DPreview First impression review 5D IV

[xps]

DPreview wrote their first impression review.
https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-first-impressions-review

It is mo Sony....

But it will be an well selling product

 

[Sporgon]

Good to see the CR influence in the DPR hand on review: Rishi is now referring to Ai Servo ! ( but still says its not that good )

 

[Loswr]

DPR's conclusions were preordained. The 5DIV is improved, and it's a very good camera. Well, good for a Canon...but the D810 is better, and oh boy, just wait for the D820.

It's probably in their unofficial reviewers guide:

• For any given feature, Canon's performance is [insert choice from thesaurus search for 'good'], and Nikon's performance is [insert choice from thesaurus search for 'superlative'].
• In a Canon review, mention Nikon (or sometimes Sony) at every opportunity, in a Nikon review, mostly ignore Canon. Thus, Nikon features which Canon lacks should be discussed in reviews of both brands, whereas Canon features that Nikon lacks should be omitted from Nikon reviews.
• In the unlikely case that you find a Nikon feature not worthy of high praise, downplay the importance of that feature for the target market, in the typical case of presenting Canon deficits, stress that those features are critical for all users.
• In every Canon review, find one feature (preferably a minor one) to highlight, so Rishi can claim to be unbiased (used to be called the 'look, I have a ______ friend' approach).

 

[Viggo]

;D ;D

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Good to see the CR influence in the DPR hand on review: Rishi is now referring to Ai Servo ! ( but still says its not that good )

CR hasn't had any influence on DPReview. It's our policy to only mention brand-specific names once per-page, subsequently referring to them as 'Single' or 'Continuous' AF thereafter.

If I used it more than once in my writing, it's probably because I'm just too used to Canon terminology, having shot Canon for 15+ years. I'll go back and fix it if I get a chance, so thank you for pointing this out.

-Rishi

 

[Loswr]

Hey Rishi, for the full 5DIV review, be sure DPR highlights that terrible flaw reported in the 1D X II's AF system, where the automatic AF point selection just focuses on the nearest subject.

[quote author=DPReview]
I started off the day shooting with the 70-200mm with the camera set to Auto Point Selection, which utilizes iTR. By default it is set to auto area select, in which the camera automatically tries to identify the subject. Unfortunately, I quickly found the camera was easily confused and very much like to focus on nearest patch of dirt in the foreground of my shots.
[/quote]

As with the 1D X II, don't bother to point out that the camera is performing exactly as the manual says it's supposed to (regarding auto point selection the manual states, "This mode tends to focus the nearest subject."). Describing the camera as 'easily confused' sounds so much better than 'performs as designed despite our ignorance regarding Canon AF systems even though one of us claims to have shot Canon for 15+ years and our not bothering to RTFM'.

Keep up that good, unbiased work!

 

[rishi_sanyal]

DPR's conclusions were preordained. The 5DIV is improved, and it's a very good camera. Well, good for a Canon...but the D810 is better, and oh boy, just wait for the D820.

It's probably in their unofficial reviewers guide:

• For any given feature, Canon's performance is [insert choice from thesaurus search for 'good'], and Nikon's performance is [insert choice from thesaurus search for 'superlative'].
• In a Canon review, mention Nikon (or sometimes Sony) at every opportunity, in a Nikon review, mostly ignore Canon. Thus, Nikon features which Canon lacks should be discussed in reviews of both brands, whereas Canon features that Nikon lacks should be omitted from Nikon reviews.
• In the unlikely case that you find a Nikon feature not worthy of high praise, downplay the importance of that feature for the target market, in the typical case of presenting Canon deficits, stress that those features are critical for all users.
• In every Canon review, find one feature (preferably a minor one) to highlight, so Rishi can claim to be unbiased (used to be called the 'look, I have a ______ friend' approach).

For clarification: are you suggesting that Dual Pixel AF, which we feel is one of the greatest technologies introduced in recent times when it comes to cameras, is a "minor" token feature we simply chose to highlight to appear unbiased?

