DPreview First impression review 5D IV

[rishi_sanyal]

But you have added to the captions, why did you feel the need to do that if you were comfortable with the way you presented your piece previously.

No, I only added 'Canon 5D Mark III' to one rollover, an oversight due to the fact that that rollover was copied from another article on read noise where we purposefully left brands/cameras out of the discussion. After someone pointed it out here (in a very rude manner, no less), I agreed it best to clarify right in the caption (since I guess some weren't reading the text around it that clearly indicated the 5D IV's improvements addressed such issues).

No other captions were changed. I am very comfortable with the way the piece was originally presented, which is pretty much the same way it's presented now.

I complained about one caption.

....... All the images are from a 5D MkIII and the example of lack of DR, ............ isn't even clearly labeled, so it deliberately gives the false impression it is from the new camera.

You changed it.

You then said "No", but then, to paraphrase, "I only changed that one you complained about and said wasn't clearly labeled. But only because we made a mistake and it wasn't clearly labeled".

That is why people have such contempt and distrust for politicians and the media. Even when the answer is 'Yes I did change that one you said wasn't labeled' you still have too say 'No'.

Grow a pair, you made a mistake own it, you fuel the fire of distrust and lack of respect by not just saying, "Yes, we missed that one, sorry". The coincidental fact that it is the most misleading and provocative image for you to "unintentionally copy and paste" can only add to the quite lamentable feint praise with which you are so adept at.

Nope. We made no mistake. The original caption was absolutely correct.

We amended it to clarify that we referred to previous camera performance because Canon Rumors readers said that people apparently couldn't read the text around the original image that stated that the new camera addressed these issues.

But you know what - I've now removed my amendment, since you now interpret that as some admission of wrong. It's back to the original caption now.

Which was correct to begin with, considering you actually read what we wrote.

Are you happy now?

 

[rishi_sanyal]

So because of the order of the words, tracking must come before recognition? That is some convoluted logic predicated upon a lot of assumptions.

No, I stated that the order of the words was a clue. Do you understand what that is? No, I suppose not, since you apparently don't have one.

I then went on to quote from Rudy Winston's Canon DLC article describing in specific detail how the iTR system works, which states definitively that the AF system itself first selects the focus point, and then after that the metering data are used.

Would you care to address the statement by a Canon technical mouthpiece, which explicitly contradicts your viewpoint...or would you rather just continue to ignore the facts and change the subject?

So the PDAF sensor, which only knows subject distance, can recognize faces? How does it do that?

Honest question from a 60D owner whose camera does none of this—isn't acquisition supposed to be aided by iSA? In other words, isn't iSA + iTR supposed to handle both acquisition and tracking (a la Nikon's 3D Tracking)?

Yes, of course. How else would these newer cameras detect faces in viewfinder shooting? Some sort of sentience built into the PDAF module that can find faces off of just distance information? That'd be some cool magic...

It's not magic, and of course the PDAF sensor doesn't detect faces. But the metering sensor doesn't simply evaluate the entire region of the field which it covers, and identify faces out of the blue (or red, or green). First, an AF point is selected, either manually or automatically depending on settings (and for automatic selection, there may be more than one point selected). The automatic selection of the focus point occurs exactly as I've already made clear – it 'tends to focus on the nearest subject'. After the focus point is selected, the AF system tells the metering sensor where to look for faces. Here's a quote from a different Rudy Winston article describing that process, which you'll probably ignore like you ignored the first one...

Also, how does any of this impact upon my more important point: that in the shootout, one worked for the photographer better than the other. So, again, I ask: what did we say that was actually factually wrong or misleading?

Downplaying your factual errors just like you downplayed the importance of DR for the Nikon D5, 'eh? Unsurprising.

What is factually wrong is your repeated insistence that the data from the metering sensor are used for the initial automatic selection of an AF point, in spite of statements by Canon which explicitly show that you are incorrect.

What was misleading was the statement in the DPR motocross comparison that the 1D X II was 'easily confused' when in fact, it was the person holding the camera who was confused...about how the manual states the camera should behave and about how to properly configure the camera for iTR tracking in AI Servo (i.e., the steps listed above).

