DPreview First impression review 5D IV

[Don Haines]

How am I not using it perfectly?

I'm sorry, but NOBODY uses a complex AF system perfectly. If we could, we would have a 100 percent keeper rate... There are too many variables to cover. Did I have the mode right? Did I select the optimum AF point? Did I select the proper case? Was tracking sensitivity set to the optimum value? Was accel/decel tracking set to the optimum value? Was AF point switching set to the optimum value? Was my holding technique perfect, did I move the camera smoothly enough.... There are five menus of settings to go through and nobody is going to get them right every time, particularly as subject behavior, lighting conditions, and our muscle control change over time. And to further confuse things, sometimes the right thing to do is to turn it off and go manual......
...

And people say that the review comments of the 5DIV are misleading or obtuse...

you have a predictive algorithm in a camera...
You have a multitude of input settings on the camera...
you have movement (often unpredictable) of the subject....
you have (often) movement and vibration of the camera....
you may or may not have confusing items also in the frame....
you have a wide range of lighting conditions....
you have a wide selection of lenses and focal lengths....

The outcome of this system is non-deterministic. Success is measured in percentages, not absolutes. To expect perfection is to set one's self up for a continuous stream of disappointment.

Short of bugs, they're pretty damn close to perfect. With few exceptions, these things do exactly what the user tells them to.

To your point, there are countless ways to tell it what to do, and expecting the perfectly instruct the system every time is unrealistic.

true, and the human holding the camera makes a big difference....

For example, Rishi might hold the camera a lot steadier than I do, so the proper settings for me might be to bump up the "random motion" a notch or two.... And Neuro might be so good at panning smoothly that a particular mode works for him, but for me it is a disaster....

In the end, it becomes "what works for you"

 

[romanr74]

wow, are the baby girls finally done?

 

[GuyF]

Thank you. I knew there was something I wasn't doing correctly.

Now you'll have to change your name to "focused"! ;D

 

[Loswr]

Even worse, your claim that we now love shooting in Auto Area modes and that's what we care about...

What on earth??

What on earth, indeed. Please, Rishi...quote where I claimed anything of the sort. You can't, because I haven't.

In this very thread, you've suggested that I think that you should use Auto, on a camera that at least does Auto well... and have led others to believe that we now factor Auto Area AF performance heavily into our scoring. But I'm sure you'll just shrug that off and say 'well I can't be responsible for what people read into what I write or suggest'.

No, Rishi... In this very thread, I have not suggested that, nor even mentioned DPR's scoring, much less criticized it. As I implied above ('conflation of my comments with those of other members), you seem to be confusing Larsskv's comments with mine. So, whether I am responsible for what others read into comments is irrelevant in this case, because I made no such remarks. However, everyone is responsible for their own words as written, and your words are a flat out lie. You'll probably just shrug that off and say 'well I can't be responsible for checking my facts before I write something'...but you are, particularly after insisting that providing accurate information is what gets you out of bed in the morning.

Finally, this is your response to my very clear experiment that proves you're completely wrong about how auto area selection with iTR works?

So you ignore my pointed question for quite some time, then you demand that I respond to you immediately, before I have a chance to test out your 'very clear experiment'? Who's on their high horse, now? :

It's a good suggestion, and I'll get around to trying it when time permits.

And you still have no response to the fact that how the Canon auto area mode behaves has no bearing on our reporting on its actual behavior, and how useful it was or wasn't to our shooting scenario? Rendering your entire criticism not just wrong, but also useless and irrelevant?

All the while misleading readers as to how iTR actually works?

As I said, your experiment is a good suggestion, but suggestions aren't data. The bearing that how the mode behaves has is, if it's behaving as designed but not as you expect, you don't blame the camera – the problem is your expectations. Obviously, you can – and should – express a desire that it should be better than it is. But a camera performing as the manufacturer says it will is, by definition, not 'confused'.


In any case, this is all essentially moot. Your bias is evident in the tone of DPR's reviews, which changed noticeably after you joined. Your lack of integrity is evident in your blatant misattribution of statements to me. In my career, I have on occasion been required to deal with biased, dishonest individuals...on my own time, I am not. I hope you take to heart some of the suggestions offered by others here, for the benefit of what could become an unbiased resource for photographers.

 

[3kramd5]

...
You have a multitude of input settings on the camera...
...

It would seem that it is this, more than anything else, that is the source of blame here.

Which of course was his point.