I'm sorry you feel that our merely pointing out shortcomings constitutes bias against an entire brand. But if you read our other reviews, you'll see us equally doing so for every camera/brand. My Nikon D810 review pointed out its shortcomings with respect to low light AF and mirror-induced shock in combination with VR, and I literally pointed out Canon DSLRs in general (and the 5DS/R in particular) are significantly better in these regards. And drew comparisons to Sony's a7R II as well, literally writing: "Admittedly, these focus accuracy and vibration issues do make me reach for a Sony a7R II more these days".

We write about the benefits and the shortcomings, to educate our audience.

Given this, I'd suggest your suggested 'unofficial reviewers guide' needs some revision.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Hey Rishi, for the full 5DIV review, be sure DPR highlights that terrible flaw reported in the 1D X II's AF system, where the automatic AF point selection just focuses on the nearest subject.

That's not at all what it states for the mode we tested. You're ignoring the effect of enabling iTR. Perhaps you should revisit the manual yourself, particularly page 127: "The AF point is automatically selected based not only on AF information [distance], but also the human face and the subject’s color information." And that's for the iTR mode that is not Face priority.

[quote author=DPReview]
I started off the day shooting with the 70-200mm with the camera set to Auto Point Selection, which utilizes iTR. By default it is set to auto area select, in which the camera automatically tries to identify the subject. Unfortunately, I quickly found the camera was easily confused and very much like to focus on nearest patch of dirt in the foreground of my shots.

As with the 1D X II, don't bother to point out that the camera is performing exactly as the manual says it's supposed to (regarding auto point selection the manual states, "This mode tends to focus the nearest subject."). Describing the camera as 'easily confused' sounds so much better than 'performs as designed despite our ignorance regarding Canon AF systems even though one of us claims to have shot Canon for 15+ years and our not bothering to RTFM'.

Keep up that good, unbiased work!
[/quote]

Yes, I've seen you repeatedly state this all over these forums, so I suppose I should address it a little more in-depth. For one, you're conflating someone else's words with me for the convenience of your argument and for the sake of overall character assassination, but let's set that aside for the moment.

The authors of the piece you refer to, both of whom handed off the cameras to one another to reaffirm their own assessments, generally found that the same 'auto' modes - which again use color/pattern information in addition to distance information to pick the subject - yielded better results with the D5. Don't get me wrong - the D5 will also sometimes focus on the wrong subject in auto mode, but their results were that the D5 automatically picked up the right subject more often than the 1D X II.

Perhaps that was because it prioritized the moving subject, or perhaps it simply utilizes its metering sensor better (our many tests suggest Canon continues to rely on distance information more than color/pattern recognition generally for subject tracking, so this wouldn't be surprising). I don't know. But that isn't the point. The point is that the result is the result and that's what they relayed in that piece.

It doesn't matter what the manual states or didn't state: one worked better than the other.

Furthermore, if we are to treat the manual as bible, then, ironically, it appears that perhaps it is you who hasn't read the manual, as Canon's own manual and ? tab in-camera state that the subject's color information is used to automatically pick it when iTR is enabled, not 'just focuses on the nearest subject'.

I hope that clarifies things, and thanks for so passionately raising your concern.

-Rishi

 

[Orangutan]

For clarification: are you suggesting that Dual Pixel AF, which we feel is one of the greatest technologies introduced in recent times when it comes to cameras, is a "minor" token feature we simply chose to highlight to appear unbiased?

I'm sorry you feel that our merely pointing out shortcomings constitutes bias against an entire brand. But if you read our other reviews, you'll see us equally doing so for every camera/brand. My Nikon D810 review pointed out its shortcomings with respect to low light AF and mirror-induced shock in combination with VR, and I literally pointed out Canon DSLRs in general (and the 5DS/R in particular) are significantly better in these regards. And drew comparisons to Sony's a7R II as well, literally writing: "Admittedly, these focus accuracy and vibration issues do make me reach for a Sony a7R II more these days".

We write about the benefits and the shortcomings, to educate our audience.

Given this, I'd suggest your suggested 'unofficial reviewers guide' needs some revision.