So, can we expect an Editor's Note to be added to that motocross comparison article, indicating that the camera was performing as designed, but the reviewer failed to understand that fact? Somehow, I doubt it.

No, you cannot expect anything of the sort.

You continue to argue with yourself in circles. The metering sensor is absolutely used to initially detect faces, and yet you sit here trying to argue only the PDAF system is first used to detect and track the original subject.

You have no clue how the actual system works, yet you try to convince unsuspecting bystanders here that you know what you're talking about.

Your own community labels you a troll.

Good luck, cheers, have fun. I see that I don't even need to refute you when your own community recognizes you for you who you are.

-Rishi

 

[privatebydesign]

But you have added to the captions, why did you feel the need to do that if you were comfortable with the way you presented your piece previously.

No, I only added 'Canon 5D Mark III' to one rollover, an oversight due to the fact that that rollover was copied from another article on read noise where we purposefully left brands/cameras out of the discussion. After someone pointed it out here (in a very rude manner, no less), I agreed it best to clarify right in the caption (since I guess some weren't reading the text around it that clearly indicated the 5D IV's improvements addressed such issues).

No other captions were changed. I am very comfortable with the way the piece was originally presented, which is pretty much the same way it's presented now.

I complained about one caption.

....... All the images are from a 5D MkIII and the example of lack of DR, ............ isn't even clearly labeled, so it deliberately gives the false impression it is from the new camera.

You changed it.

You then said "No", but then, to paraphrase, "I only changed that one you complained about and said wasn't clearly labeled. But only because we made a mistake and it wasn't clearly labeled".

That is why people have such contempt and distrust for politicians and the media. Even when the answer is 'Yes I did change that one you said wasn't labeled' you still have too say 'No'.

Grow a pair, you made a mistake own it, you fuel the fire of distrust and lack of respect by not just saying, "Yes, we missed that one, sorry". The coincidental fact that it is the most misleading and provocative image for you to "unintentionally copy and paste" can only add to the quite lamentable feint praise with which you are so adept at.

Nope. We made no mistake. The original caption was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

We amended it to clarify that we referred to previous camera performance because YOU SAID YOU COULDN'T READ THE TEXT AROUND THE ORIGINAL IMAGE that stated that the new camera addressed these issues.

You know what? I've now removed my amendment. It's back to the original caption.

Which was correct to begin with, considering you actually read what we wrote.

Are you happy now?

How could I be happy? How could you be?

So you, a journalist, freely admit

an oversight due to the fact that that rollover was copied from another article

now rescind that because you are in a temper and have decided that it wasn't an 'oversight'?

You are pathetic.

Oh, another Rishi made up bullshit straw man. When did I say "YOU SAID YOU COULDN'T READ THE TEXT AROUND THE ORIGINAL IMAGE"? Never, you made that up.

You are pathetic.

 

[K-amps]

[You are pathetic.

We have to resort to name calling now guys? Seriously...! Grow-up all of you.

 

[privatebydesign]

[You are pathetic.

We have to resort to name calling now guys? Seriously...! Grow-up all of you.

So what would you call it when a mistake is pointed out to somebody, they halfheartedly admit it and make a correction, then in a fit of pique decide to reinstate that "oversight"? What if that person is a journalist? Was it an oversight or wasn't it? If it was the correction should stand, if it wasn't the lack of detail in the caption is deliberately misleading. What else can you call that kind of behavior?

What else can you call somebody who just throws up untruths and lies as straw man arguments? What if that person is a journalist?

Now I have no problem calling FOX "News" an entertainment channel, I have no issue with calling Ken Rockwell entertainment. But the likes of DXO and DPReview promote themselves as authoritative and unbiased, what do we call them when they prove they are not?

How about this? "Rishi isn't pathetic nor a journalist, he is an entertainer."

 

[rishi_sanyal]

But you have added to the captions, why did you feel the need to do that if you were comfortable with the way you presented your piece previously.