 

[ritholtz]

In any case, this is all essentially moot. Your bias is evident in the tone of DPR's reviews, which changed noticeably after you joined. Your lack of integrity is evident in your blatant misattribution of statements to me. In my career, I have on occasion been required to deal with biased, dishonest individuals...on my own time, I am not. I hope you take to heart some of the suggestions offered by others here, for the benefit of what could become an unbiased resource for photographers.

I still don't understand why DPR produced test cases (5DSR review and 7D2 review) to prove that low ISO DR is a problem for lot of users not just landscape users. Then in D5 review, they declared same level of low ISO DR is not a problem for any kid of users except hardcore landscape users. Then they feel offended when someone says they are biased. Is it wrong thing to say, DPR is biased.

 

[privatebydesign]

In any case, this is all essentially moot. Your bias is evident in the tone of DPR's reviews, which changed noticeably after you joined. Your lack of integrity is evident in your blatant misattribution of statements to me. In my career, I have on occasion been required to deal with biased, dishonest individuals...on my own time, I am not. I hope you take to heart some of the suggestions offered by others here, for the benefit of what could become an unbiased resource for photographers.

I still don't understand why DPR produced test cases (5DSR review and 7D2 review) to prove that low ISO DR is a problem for lot of users not just landscape users. Then in D5 review, they declared same level of low ISO DR is not a problem for any kid of users except hardcore landscape users. Then they feel offended when someone says they are biased. Is it wrong thing to say, DPR is biased.

Yes DPR is biased and unless we stand up and illustrate that fact whatever they say will be taken at face value.

The 5DSR practical DR example is so dishonest it is beyond words and despite many polite requests, and many not so polite ones, Rishi has refused to show us the RAW file.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/12

This image is extremely dishonest.

 

[Jack Douglas]

In any case, this is all essentially moot. Your bias is evident in the tone of DPR's reviews, which changed noticeably after you joined. Your lack of integrity is evident in your blatant misattribution of statements to me. In my career, I have on occasion been required to deal with biased, dishonest individuals...on my own time, I am not. I hope you take to heart some of the suggestions offered by others here, for the benefit of what could become an unbiased resource for photographers.

I still don't understand why DPR produced test cases (5DSR review and 7D2 review) to prove that low ISO DR is a problem for lot of users not just landscape users. Then in D5 review, they declared same level of low ISO DR is not a problem for any kid of users except hardcore landscape users. Then they feel offended when someone says they are biased. Is it wrong thing to say, DPR is biased.

We're all biased ... well except perhaps Rishi. Just joking - even cloth has a bias. If you claim to be neutral then bias is a dirty word.

It might be better if a reviewer were to say we're biased but we try to be as objective as we can.

I honestly believe Rishi is trying his best but is frustrated by the fact that there are nuances in the way he presents his opinions and observations that people pick up on and object to and he gets in trouble trying to defend them (his major point might be correct, but the interaction exposes shortcomings).

It's not unlike the situation of the clerk who has to say the customer is right in order to keep customers returning and buying. I'm not one to judge if he has been right or wrong what percentage of the time when accused but he does himself no favor by engaging the heavyweights. I think the time has come to cut him a little more slack, though.

Can you imagine how tough it is to do his job perfectly well? I surely couldn't do it.

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

It's like this: If I stand up and say I'm perfect I'll get stoned. If I stand up and say I'm imperfect but try my best, I'll get praised. Isn't that an amazing concept! Humans are generally pretty compassionate, even those within CR.

I joined the party late so have been unaware of some of the previous bias issues. Sounds to me like Rishi dug himself into a hole by the flavor of some of the posts.

All I can say is that since joining CR I have been encouraged and helped by all the longstanding members including neuro. Sometimes threads go negative but that's usually provoked by idiotic statements. CR is not the best place to make idiotic (or overly emphatic incorrect) statements.

Jack

 

[Ph0t0]

Mr Rishi Sanyal,
I don't know if you saw my last post. It probably got lost among other posts in this heated debate.
Anyway.. I do a lot of night photography and I'm really interested how this camera performs at moderately higher ISO settings. Do you care to make any comments about your first impressions? How do you feel it compares to the old 1DX and 6D in terms of image noise when shooting on ISO1600 to ISO6400?