Not having read any of your reviews, and having read many of Neuroanatomist's posts, I was initially inclined to believe he was being a just a bit snarky and hyperbolic. However, your responses to his posts are not helping your credibility.

For example, this is unprofessional, unscientific rhetoric.

I'm sorry you feel that our merely pointing out shortcomings constitutes bias against an entire brand

As a trained scientist, you should know that you can't defend yourself against ad-hominem and broadside attacks; instead, you must carefully defend individual points as they arise. Responding with rhetoric doesn't help anyone, least of all you.

 

[PureClassA]

Ah! I see this thread has gone well... :

 

[tpatana]

Rishi, I'm curious how long time ago you got the sample? If you can tell...

 

[privatebydesign]

I knew I shouldn't have gone and looked.

What utter bullshit is page 7 First Impressions? All the images are from a 5D MkIII and the example of lack of DR, give me freakin break learn to expose correctly dufus, isn't even clearly labeled, so it deliberately gives the false impression it is from the new camera.

I utterly hate the bias that is so ingrained in Rishi's writing he can't even see it, either that or he is so dishonest he tries to rationalize it to people he obviously has nothing but contempt for.

Disgustingly dishonest and decieptful DPReview diatribe.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Not having read any of your reviews, and having read many of Neuroanatomist's posts, I was initially inclined to believe he was being a just a bit snarky and hyperbolic. However, your responses to his posts are not helping your credibility.

For example, this is unprofessional, unscientific rhetoric.

I'm sorry you feel that our merely pointing out shortcomings constitutes bias against an entire brand

Does 'I'm sorry' mean something different here on CR? I'm genuinely confused.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

I knew I shouldn't have gone and looked.

What utter bullS___ is page 7 First Impressions? All the images are from a 5D MkIII and the example of lack of DR, give me freakin break learn to expose correctly dufus, isn't even clearly labeled, so it deliberately gives the false impression it is from the new camera.

I utterly hate the bias that is so ingrained in Rishi's writing he can't even see it, either that or he is so dishonest he tries to rationalize it to people he obviously has nothing but contempt for.

Disgustingly dishonest and decieptful DPReview diatribe.

The amount of irrational anger and hatred here is, admittedly, astounding. Let's forget for a moment that our overall impression is incredibly positive and ecstatic about the innovations the 5D IV brings (as opposed to the 'utter bullS___' you suggest we've written).

We're not allowed to publish any photos from the 5D Mark IV, and that example is clearly stated as an example that shows the benefit 5D IV users will appreciate. Because I clearly state in the text that 5D Mark IV users will benefit from improvements here.

The DR example has been used repeatedly in our content; how is it not clear that that's not from the 5D Mark III when it's stated in the very text, and when every image in that preview is from the 5D Mark III (and labeled as such)? To help matters, I've added '5D Mark III' in bold italics to each caption of that image. Does that help?

The shot is then followed by the statement: "5D Mark IV shooters can expect far more flexibility in adjusting exposure of Raw files, thanks to the same move to on-sensor ADC that has made recent Canon DSLRs more competitive relative to Sony, Nikon, and Pentax offerings."

How is praising the new iteration construed as "Disgustingly dishonest and decieptful DPReview diatribe."? Is there some utter failure of the English language here? Or is your point that we can't expect readers to actually read our text, in which case I'd suggest perhaps it's time for you to blame lack of reading skills/attention spans, not us?

'Learn to expose correctly dufus' --> Name-calling aside, did you read the actual text? In fast paced situations, especially with a camera that continues to refuse to link spot-metering to AF point, your very own Canon camera will do the same thing mine did.

Underexposure with backlight: that's what the camera does. In the heat of the action, without an EVF, you won't know until the moment is over. Which is why either an EVF, or exposure latitude, helps you address such issues. If you're going to tell me that pros can instantly judge exposure as soon as they move from one situation to another, without checking their shot, then I'm going to present you with tens or hundreds of images delivered to actual clients from internationally award winning wedding photographers that suggest otherwise.

I don't know if you're actually a professional placed under such demands but, if you are, you'd know exactly what I'm talking about.