No, I only added 'Canon 5D Mark III' to one rollover, an oversight due to the fact that that rollover was copied from another article on read noise where we purposefully left brands/cameras out of the discussion. After someone pointed it out here (in a very rude manner, no less), I agreed it best to clarify right in the caption (since I guess some weren't reading the text around it that clearly indicated the 5D IV's improvements addressed such issues).

No other captions were changed. I am very comfortable with the way the piece was originally presented, which is pretty much the same way it's presented now.

I complained about one caption.

....... All the images are from a 5D MkIII and the example of lack of DR, ............ isn't even clearly labeled, so it deliberately gives the false impression it is from the new camera.

You changed it.

You then said "No", but then, to paraphrase, "I only changed that one you complained about and said wasn't clearly labeled. But only because we made a mistake and it wasn't clearly labeled".

That is why people have such contempt and distrust for politicians and the media. Even when the answer is 'Yes I did change that one you said wasn't labeled' you still have too say 'No'.

Grow a pair, you made a mistake own it, you fuel the fire of distrust and lack of respect by not just saying, "Yes, we missed that one, sorry". The coincidental fact that it is the most misleading and provocative image for you to "unintentionally copy and paste" can only add to the quite lamentable feint praise with which you are so adept at.

Nope. We made no mistake. The original caption was ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

We amended it to clarify that we referred to previous camera performance because YOU SAID YOU COULDN'T READ THE TEXT AROUND THE ORIGINAL IMAGE that stated that the new camera addressed these issues.

You know what? I've now removed my amendment. It's back to the original caption.

Which was correct to begin with, considering you actually read what we wrote.

Are you happy now?

How could I be happy? How could you be?

So you, a journalist, freely admit

an oversight due to the fact that that rollover was copied from another article

now rescind that because you are in a temper and have decided that it wasn't an 'oversight'?

You are pathetic.

Oh, another Rishi made up bullS___ straw man. When did I say "YOU SAID YOU COULDN'T READ THE TEXT AROUND THE ORIGINAL IMAGE"? Never, you made that up.

You are pathetic.

It was never an oversight if you read what we wrote. Out of kindness to your concerns, I accounted for the fact that there may be readers who have difficulty reading the text on a page.

But your ad hominem attack that followed makes me re-consider my kindness, so I've now just reverted to the original text.

Which expects that people actually read our full-text, which isn't exactly an unreasonable request, now, is it? In fact, I've chosen to now revert to the original wording because I'm determined that if you actually want to engage in a fruitful conversation regarding our thoughts and findings, you should actually read what we wrote.

I'm hoping that isn't an unreasonable request.
-Rishi

 

[privatebydesign]

It was never an oversight if you read what we wrote. Out of kindness to your concerns, I accounted for the fact that there may be readers who have difficulty reading the text on a page.

But your ad hominem attack that followed makes me re-consider my kindness, so I've now just reverted to the original text.

Which expects that people actually read our full-text, which isn't exactly an unreasonable request, now, is it? In fact, I've chosen to now revert to the original wording because I'm determined that if you actually want to engage in a fruitful conversation regarding our thoughts and findings, you should actually read what we wrote.

I'm hoping that isn't an unreasonable request.
-Rishi

You are the one who said it was an oversight, not me. Now you say it wasn't an oversight.

So tell me, are you going to build a wall or not?

Now if your level of journalism has debased itself to where you are happy to reinstate a misleading caption then all power to you, you make for great entertainment but subsequently have lost any credibility as a journalist.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

[You are pathetic.

We have to resort to name calling now guys? Seriously...! Grow-up all of you.

So what would you call it when a mistake is pointed out to somebody, they halfheartedly admit it and make a correction, then in a fit of pique decide to reinstate that "oversight"? What if that person is a journalist? Was it an oversight or wasn't it? If it was the correction should stand, if it wasn't the lack of detail in the caption is deliberately misleading. What else can you call that kind of behavior?

What else can you call somebody who just throws up untruths and lies as straw man arguments? What if that person is a journalist?

Now I have no problem calling FOX "News" an entertainment channel, I have no issue with calling Ken Rockwell entertainment. But the likes of DXO and DPReview promote themselves as authoritative and unbiased, what do we call them when they prove they are not?

