sure I haven't moved at all. And, even if I'm using a tripod, how can I be sure the person hasn't moved. One of the problems I have with shooting portraits wide open is that no one and I mean no one, can possibly not move slightly between or during shots. So, even if you focus perfectly, by the time you press the shutter they will have shifted slightly.

And, that's under very controlled circumstances. I just have a hard time understanding how this will work out in the field. The thing that would appeal to me about some sort of Dual Pixel Micro Adjustment would be that, in theory, the two autofocus sensors should be able to read the same shot and align themselves up.

Not sure I'm explaining myself clearly, but the main point is I'd love to hear your experience with this feature and if it really works in the field.

As I said, I know this is off topic, but maybe if you could consider an in depth review of this (or commissioning someone else to do so. Come to think of it, if Nikon wants to send me a D5 and a couple of lenses, I'd volunteer. )

 

[Jack Douglas]

Doesn't bother me if it's (slightly) off topic. All these points are worth discussing when you're laying out $6000+.

Personally, with the 6D I've done my AFMA and not felt that it needed redoing. Nice to have it automated but no big deal. However, my faster lenses are not in the shorter focal lengths if that matters.

Jack

 

[Kwwund]

I've been watching the sidelines of the Super Bowl and haven't seen the 1DX2 yet. I would have thought it would get some exposure today. Has anyone else seen anything?

 

[tpatana]

I've been watching the sidelines of the Super Bowl and haven't seen the 1DX2 yet. I would have thought it would get some exposure today. Has anyone else seen anything?

Just came to say exactly same.

Mostly you didn't see any cameras close enough to tell, only at the after party. One camera looked bit suspicious during the Pat interview. It sort of looked like 1DX, but the top part seemed bit bulgier. It didn't have the GPS bulge, instead if was smooth. They could have made special versions for people to take them out to public that covers the GPS bulge.

Another guess is that people with Mk2 were ordered to have tape on the top part to cover the bulge. Another item I forgot to look for is from the backside, if it's Mk2 body (small LCD on bottom) but has the selector switch for LV, then it's Mk2. Mk1 has the selector button, not switch. I recorded the show so might need to quickly check those parts.

 

[privatebydesign]

I've been watching the sidelines of the Super Bowl and haven't seen the 1DX2 yet. I would have thought it would get some exposure today. Has anyone else seen anything?

Just came to say exactly same.

Mostly you didn't see any cameras close enough to tell, only at the after party. One camera looked bit suspicious during the Pat interview. It sort of looked like 1DX, but the top part seemed bit bulgier. It didn't have the GPS bulge, instead if was smooth. They could have made special versions for people to take them out to public that covers the GPS bulge.

Another guess is that people with Mk2 were ordered to have tape on the top part to cover the bulge. Another item I forgot to look for is from the backside, if it's Mk2 body (small LCD on bottom) but has the selector switch for LV, then it's Mk2. Mk1 has the selector button, not switch. I recorded the show so might need to quickly check those parts.

That is just like the 1DS MkIII, they are still being used as second and third cameras and backups, and some even still use them as primaries!

 

[Zv]

I kinda like how new Canon reviews (previews really) are played-down rather than hyped up. I remember the 6D - oh that was torn to shreds even by loyal Canon fans yet a few months down the line it was the best thing since sliced bread! (Still is IMO!)

DPR and other sites are just doing us all a favor by playing down the 1DX II in a similar way as it just means we'll set our expectations a bit lower (more realistic?) and then when it finally gets into the hands of those who use it, word will get out that it's actually really rather good! How could it not be? 14fps is enough to give most photogs a boner!

Actual user experience reviews are more reliable anyway and that is what ultimately affects a company's reputation. No offense to DPR or what not, they're just doing their job of reporting what they see (the specs), and Canon specs never really look that impressive to begin with.

Nikon tend to embellish a bit don't they, I mean come on 3million ISO? Give us a break!