I don't have contempt for anyone. I'm trying to actually explain the areas in which the 5D Mark IV brings improvements to 5D-series owners.

 

[Viggo]

If you HAVE to have either an EVF or exposure latitude to get a proper exposed shot that means lack of technical skill. I know a few "pro" photographers that are EXCELLENT in composing an idea into a beautiful photo, but actually understanding the technical part of their camera they are surprisingly lacking.

I can immediately ballpark an exposure with 0.5 stops. I use a flash outside and never use a external light meter or ettl, and, big surprise, I never miss by 2-3-4-5 or 6 stops, ever.

If one can't expose correctly and have to rely on software push that tells me something is not being done the correct way, and is a fault of the photographer not the gear. Did people even discuss this before Sony increased dr in their sensors?

 

[rishi_sanyal]

If you HAVE to have either an EVF or exposure latitude to get a proper exposed shot that means lack of technical skill. I know a few "pro" photographers that are EXCELLENT in composing an idea into a beautiful photo, but actually understanding the technical part of their camera they are surprisingly lacking.

I can immediately ballpark an exposure with 0.5 stops. I use a flash outside and never use a external light meter or ettl, and, big surprise, I never miss by 2-3-4-5 or 6 stops, ever.

If one can't expose correctly and have to rely on software push that tells me something is not being done the correct way, and is a fault of the photographer not the gear. Did people even discuss this before Sony increased dr in their sensors?

"I can immediately ballpark an exposure with 0.5 stops."

You can in a fraction of a second tell me what aperture, shutter speed, and ISO is needed for any particular scene, even if it's changing in fractions of a second, and even when the definition of 'ISO' and 'proper exposure' is up for grabs (because it depends on what in the scene you're trying to expose correctly)? Well, then, you're really wasting your time on these forums - you should be a world class, award-winning photographer.

For the rest of us down here on earth...

No, it doesn't mean lack of technical skill. The camera's own computer can miscalculate exposure in quickly varying, changing scenarios - are you suggesting that every photographer should be better than a camera meter at every instant of time? In fast changing situations, you cannot predict that your camera's going to over-react to your backlight and underexpose too much.

And if you're going to suggest you immediately know exactly how much to change your exposure moving in a fraction of a second from an outdoor ceremony to an indoor tent, then you're lying. Can you expose correctly if given the time to think things through? Sure. In 0.1s as the bride/groom walk under this obstruction and you want to nail the moment? No. If you have enough time to think about the exposure then, you're probably not worrying about exposure, or focus, or lighting, or the moment.

One thing people constantly miss in these arguments is this: I can get exposure just fine. But when pressed for time down to the milliseconds, you simply cannot argue that a system that gives you more latitude gives you some benefit for when you have to make split-second decisions where you'd rather preserve that split second for concentrating on your composition, or lighting, or anything but whether or not you nailed your exposure just right to overcome the shortcomings of your own equipment.

Funny thing is - back in the day of neg film, you actually had a lot of latitude, and relaxed standards because of lack of pixel peeping.

Today, you'd benefit from systems with more exposure latitude.

If you're suggesting that in every similar situation moving in fractions of seconds from changing lighting scenarios that you can just predict the exact change in exposure needed to *nail* your exposure (and this doesn't even address the benefit to being able to underexpose in case you wish to preserve highlights), then you're simply making stuff up.

And, again, I can provide you literally multitudes of shots from internationally award winning wedding photographers (are you one?) that prove otherwise - that they'd have benefited from changes in exposure they (nor the camera) didn't make.

And if you're going to then fall back to 'well they're not good enough', then I'd ask: isn't that exactly our point, that cameras that don't require such stringent requirements are beneficial to the photographer?

They're certainly 'good enough' to win more awards than most people on this forum... sorry to say.

Did people even discuss this before Sony increased dr in their sensors?

Ah we're falling back to that argument then? OK, so a camera that doesn't even have AF is good enough, right? Because people manually focused just fine back in the day. And why should a site dedicated to differentiating camera equipment actually, well, differentiate camera equipment based on their ability if a good photographer can take a good photograph with anything?