How about this? "Rishi isn't pathetic nor a journalist, he is an entertainer."

Here's the thing though: there was no mistake whatsoever to begin with.

The original caption was absolutely correct. The text stated that the 5D III couldn't deal with such a scenario, while the 5D IV would.

So we were always correct. You wanted me to add text to the caption because you felt people might not read the actual text.

I tried to help you out, which you then construed as admission that we were always wrong to begin with.

Which makes me simply undo all our kindness and consideration.

Make sense? You now want journalists to try and optimize for the use-case where their readers don't actually READ what they write?

I can't help you there.

 

[privatebydesign]

[You are pathetic.

We have to resort to name calling now guys? Seriously...! Grow-up all of you.

So what would you call it when a mistake is pointed out to somebody, they halfheartedly admit it and make a correction, then in a fit of pique decide to reinstate that "oversight"? What if that person is a journalist? Was it an oversight or wasn't it? If it was the correction should stand, if it wasn't the lack of detail in the caption is deliberately misleading. What else can you call that kind of behavior?

What else can you call somebody who just throws up untruths and lies as straw man arguments? What if that person is a journalist?

Now I have no problem calling FOX "News" an entertainment channel, I have no issue with calling Ken Rockwell entertainment. But the likes of DXO and DPReview promote themselves as authoritative and unbiased, what do we call them when they prove they are not?

How about this? "Rishi isn't pathetic nor a journalist, he is an entertainer."

Here's the thing though: there was no mistake whatsoever to begin with.

The original caption was absolutely correct. The text stated that the 5D III couldn't deal with such a scenario, while the 5D IV would.

So we were always correct. You wanted me to amend the text because you felt people might misread that if they, you know, didn't actually read.

I tried to help you out, which you then construed as admission that we were always wrong to begin with.

Which makes me simply undo all our kindness and consideration.

Make sense?

The TEXT stated, not the CAPTION. As an ex journalist you should know the difference and the importance of them both.

I thought the caption was misleading, you agreed, now you don't. I have taken one position, you have taken two, you must be wrong on at least one level.

But it is entertaining ;D

 

[rishi_sanyal]

It was never an oversight if you read what we wrote. Out of kindness to your concerns, I accounted for the fact that there may be readers who have difficulty reading the text on a page.

But your ad hominem attack that followed makes me re-consider my kindness, so I've now just reverted to the original text.

Which expects that people actually read our full-text, which isn't exactly an unreasonable request, now, is it? In fact, I've chosen to now revert to the original wording because I'm determined that if you actually want to engage in a fruitful conversation regarding our thoughts and findings, you should actually read what we wrote.

I'm hoping that isn't an unreasonable request.
-Rishi

You are the one who said it was an oversight, not me. Now you say it wasn't an oversight.

So tell me, are you going to build a wall or not?

Now if your level of journalism has debased itself to where you are happy to reinstate a misleading caption then all power to you, you make for great entertainment but subsequently have lost any credibility as a journalist.

That's correct, it wasn't an oversight if you read our actual text. Is that too much to expect? That people read what we wrote?

I tried to help you out by labeling the caption in case people didn't read the actual text in our actual page. I now realize that was a mistake on my part, because you use it as evidence that we were wrong to begin with.

You should take a hard look at yourself.

Unbelievable.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

[You are pathetic.

We have to resort to name calling now guys? Seriously...! Grow-up all of you.

So what would you call it when a mistake is pointed out to somebody, they halfheartedly admit it and make a correction, then in a fit of pique decide to reinstate that "oversight"? What if that person is a journalist? Was it an oversight or wasn't it? If it was the correction should stand, if it wasn't the lack of detail in the caption is deliberately misleading. What else can you call that kind of behavior?

What else can you call somebody who just throws up untruths and lies as straw man arguments? What if that person is a journalist?

Now I have no problem calling FOX "News" an entertainment channel, I have no issue with calling Ken Rockwell entertainment. But the likes of DXO and DPReview promote themselves as authoritative and unbiased, what do we call them when they prove they are not?

How about this? "Rishi isn't pathetic nor a journalist, he is an entertainer."