Thanks

 

[JohanCruyff]

After all, this is an interesting thread.
I have benefited from Neuro's expertise and suggestions in this forum so many times that I consider very unlikely that he could/might be wrong. But he could, after all (I'm atheist but I believe in Karl Popper's epistemology). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

The main question (usability of the AF of the 5D4/1DX2) should be tackled in a on field real test: the official DPR expert "against" a non-DPR Canon expert (Neuro himself?): they should use a 1DX2 (or a 5D4) with the same lens, shooting at the same set of subjects (kids, animals, butterflies afflicted by hiccup etc.), using the most appropriate focusing method, and then check their keeper rates.
Then, they should repeat the same test using a Nikon D5/D810 (after having trained the Canon expert on how to make the most of it), on the same subjects.
Otherwise, I suspect we will read other countless replies.

 

[Loswr]

CR is not the best place to make idiotic (or overly emphatic incorrect) statements.

Is ther a good place for that? Besides the political stump, I mean...

 

[AlanF]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways including "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity,"[1][2] or "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding."

Thanks for your explanation of why we should not think your comments are malicious.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

In any case, this is all essentially moot. Your bias is evident in the tone of DPR's reviews, which changed noticeably after you joined. Your lack of integrity is evident in your blatant misattribution of statements to me. In my career, I have on occasion been required to deal with biased, dishonest individuals...on my own time, I am not. I hope you take to heart some of the suggestions offered by others here, for the benefit of what could become an unbiased resource for photographers.

I still don't understand why DPR produced test cases (5DSR review and 7D2 review) to prove that low ISO DR is a problem for lot of users not just landscape users. Then in D5 review, they declared same level of low ISO DR is not a problem for any kid of users except hardcore landscape users. Then they feel offended when someone says they are biased. Is it wrong thing to say, DPR is biased.

Yes DPR is biased and unless we stand up and illustrate that fact whatever they say will be taken at face value.

The 5DSR practical DR example is so dishonest it is beyond words and despite many polite requests, and many not so polite ones, Rishi has refused to show us the RAW file.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/12

This image is extremely dishonest.

In that particular photo, which is very nice, the photographer had compete control over the background light levels and the subject's light levels. It's clear that a key light was used on the subject, the sun has set behind the model...and yet there is a glint in her eye in the opposite direction and the shadow direction is quite harsh and contrasty...so we are probably looking at a gelled flashgun. So...the reason for the noise in the shadow areas...is the photographer's fault for not balancing the exposure difference between the background and the subject correctly...it's not like he didn't have control over it at all? The background is clearly underexposed, if the background needed pulling, then this is the photographer's fault and not the camera. Blaming the camera's dynamic range for a photographer's error or hastiness. Expecting to pull the shadows to hide his mistake. So while it would help in this case, 5 stops shadow pushing...does anyone really want to see the equivalent of 3200 iso noise in their shadows anyhow?

 

[ritholtz]

After all, this is an interesting thread.
I have benefited from Neuro's expertise and suggestions in this forum so many times that I consider very unlikely that he could/might be wrong. But he could, after all (I'm atheist but I believe in Karl Popper's epistemology). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

The main question (usability of the AF of the 5D4/1DX2) should be tackled in a on field real test: the official DPR expert "against" a non-DPR Canon expert (Neuro himself?): they should use a 1DX2 (or a 5D4) with the same lens, shooting at the same set of subjects (kids, animals, butterflies afflicted by hiccup etc.), using the most appropriate focusing method, and then check their keeper rates.
Then, they should repeat the same test using a Nikon D5/D810 (after having trained the Canon expert on how to make the most of it), on the same subjects.
Otherwise, I suspect we will read other countless replies.

Michel used to do these kind of tests. Not sure if he is going to do 1dx2 vs D5 shootout. DPR did similar kind of praise regarding d7100 focusing system. Then they expressed some reservations regarding 70d focusing system. When Michael did shootout between d7100 vs 70d, results are difference. 70d produced more keeper rates compared to d7100 in most situations. That is when I started suspecting DPR focusing tests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOM4r1gxsbs

 

[tron]

In any case, this is all essentially moot. Your bias is evident in the tone of DPR's reviews, which changed noticeably after you joined. Your lack of integrity is evident in your blatant misattribution of statements to me. In my career, I have on occasion been required to deal with biased, dishonest individuals...on my own time, I am not. I hope you take to heart some of the suggestions offered by others here, for the benefit of what could become an unbiased resource for photographers.

I still don't understand why DPR produced test cases (5DSR review and 7D2 review) to prove that low ISO DR is a problem for lot of users not just landscape users. Then in D5 review, they declared same level of low ISO DR is not a problem for any kid of users except hardcore landscape users. Then they feel offended when someone says they are biased. Is it wrong thing to say, DPR is biased.

Yes DPR is biased and unless we stand up and illustrate that fact whatever they say will be taken at face value.