 

[smorgo]

For what it's worth, I thought that the review was positive, but well balanced. It's a first impression, so I don't expect warts-and-all.

Maybe I'm just a positive kind of guy?

 

[Viggo]

Wow, really?

I'm not lying, I have just used my cameras and tried against grey cards and experience to KNOW when my camera will over or underexpose, it's really not that difficult. Ridiculous claim.

The 5d mk2 I had at a constant 2 1/3 stop over, my 1dx is at +4/8 offset 0 ev. I always ETTR, so how can I ever drop 5 stops under?

And you do know the back wheel is used for EC right? Guess what it's for...


And if you weren't so defensive you would see I wasn't complaining about Sony at all, I just said that no one even cared about exposure latitude before Sony made it possible, suddenly it's the end all.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

For what it's worth, I thought that the review was positive, but well balanced. It's a first impression, so I don't expect warts-and-all.

Maybe I'm just a positive kind of guy?

That's just the thing - I was really excited by this camera when writing this preview. Yet some will take any negative comment, which is actually simply a reflection of my acceptance of shortcomings of the system, and spin it into some grand elaborate commentary on insidious deep-rooted bias against Canon.

It's frankly irrational at best and just a sad commentary on internet behavior and human nature at worst. The 5D Mark IV is a really really nice camera with some fantastic features (live on Creative Live today I, unfathomably I'm sure to some here, said that 'the 5D Mark IV in live view works like the camera I wish the Sony a7R II were...'). And it has some really annoying, potentially show-stopping shortcomings as well. That's the simple reality, and it's our job to make our readers aware of both the positives and negatives so they can make informed decisions.

-Rishi

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Wow, really?

I'm not lying, I have just used my cameras and tried against grey cards and experience to KNOW when my camera will over or underexpose, it's really not that difficult. Ridiculous claim.

The 5d mk2 I had at a constant 2 1/3 stop over, my 1dx is at +4/8 offset 0 ev. I always ETTR, so how can I ever drop 5 stops under?

And you do know the back wheel is used for EC right? Guess what it's for...


And if you weren't so defensive you would see I wasn't complaining about Sony at all, I just said that no one even cared about exposure latitude before Sony made it possible, suddenly it's the end all.

You're once again misunderstanding my entire point. I've loved and used the back wheel many-a-time. But when you can't predict the exact exposure needed in a fraction of a second, you simply can't predict it. Neither can a computer that works far faster than your brain, as exemplified by the hundreds of exposures where the camera's metering system got it wrong. Without the immediate feedback of an EVF, you're telling me you can always overcome your own camera's metering system's shortcomings, predicting exactly the EV your camera will underexpose due to a backlight (especially since spot-metering isn't linked to AF point?), at that moment, on the spot, in a fraction of a second, without even checking your shot?

If you're going to say 'yes' to that, then, yes, I challenge you and claim you're lying, if you're claiming you can do that all the time, on the spot, in the moment. And if you're going to then tell me 'well maybe I'll miss a few shots but I'll eventually catch up', then I'll say: 'but you've missed the moment you wouldn't have missed if your camera hadn't gotten in the way'. And isn't that the entire point - to choose the best tool for the job? I'm literally pointing out the upgrade will help you in this manner. What is your chief complaint? That the old one was always just fine for everyone and that progress isn't actually progress?

Or even if spot-metering were linked to AF point, you're telling me you can get the exact exposure needed to balance the highlights from blowing while keeping the exposure good enough for the faces you're exposing? Even if the difference between those two (the dark faces and the bright backlight) approaches near the dynamic range of your camera?

This makes me wonder - have you even shot fast-paced weddings/events?

It's not a matter of being defensive - I'm beginning to feel you just haven't used these cameras under the stressful situations I have, yet are comfortable commenting on how 'because it's fine for me, it's good enough for everyone'.

When did that ever help those who are actually running up against the limitations of their cameras and working around them - which I know for a fact many, many photographers do (focus and recompose, anyone? Don't tell me you use it because it's literally the best way you could ever think of using AF on a camera...)?