Here's the thing though: there was no mistake whatsoever to begin with.

The original caption was absolutely correct. The text stated that the 5D III couldn't deal with such a scenario, while the 5D IV would.

So we were always correct. You wanted me to amend the text because you felt people might misread that if they, you know, didn't actually read.

I tried to help you out, which you then construed as admission that we were always wrong to begin with.

Which makes me simply undo all our kindness and consideration.

Make sense?

The TEXT, not the CAPTION. As an ex journalist you should know the difference and the importance of them both.

I thought the caption was misleading, you agreed, now you don't. I have taken one position, you have taken two, you must be wrong on at least one level.

But it is entertaining ;D

And the caption was NEVER MISLEADING, was it? It was always correct to begin with, as it is now.

I never agreed; I tried to take your criticism on board and listen to your concerns and understand your side and try to perhaps cater to it.

But your side is clearly trolling, which is why I'm undoing my listening to begin with, for the sake of our own journalistic integrity.

My apologies to the general public for even considering your trolling perspective for a moment's weakness.

 

[privatebydesign]

It was never an oversight if you read what we wrote. Out of kindness to your concerns, I accounted for the fact that there may be readers who have difficulty reading the text on a page.

But your ad hominem attack that followed makes me re-consider my kindness, so I've now just reverted to the original text.

Which expects that people actually read our full-text, which isn't exactly an unreasonable request, now, is it? In fact, I've chosen to now revert to the original wording because I'm determined that if you actually want to engage in a fruitful conversation regarding our thoughts and findings, you should actually read what we wrote.

I'm hoping that isn't an unreasonable request.
-Rishi

You are the one who said it was an oversight, not me. Now you say it wasn't an oversight.

So tell me, are you going to build a wall or not?

Now if your level of journalism has debased itself to where you are happy to reinstate a misleading caption then all power to you, you make for great entertainment but subsequently have lost any credibility as a journalist.

That's correct, it wasn't an oversight if you read our actual text. Is that too much to expect? That people read what we wrote?

I tried to help you out by labeling the caption in case people didn't read the actual text in our actual page. I now realize that was a mistake on my part, because you use it as evidence that we were wrong to begin with.

You should take a hard look at yourself.

Unbelievable.

After I have I will FedEx you the mirror.

I have taken one position, you have changed yours.

Now if, as an ex journalist, you don't think it is misleading to not include the camera model in an image CAPTION when that camera model is not the one being previewed then I understand how effortless your transition was from journalist to entertainer.

If you don't see the irony when every other image in the article had the camera model in the CAPTION, then well done, you will be a star, if not in entertainment consider politics.

Keep up the good work, the hits are racking up

 

[privatebydesign]

[You are pathetic.

We have to resort to name calling now guys? Seriously...! Grow-up all of you.

So what would you call it when a mistake is pointed out to somebody, they halfheartedly admit it and make a correction, then in a fit of pique decide to reinstate that "oversight"? What if that person is a journalist? Was it an oversight or wasn't it? If it was the correction should stand, if it wasn't the lack of detail in the caption is deliberately misleading. What else can you call that kind of behavior?

What else can you call somebody who just throws up untruths and lies as straw man arguments? What if that person is a journalist?

Now I have no problem calling FOX "News" an entertainment channel, I have no issue with calling Ken Rockwell entertainment. But the likes of DXO and DPReview promote themselves as authoritative and unbiased, what do we call them when they prove they are not?

How about this? "Rishi isn't pathetic nor a journalist, he is an entertainer."

Here's the thing though: there was no mistake whatsoever to begin with.

The original caption was absolutely correct. The text stated that the 5D III couldn't deal with such a scenario, while the 5D IV would.

So we were always correct. You wanted me to amend the text because you felt people might misread that if they, you know, didn't actually read.

I tried to help you out, which you then construed as admission that we were always wrong to begin with.

Which makes me simply undo all our kindness and consideration.

Make sense?

The TEXT, not the CAPTION. As an ex journalist you should know the difference and the importance of them both.

I thought the caption was misleading, you agreed, now you don't. I have taken one position, you have taken two, you must be wrong on at least one level.