The 5DSR practical DR example is so dishonest it is beyond words and despite many polite requests, and many not so polite ones, Rishi has refused to show us the RAW file.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/12

This image is extremely dishonest.

In that particular photo, which is very nice, the photographer had compete control over the background light levels and the subject's light levels. It's clear that a key light was used on the subject, the sun has set behind the model...and yet there is a glint in her eye in the opposite direction and the shadow direction is quite harsh and contrasty...so we are probably looking at a gelled flashgun. So...the reason for the noise in the shadow areas...is the photographer's fault for not balancing the exposure difference between the background and the subject correctly...it's not like he didn't have control over it at all? The background is clearly underexposed, if the background needed pulling, then this is the photographer's fault and not the camera. Blaming the camera's dynamic range for a photographer's error or hastiness. Expecting to pull the shadows to hide his mistake. So while it would help in this case, 5 stops shadow pushing...does anyone really want to see the equivalent of 3200 iso noise in their shadows anyhow?

How about taking the conversation to - true - almost s_ i _y dpreview forum? That would be interesting although I have not been interested in opeing an account there due to many idiotic (up to malicious) comments.

 

[AlanF]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways including "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity,"[1][2] or "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding."

Thanks for your explanation of why we should not think your comments are malicious.

Nice try, but you'd be stretching the definition of the word to find any of my comments as being malicious.

So you have ruled out "malicious", leaving stupidity?

 

[Sporgon]

In any case, this is all essentially moot. Your bias is evident in the tone of DPR's reviews, which changed noticeably after you joined. Your lack of integrity is evident in your blatant misattribution of statements to me. In my career, I have on occasion been required to deal with biased, dishonest individuals...on my own time, I am not. I hope you take to heart some of the suggestions offered by others here, for the benefit of what could become an unbiased resource for photographers.

I still don't understand why DPR produced test cases (5DSR review and 7D2 review) to prove that low ISO DR is a problem for lot of users not just landscape users. Then in D5 review, they declared same level of low ISO DR is not a problem for any kid of users except hardcore landscape users. Then they feel offended when someone says they are biased. Is it wrong thing to say, DPR is biased.

Yes DPR is biased and unless we stand up and illustrate that fact whatever they say will be taken at face value.

The 5DSR practical DR example is so dishonest it is beyond words and despite many polite requests, and many not so polite ones, Rishi has refused to show us the RAW file.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/12

This image is extremely dishonest.

In that particular photo, which is very nice, the photographer had compete control over the background light levels and the subject's light levels. It's clear that a key light was used on the subject, the sun has set behind the model...and yet there is a glint in her eye in the opposite direction and the shadow direction is quite harsh and contrasty...so we are probably looking at a gelled flashgun. So...the reason for the noise in the shadow areas...is the photographer's fault for not balancing the exposure difference between the background and the subject correctly...it's not like he didn't have control over it at all? The background is clearly underexposed, if the background needed pulling, then this is the photographer's fault and not the camera. Blaming the camera's dynamic range for a photographer's error or hastiness. Expecting to pull the shadows to hide his mistake. So while it would help in this case, 5 stops shadow pushing...does anyone really want to see the equivalent of 3200 iso noise in their shadows anyhow?

How about taking the conversation to - true - almost s_ i _y dpreview forum? That would be interesting although I have not been interested in opeing an account there due to many idiotic (up to malicious) comments.

It would be an exercise in futility

The 5Ds example is a little like the backlit wedding sample taken on the 5DIII in th 5DIV first impressions review: "it's what the camera set and I can't satisfactorily make it right in post". Ero the camera is inferior to one which can screw up the exposure and fix it in post. For some that might be the correct conclusion, but there is never any mention of the scenario where you, the photographer set the exposure input ( including EC) to optimise the exposure for that shot, and what the difference between makes would be then. But of course that's no fun because the answer would then be "naff all".

 

[tron]

The way they try to promote Nikon in that specific case tempts me to name it:

"The stupid yet lucky photographer's camera" ;D

 

[Sporgon]

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways including "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity,"[1][2] or "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding."

Thanks for your explanation of why we should not think your comments are malicious.

Nice try, but you'd be stretching the definition of the word to find any of my comments as being malicious.

So you have ruled out "malicious", leaving stupidity?

The quote above is this:

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity,"

since my posts fail attribution to the phrase on the left, it would therefore seem that you can't apply the right.

But the curious might want to ask, are you just looking for an excuse to make indirect personal attacks?

Come on dilbert, take it on the chin. AlanF's post was quote of the month