Canon Lenses Dominate The Sidelines As The New EOS-1D X Mark II Makes Its Debut At The Big Game

[Loswr]

Maybe dilbert's studied politics ? No wait ! Maybe.... you don't think he's the alter-internet-ego of that guy of yours whose making all the news at the moment ?

Always happy to call out dilbert's ample foolishness, but that's just going too far...

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

Where is that Rishi Noink guy from DPR who posted photographic evidence (1 photo!) on a Canon article comment thread that Nikon cameras were being used more by pros... LOLZ. Just goes to show how "unbiased" that site has become. Where is the YouTube video demonstrating the awesome Nikon AF tracking of the eyes of a stuffed toy sitting on a table while the camera is being waved around using automatic all AF-points selection???

 

[zim]

Where is that Rishi Noink guy from DPR who posted photographic evidence (1 photo!) on a Canon article comment thread that Nikon cameras were being used more by pros... LOLZ. Just goes to show how "unbiased" that site has become. Where is the YouTube video demonstrating the awesome Nikon AF tracking of the eyes of a stuffed toy sitting on a table while the camera is being waved around using automatic all AF-points selection???

Leave him alone, he's busy updating the Nikon D5 review to include examples of where the 1DX2 has the advantage....

In the 1DX MkII "examined-in-depth" piece (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0676551873/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-first-impressions-review?slide=16) at least three times you say things like "not as versatile as Nikon's class-leading 3D tracking" and "given the pinpoint precision Nikon 3D tracking is capable of ", yet in your Nikon D5 examined piece (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9189851572/hands-on-with-nikon-d5?slide=11) you say nothing about Canon, not even where specs of already available Canon cameras vastly out strip it.

Why would I say anything about a Canon camera I was under NDA to not talk about?

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Where is that Rishi Noink guy from DPR who posted photographic evidence (1 photo!) on a Canon article comment thread that Nikon cameras were being used more by pros... LOLZ. Just goes to show how "unbiased" that site has become. Where is the YouTube video demonstrating the awesome Nikon AF tracking of the eyes of a stuffed toy sitting on a table while the camera is being waved around using automatic all AF-points selection???

Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ4rEvbCNuw

Sorry it's not a stuffed toy, and apologies if you have trouble extrapolating how this sort of tracking may help moving subjects as opposed to a moving camera.

-Rishi

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Where is that Rishi Noink guy from DPR who posted photographic evidence (1 photo!) on a Canon article comment thread that Nikon cameras were being used more by pros... LOLZ. Just goes to show how "unbiased" that site has become. Where is the YouTube video demonstrating the awesome Nikon AF tracking of the eyes of a stuffed toy sitting on a table while the camera is being waved around using automatic all AF-points selection???

Leave him alone, he's busy updating the Nikon D5 review to include examples of where the 1DX2 has the advantage....

I didn't have to update it, it was already there: http://www.dpreview.com/opinion/7352408758/nikons-new-d5-and-d500-push-the-boundaries-of-dslr?slide=14

If I may quote myself: "And then there's autofocus in video, where Nikon DSLRs tend to fall well behind the competition. Lack of any form of on-sensor phase-detect AF, even available in Canon's nearest D500 competitor the 7D Mark II, means that AF in video is essentially unusable."

-Rishi

 

[Loswr]

Where is that Rishi Noink guy from DPR who posted photographic evidence (1 photo!) on a Canon article comment thread that Nikon cameras were being used more by pros... LOLZ. Just goes to show how "unbiased" that site has become. Where is the YouTube video demonstrating the awesome Nikon AF tracking of the eyes of a stuffed toy sitting on a table while the camera is being waved around using automatic all AF-points selection???

Leave him alone, he's busy updating the Nikon D5 review to include examples of where the 1DX2 has the advantage....

I didn't have to update it, it was already there: http://www.dpreview.com/opinion/7352408758/nikons-new-d5-and-d500-push-the-boundaries-of-dslr?slide=14

If I may quote myself: "And then there's autofocus in video, where Nikon DSLRs tend to fall well behind the competition. Lack of any form of on-sensor phase-detect AF, even available in Canon's nearest D500 competitor the 7D Mark II, means that AF in video is essentially unusable."