But it is entertaining ;D

And the caption was NEVER MISLEADING, was it? It was always correct to begin with, as it is now.

I never agreed; I tried to take your criticism on board and listen to your concerns and understand your side. But your side is clearly trolling, which is why I'm undoing my listening to begin with.

If the CAPTION isn't misleading then why did every other image contain the camera and lens information? If that didn't impart anything why did you repeatedly include it?

Because basic rules of journalism dictate that you do. Obviously you are excused from such rigors now you have made your effortless transition to entertainer.

 

[Loswr]

You continue to argue with yourself in circles. The metering sensor is absolutely used to initially detect faces, and yet you sit here trying to argue only the PDAF system is first used to detect and track the original subject.

Well, I was going to suggest that you demand your money back from the two Ivy League schools that awarded you degrees in spite of an apparent lack of reading comprehension ability...but then I thought about what you wrote, and it's apparent that you comprehend quite well, but you are unable to admit that you're wrong.

It's actually quite clever, your first statement above is technically correct, but adroitly side-steps the main point under discussion, superficially appearing to respond to a specific point while actually being completely tangential. Seems you're a master of the red herring...not a skill one should be proud of, I think, unless you're the villain in one of Arthur Conan Doyle's novels. But then, your second statement blatantly misrepresents what I've said...again, almost certainly intentional on your part.

"The metering sensor is absolutely used to initially detect faces," yes that's true. Of course, I never claimed otherwise...that's you, dragging a red herring across the trail. At issue is not the initial detection of faces, but rather the initial automatic selection of an AF point when focusing is initiated. That function is performed by the PDAF system alone, and it generally selects the AF point covering the nearest subject. After the AF point is selected by the PDAF system, that location is handed off to the metering system, which detects faces. So, while you're correct that the metering system initially detects faces, it does so only after the PDAF system alone selects an AF point to localize the face detection.

"...yet you sit here trying to argue only the PDAF system is first used to detect and track the original subject," no, that's not what I argued; 'detect' yes, but 'track' is you blatantly misrepresenting my statements. I stated that in automatic AF point selection, the PDAF system is first used to select the AF point – or if you prefer, to detect location of the subject. The metering system is not involved in that step. Once the AF point is selected, the metering system identifies faces/shapes/colors and performs tracking, guiding the AF system in which points to activate to track the moving subject.

You have no clue how the actual system works, yet you try to convince unsuspecting bystanders here that you know what you're talking about.

Rishi, where in all of this is your evidence that you have any clue how the actual system works? Throughout my posts, I am quoting direct statements by Canon, which they published for the purpose of educating their users. You seem to be relying on your own (mis)understanding of how the iTR system works, whereas I am relying on public statements by the company which developed the system. Are you saying that Rudy Winston, a technical representative for Canon, is wrong about how iTR works? Why should anyone – me or 'unsuspecting bystanders' – believe that you know more than Canon about how iTR works?

I see that I don't even need to refute you when your own community recognizes you for you who you are.

What is apparent is that you are unable to refute my arguments from a techincal standpoint, because they're not my arguments per se, but rather my restatement (and direct quotation) of information from Canon themselves on how the iTR system functions.

So, because you cannot refute my arguments, and you are unable to simply admit your mistake, you're planning to take your marbles and go home.

 

[privatebydesign]

[You are pathetic.

We have to resort to name calling now guys? Seriously...! Grow-up all of you.

Name calling is all too common among certain individuals - and they make out like they're the responsible folks that "are smarter." You would think that being intelligent people would know how to be mature, alas this is apparently not so. Sad, isn't it?

I'm sorry, what is intrinsically wrong with calling somebody something entirely appropriate?

'Pathetic' is to be so weak as to elicit sympathy. 'Rishi's journalistic skills are so pathetic I feel sorry for him', why is it wrong for me to say that? Why do you take it as an insult?

 

[privatebydesign]

...
I have taken one position, you have changed yours.

To use your term, rishi tried to build a bridge but after rishi had done that, you didn't like it, so rishi scrapped the bridge.

Maybe if you focused on producing a better outcome rather than just being right, things would be better.

I wasn't claiming right or wrong from the outset. I said the caption was misleading and added weight to the suggestions of bias, he agreed and changed it stating that it had been an oversight. Now he decides to throw his toys out his pram and change it back, yet I am the one in the wrong?

Dilbert, I'm not surprised you take Rishi's side in this, you have both shown an extreme aversion to corrections or contradictory facts. You often paint yourself into a corner even when shown undeniable factual contradictions to your position, but then we have all considered you entertainment for a long time

 

[privatebydesign]

...
I'm sorry, what is intrinsically wrong with calling somebody something entirely appropriate?

'Pathetic' is to be so weak as to elicit sympathy. 'Rishi's journalistic skills are so pathetic I feel sorry for him', why is it wrong for me to say that? Why do you take it as an insult?

The phrase "Rishi's journalistic skills are so pathetic ..." is quite different from "Rishi is pathetic."

It was an oversight because I copied it. Oh, no it wasn't an oversight they are both factually correct you should read my entire article. I included a fuller description in the text..........

Why is the latter wrong? Because name calling doesn't reflect well on the person that is doing the name calling as it doesn't provide any evidence of complex thought.

But if it is factually correct it isn''t "name calling" is it? His posts are so weak I feel sorry for him, ergo, he is pathetic. I have outlined various issues with his posts to provide evidence of complex thought, the very short quote you post is but a summary.

 

[privatebydesign]

...
I wasn't claiming right or wrong from the outset. I said the caption was misleading and added weight to the suggestions of bias, he agreed and changed it stating that it had been an oversight. Now he decides to throw his toys out his pram and change it back, yet I am the one in the wrong?

When I read the conversation, I see nothing from you saying along the lines of "Thanks for making the change." I would have done the same as Rishi. He's tried to accommodate you and work with you on making it better and you're having a go at him for doing so? (i.e. you attempt to use the fact that he made a change to be evidence that it was wrong in the first place.)

Dilbert, I'm not surprised you take Rishi's side in this, you have both shown an extreme aversion to corrections or contradictory facts. You often paint yourself into a corner even when shown undeniable factual contradictions to your position, but then we have all considered you entertainment for a long time

Like I said, nobody wants to be wrong (or admit to it) - and that includes you

You are holding us to the same standards, that is wrong for a start.

Rishi is supposed to be an unbiased journalist imparting fair and balanced information and as such is held to a standard, I am a nobody off the internet with a fake ID. I work for myself and only answer to my personal clients, he is employed as a journalist and is given amazing access to all kinds of stuff and given a wide reaching and broad audience who are supposed to be able to trust to his fairness. See the difference?

Did Rishi thank me for pointing out his oversight? No.

Why should I thank him because he made a correction to a portion of his work that made him look bad?

He isn't accommodating me, I just pointed out he was misleading his readers. A situation he has decided to revert to. Yet you think I should thank him?

I didn't say he was wrong in the first place, I said the caption was misleading. He agreed. Now he doesn't. If he has taken both positions he must have been wrong about one of them.

Of course I don't like to be wrong, I hate the thought of giving people bad or incorrect information. But if you look through my posting history on the rare occasion I offer a factual position and it turns out to be wrong I am quick to acknowledge it. I used to have a set of links illustrating that willingness to apologize and correct my mistakes but it, and half the posts, seems to have been lost.

 

[privatebydesign]

...
But if it is factually correct it isn''t "name calling" is it? His posts are so weak I feel sorry for him, ergo, he is pathetic. ...

If a girl sleeps with a different guy every night, some might argue that she is a "sl*t" and some might argue that the facts support that however to call said girl a "sl*t" is still an insult. If you see an an African-American in the streets of new york and call him a "black fella" because he has very dark skin (so it is factually true), you're insulting him and quite possibly being racist. In this case, Rishi is the professional journalist, not you, and has been at dpreview for some time. If Rishi was pathetic as you claim then likely dpreview would have let RIshi go. But most importantly, your claim to RIshi being pathetic is based on your opinion of Rishi as a result of articles on dpreview and messages written here - you have no insight as to who Rishi is as a person. Being factual or correct based on the facts you choose is not an excuse for being rude and disrespectful.