You toss out a quote in the context of discussing DPR's obvious bias, and even your quote shows that bias. In fact, even Canon's entry level dSLRs back to the old T4i have a form of on-sensor phase-detect AF, and Canon's nearest D500 competitor the 7D Mark II has the industry's most comprehensive form of on-sensor phase-detect AF using 16 million phase detect pixels. Elsewhere, you even praise dual-pixel AF in typical DPR fashion, stating that Canon's noise and hype about it 'isn't without some merit.'

Rishi, you could have just quit while you were behind, but it's amusing to watch you just keep digging yourself deeper. Well done!

 

[J.R.]

Where is that Rishi Noink guy from DPR who posted photographic evidence (1 photo!) on a Canon article comment thread that Nikon cameras were being used more by pros... LOLZ. Just goes to show how "unbiased" that site has become. Where is the YouTube video demonstrating the awesome Nikon AF tracking of the eyes of a stuffed toy sitting on a table while the camera is being waved around using automatic all AF-points selection???

Leave him alone, he's busy updating the Nikon D5 review to include examples of where the 1DX2 has the advantage....

I didn't have to update it, it was already there: http://www.dpreview.com/opinion/7352408758/nikons-new-d5-and-d500-push-the-boundaries-of-dslr?slide=14

If I may quote myself: "And then there's autofocus in video, where Nikon DSLRs tend to fall well behind the competition. Lack of any form of on-sensor phase-detect AF, even available in Canon's nearest D500 competitor the 7D Mark II, means that AF in video is essentially unusable."

You toss out a quote in the context of discussing DPR's obvious bias, and even your quote shows that bias. In fact, even Canon's entry level dSLRs back to the old T4i have a form of on-sensor phase-detect AF, and Canon's nearest D500 competitor the 7D Mark II has the industry's most comprehensive form of on-sensor phase-detect AF using 16 million phase detect pixels. Elsewhere, you even praise dual-pixel AF in typical DPR fashion, stating that Canon's noise and hype about it 'isn't without some merit.'

Rishi, you could have just quit while you were behind, but it's amusing to watch you just keep digging yourself deeper. Well done!

“For a long time I have not said what I believed nor do I ever believe what I say, and if indeed sometimes I do happen to tell the truth, I hide it among so many lies that it is hard to find.” ... Niccolò Machiavelli

Fits nicely with DPR

 

[zim]

Where is that Rishi Noink guy from DPR who posted photographic evidence (1 photo!) on a Canon article comment thread that Nikon cameras were being used more by pros... LOLZ. Just goes to show how "unbiased" that site has become. Where is the YouTube video demonstrating the awesome Nikon AF tracking of the eyes of a stuffed toy sitting on a table while the camera is being waved around using automatic all AF-points selection???

Leave him alone, he's busy updating the Nikon D5 review to include examples of where the 1DX2 has the advantage....

I didn't have to update it, it was already there: http://www.dpreview.com/opinion/7352408758/nikons-new-d5-and-d500-push-the-boundaries-of-dslr?slide=14

If I may quote myself: "And then there's autofocus in video, where Nikon DSLRs tend to fall well behind the competition. Lack of any form of on-sensor phase-detect AF, even available in Canon's nearest D500 competitor the 7D Mark II, means that AF in video is essentially unusable."

You toss out a quote in the context of discussing DPR's obvious bias, and even your quote shows that bias. In fact, even Canon's entry level dSLRs back to the old T4i have a form of on-sensor phase-detect AF, and Canon's nearest D500 competitor the 7D Mark II has the industry's most comprehensive form of on-sensor phase-detect AF using 16 million phase detect pixels. Elsewhere, you even praise dual-pixel AF in typical DPR fashion, stating that Canon's noise and hype about it 'isn't without some merit.'