I have explained my position and I have provided evidence of complex thought. That your sensibilities are upset by the word I used to describe my feelings isn't my fault. I believe it was a fair and accurate use of the word and is not overtly derogatory but an accurate descriptor in this case.

As for DPReview's opinion of Rishi, I wouldn't claim to have any knowledge of that whatsoever. However as DPReview are owned by "the worlds leading online retailer" I suspect entertainment that leads to sales would be prioritized over objective and honest journalism that doesn't. Read DPReview and you be the judge.

 

[Larsskv]

I'm a single point AF-C, back button focus user. Sometimes 3D tracking.

Seems like I should stick with Nikon for continuous AF.

Definitely, because if you believe DPR, Nikon's AF-C has the uncanny ability to find and lock onto a subject and never ever let go even if the subject is moving at warp speed, and you can underexpose by 5 stops for a faster shutter speed and push the images in post with no penalty*, whereas Canon has AI Servo tracking and sometimes you might get lucky if you're using the right kind of lens.

*Does not apply to Nikon's flagship D5, but that's okay because using fast shutter speeds isn't really important to that camera's user base, so shhhhhh, don't mention the banding!

Eehhh ... I must be doing something wrong ... Because on both the 5DSR and 1DX-II, the tracking seems to be working quite well ... Maybe I should check if some calibration thing is off :

I think Eldar makes a very strong point here. I just dont care about DPR opinions anymore, as I dont agree with what they emphasize as important, and not. A major problem, is that they criticize features that work perfectly well in the hands of those who knows their camera. If the "old fashion" AF system delivers the results you want, why should the photographer care if other camera manufacturers has alternative AF-solutions that work better than the similar one, but that you dont use in the Canon camera? It is the results that the photographer can produce that matter.

I have no issues with pointing out that Nikon 3D-tracking is superior to Canon iTR tracking, but the importance of this feature seems very overrated, as the none iTR-tracking works very well for a large crowd of happy 5DIII/1DX users.

Further, I really think DPR fail in order to grasp, and bring out the essence of Canon; their DSLRs does everything very well without much compromise, is very user friendly, and reliable. Canons dont have silly issues such as overheating, hang ups and other bugs. When I read DPR reviews of Sony, they point out many weak points, which Rishi can refer to when claiming his unbiasedness. In my opinion, many of the weak points would be deal breakers, but not for DPR; despite those issues, they still end up praising it like the lord himself, and rate the cameras accordingly. It seems like the Sonys in particular, are rated for what they do better than Canon, but are not punished in the overall score for the MANY things they do worse.

I messed up the quotes, but I´m quoting Rishi.

[/quote]
Canons do *not* do everything well as you suggest. No camera does.
[/quote]

Please dont twist my words, I didn´t claim best or class leading. The point is, you can bring a Canon DSLR to almost every situation and get good results, in both stills or video, action or dim light, birds in flight with teleconverters, and so on. And that is even before talking about the broad lens collection. You cannot make that claim with many of its competitors.

[/quote]
We also don't have a made-up scoring system. It's rigid. You just may not agree with its weightings, and you may also not agree with what aspects of AF are important.
[/quote]

To me, DPR scoring system is as mystical as DXO´s. Please tell me how heating up in intended use, or sudden 20 second hang ups when using a Sony camera affects the score...

[/quote]
We have to capture all that. It's not easy, but at some point we have to make a choice, and 'good enough for those who aren't aware of other methods that could aid their photography' happens to not be our standard.
[/quote]

So, what is the choice you make? You prefer mirrorless focusing and eye af, and trusting the camera to choose where to focus. I prefer manual control, so that I decide where to focus.

[/quote]
Just try and remember that your perspective isn't always the only perspective (and I know you know this). We try our best to synthesize multiple perspective across multiple brands in our assessment, and I'm aware of the philosophical differences here, but please try and understand why we choose our philosophy.
[/quote]

I believe that is the essence of what I said. Since I generally disagree with how DPR rates different features, I dont care about DPR opinions.