Rishi, you could have just quit while you were behind, but it's amusing to watch you just keep digging yourself deeper. Well done!

and also completely missing the actual point of my post about hiding behind the NDA disclosure excuse BS

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Where is that Rishi Noink guy from DPR who posted photographic evidence (1 photo!) on a Canon article comment thread that Nikon cameras were being used more by pros... LOLZ. Just goes to show how "unbiased" that site has become. Where is the YouTube video demonstrating the awesome Nikon AF tracking of the eyes of a stuffed toy sitting on a table while the camera is being waved around using automatic all AF-points selection???

Leave him alone, he's busy updating the Nikon D5 review to include examples of where the 1DX2 has the advantage....

I didn't have to update it, it was already there: http://www.dpreview.com/opinion/7352408758/nikons-new-d5-and-d500-push-the-boundaries-of-dslr?slide=14

If I may quote myself: "And then there's autofocus in video, where Nikon DSLRs tend to fall well behind the competition. Lack of any form of on-sensor phase-detect AF, even available in Canon's nearest D500 competitor the 7D Mark II, means that AF in video is essentially unusable."

You toss out a quote in the context of discussing DPR's obvious bias, and even your quote shows that bias.

I'm sure it does appear to have bias to you. After all, you're the one who tried to pull up two of my quotes on metering side-by-side from a Nikon story vs. a Canon story to prove bias between them, but couldn't even convince canonrumors readership that said bias existed in those quotes. I think claims of bias are pretty suspect coming from someone who thinks there's a difference between 'highest resolution metering sensor we've ever seen... [which] should lead to accurate metering' (Canon) and 'a new... metering system... helping to achieve optimally balanced exposures and accurate white balance in even the most challenging light' (Nikon).

In fact, another member's response to you was: "If there is supposed to be some grand point you are trying to illustrate by juxtaposing these two quotes, it's a massive fail. Why don't we all take off the tinfoil hats, grow up and just accept that people may have different opinions and different perspectives without assuming some ulterior motive and parsing every word that a reviewer might write."
(http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28968.390)

Nitpicking the word 'even' to prove pro-Nikon bias in my overtly negative statement about Nikon's video quality, especially compared to Canon, says far more about you than I (Oh, and remember you accusing me of not bringing up Canon positives in a Nikon story? So much for that?). For the record, 'even' was there because we don't expect on-sensor PDAF with most DSLRs (it's absolutely true to say the majority of DSLRs don't have it), and yet the 7D2/70D have it. You can criticize my not getting my point across, but bias? Really?

In fact, even Canon's entry level dSLRs back to the old T4i have a form of on-sensor phase-detect AF,

... which we've always praised, despite a fair number of mirrorless on-sensor PDAF implementations that perform significantly better.

and Canon's nearest D500 competitor the 7D Mark II has the industry's most comprehensive form of on-sensor phase-detect AF using 16 million phase detect pixels. Elsewhere, you even praise dual-pixel AF in typical DPR fashion, stating that Canon's noise and hype about it 'isn't without some merit.'

Certainly not my words. I've repeatedly stated on DPR that dual-pixel AF is one of the most exciting technical developments in cameras in recent history. But of course you will ignore all those statements to prove your silly hypothesis that you yourself admitted demands no reason or explanation whatsoever.

Admittedly, my enthusiasm's been tempered somewhat after seeing and testing the performance of on-sensor PDAF in latest Sony cameras, which also offer on-sensor continuous PDAF, something Canon didn't offer an impressive implementation (very impressive, mind you) of until the 80D.

Rishi, you could have just quit while you were behind, but it's amusing to watch you just keep digging yourself deeper. Well done!

I'm glad it amuses you. Whatever makes you feel better.

 

[Loswr]

and Canon's nearest D500 competitor the 7D Mark II has the industry's most comprehensive form of on-sensor phase-detect AF using 16 million phase detect pixels. Elsewhere, you even praise dual-pixel AF in typical DPR fashion, stating that Canon's noise and hype about it 'isn't without some merit.'

Certainly not my words. I've repeatedly stated on DPR that dual-pixel AF is one of the most exciting technical developments in cameras in recent history.

Oh, yes...certainly not your words. : : :

Keep on digging...you want to add outright lies to bias, go right ahead... Or maybe you'll argue that since there are three authors on your review, they're not your words. Sophistry instead of outright lies. Dig dig dig.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Does the concept of multiple authors elude you? I said they weren't *my* words. Do I need to define 'my'? I wasn't even the main author of that review.

You're now effectively comparing the tone of one author in one piece vs a different author in a different piece written a year and a half ago.

So very logical. Keep trolling.

And by the way, what do you have to say about all the threads started in Nikon forums claiming me to be an Anti-Nikon Canon fanboy (since 90% of my work has been shot on Canon) after I published that Canon deals far better with mirror-induced shock when using image stabilized lenses - across a number of lenses we tested - than Nikon in our 5DS/R review?

Did Nikon forget to pay us off for that 5DS/R review? Did Canon not pay enough? I suppose this is what happens when I don't have a proper accountant -I get so confused about which bias I'm supposed to insert where. And how much of it.

You do know there's one of you for every brand in our forums, right? I was branded anti-Sony after the a7 II review to the point of some reader trying to fire me for not ever being able to assess Sony cameras with any partiality or positive bias. I was labeled anti-Nikon after the Canon 5DS review (which, surprisingly, many Canon users thought was fair - and I was the main author on that one, funny), anti-Canon after the 7D2 review because we dared show - for the first time (I know of) in a properly controlled real-world way with proper ETTR technique - dynamic range differences between it and one of its nearest competitor. Planes that were just a little apart in the sky were used to concoct a conspiracy theory that we shot the Nikon 30 min later than the Canon which would've given it an advantage.

The irony there being: (1) if a moving plane stays in your scene for 30 min, it's not really moving, and our plane was moving quite a bit, meaning there were only mere seconds to minutes between shots; and (2) the most ironic bit was that had the Nikon been shot 30 min after the Canon, since the sun had already set, that would've given the scene more DR, which would've made the test unfair for the Nikon, not the Canon.

Frankly, at this point, the conspiracy theories are purely amusing. They require no rhyme, no reason, no logic, no self review and iteration of your reasoning based on new data, no evidence except for the slim evidence you choose to fit your hypothesis, while ignoring the rest... I believe there's actually a term for this...

 

[unfocused]

Good lord Neuro, give it a rest. Your endless parsing of every line in every review to try to "prove" some point is an embarrassment. You are beginning to sound like AnkorWhat.

 

[Loswr]

Or maybe you'll argue that since there are three authors on your review, they're not your words. Sophistry instead of outright lies.

Does the concept of multiple authors elude you? I said they weren't *my* words. Do I need to define 'my'? I wasn't even the main author of that review.

Exactly as predicted. Of course I'm familiar with multiple authorship. In scientific publishing, it's expected (and explicitly stated by most journals) that all co-authors have read and agree with the content of the entire paper. It's called taking responsibility. I apologize for applying too high a standard to DPR.

Earlier, you were defending DPR as unbiased. When presented with yet another biased statement in a DPR review, you retreat to defending only yourself. Interesting.

Did Nikon forget to pay us off for that 5DS/R review? Did Canon not pay enough? I suppose this is what happens when I don't have a proper accountant -I get so confused about which bias I'm supposed to insert where. And how much of it.

Frankly, at this point, the conspiracy theories are purely amusing. They require no rhyme, no reason, no logic, no self review and iteration of your reasoning based on new data, no evidence except for the slim evidence you choose to fit your hypothesis, while ignoring the rest... I believe there's actually a term for this...

Since pointing out who said what seems very important to you, let me remind you of my words concerning corruption and conspiracy:

In fact, I was pointing out that DPR is biased, nothing more. Not conspiracy, not corruption.

Any more false accusations you'd like to levy?

DPR's bias is not extreme, but is quite pervasive and evident. Praise vs. damning with faint praise. I summed it up previously: 'Nikon cameras deliver awesome performance and stellar images, and Canon cameras take decent pictures.'