DPreview First impression review 5D IV

[Jack Douglas]

"But what perplexes me is the anger with which data/opinion we present is vehemently attacked and ascribed to all sorts of malicious intent and incompetence in an effort to discredit."

It bothers any soft hearted person to have attacks taking place period even if there is a basis. It's not the way we should behave, exchanges should be friendly.

Being relatively new here, it seems I missed out on some of the more, it is claimed, obviously biased reviews. Thus I tried to stay clear of harsher criticisms but was able to, for me anyway, see how you sometimes framed things in way that would irk people, and provoke bias accusations. So I said, yes there is bias and I still believe that.

In other words, some of your statements demonstrate a bias but it's minor and I believe it's not something you can perceive in the same way your reader does. To me that's it. It's minor so anyone can just ignore it. To boot you guys put a lot of work into all this and deserve some praise too.

I can't see you gaining much by visiting these threads, though. It seems the D5 may well have slightly better AF, at least in some cases, and ....... that's nice!

Jack

 

[ritholtz]

Why harp at poor Rishi when there is stuff like this out there. This guy is hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_FtiZB9DYQ

Jack

When I first started I used to be a sheep and would believe all the bs that reviewers like this would spew forth. I've found though that it's best to use the gear yourself and find out what you need in a camera. I don't need a high fps camera for 99% of my shooting so someone claiming that a camera is a turd because it doesn't have cfast doesn't translate for me. I love landscape photos and so the dr issues should be a bigger deal to me but they aren't. People turn the most minuscule issues into deal breakers. Even if a certain technology has never been available in the past people act like great photos can't be taken without said technology.

This will be a great camera. I'll probably buy one when the price goes down a bit.

Re: the 'bs that reviewers like this spew forth' and turning 'the most miniscule issues into deal breakers', allow me to quote the conclusion of the motocross piece being referred to throughout this thread as evidence of our incompetence, bias, overexertion on features, etc.:

"Obviously, both the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 are in a league of their own when it comes to professional sports cameras...

In the end, we saw firsthand the advantages of a ridiculous burst rate and practically bottomless buffer while shooting objects that move very, very fast. We saw that the 1D X Mark II shoots at a noticeably higher burst rate than the D5, and that it is able to track subjects noticeably better than other Canon cameras, including the EOS 7D Mark II and original 1D X. However, the Canon still can't match the Nikon's uncanny ability to track objects reliably and accurately as they progress across the frame while also coming toward or moving away from the camera. Regardless, both are impressively capable photographic machines worthy of professional sports photographers."

This is what we actually write (is it unreasonable?). Then we get labeled as being biased/incompetent by people who dislike one aspect of the entire piece where their camera didn't win. Then that's the conversation spread on these forums, which then turns CR readers off from potentially useful info they could've benefitted from. Like unfocused, who wrote: "I am not thrilled with any of the Canon autofocus tracking for sports photography. I'd love to be able to focus on a single player and then have the autofocus continue to track that player as they move through the scene. Maybe there is a way to do that, but I sure can't find it in any of their manuals or online resources." He would've benefited from reading our piece, but was probably told not to, because DPR is a joke, after all, right? Another with the same sort of feeling despite knowing of the manual point selection for Auto area AF might, on the other hand, benefit from knowing that there are cameras that are more reliable in this regard (1D X II over 5D IV, for example, or, yes heaven forbid, D5 over 1D X II).

Yet readers are turned off from this very information because of erroneous claims of bias and incompetence. And that is sad. I know of people who, for example, really did care about DR, yet never knew about the superiority of some cameras in this regard, because was fed erroneous information right here on CR that (1) it doesn't matter, (2) DXO is paid off, and (3) that DPP solves all your DR problems. So he was led to believe there actually weren't any differences, which is patently false. That's the kind of misinformation that was spread for years (probably still is), and it's particularly worrying when it comes from someone that otherwise appears knowledgeable and perfectly capable of logical reasoning. Because that sort of person earns trust, and yet then must be willfully misleading people by disallowing any negative conversations about his favorite brand by balking at, and continually trying to discredit, any source of any negative discourse. I saw the crusades against jrista, with dilbert, etc. - all of whom are, I'm sure, trolls in everyone's book here, right? Is that the truth though? It's a similar story now for AF subject tracking.

What ends up happening is that posts and experiences like Sharlin, who said: "At least with my lowly 80D - and I fully admit I'm a newbie at using complex AF systems - with full 45pt mode the AF just often gets distracted and locks on contrasty background elements when it loses the actual subject for a moment. OTOH with enough subject separation it seems to work pretty well. The Live View Face&Tracking is definitely superior, though, as seems to be the case with the 5D4 as well."

... get buried amidst all the erroneous claims of bias and incompetence. He sees exactly the behavior that we refer to and have been digging into the causes (relying too heavily on phase information vs. metering sensor for subject tracking, and the ramifications on which shooting scenarios this works vs. doesn't work well for). He sees this either because his shooting scenarios highlight these shortcomings, or because he doesn't have blind bias, or some combination thereof. But all he hears here is how he shouldn't listen to us (whether it's us telling readers how to more effectively use their system, or comparing it to other cameras/systems), and that's a missed opportunity for education.

And if you were to just step back and ask: 'who is more likely to be biased: the user of only 1 system, or the multiple users of multiple systems who are required to fundamentally understand principles of AF and then use all camera systems'? As I've said before - we're certainly biased, but toward photography-accelerating technologies, not brands. It's our job to dissect which technologies are better at what use-cases/scenarios, so you can judge how suitable a particular camera/lens/system is to you for your needs. At some point we have to offer our opinions, sure, and we do when it comes to how good/bad performance along any one axis applies to certain use-cases. But we're transparent about why we think so, so you can decide whether to listen to or ignore our findings.

But what perplexes me is the anger with which data/opinion we present is vehemently attacked and ascribed to all sorts of malicious intent and incompetence in an effort to discredit. When further 'discussion' uncovers we actually knew what we were talking about all along, the other side can't publicly admit that, because then they'd look stupid, so they double down. And that's the vicious cycle (I, on the other hand, have very publicly admitted when there was an oversight: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30411.msg611230#msg611230. And, of course when there wasn't).

On Pentax Forums I'm an anti-Pentax Canon fanboy, after the Pentax K-1 review. On Sony forums after the a7 II review, I was labeled a 'hack' scientist for daring to suggest the a7/II's low light Raw noise performance fell to the level of the best APS-C sensors, despite all our controlled lighting/SNR tests proving it. And after the Nikon VR analysis, I was labeled an anti-Nikon Canon fanboy for daring to suggest there were vibration issues with Nikon because, if there were, how could knowledge of it not be more widespread (nevermind a lot of people felt safe 'coming out of the woods' and admitting they'd seen the same issues after we published the article - a reminder that tones of discussions in forums can be stifling to knowledge).

What neuro attributes to anti-Canon bias when I joined is actually us just revamping and modernizing our testing. We didn't actually analyze Raw files before (but when we did, it brought to light just as many issues with Sony files as it did Canon). AF analysis was often restricted to one paragraph; now, we study multiple aspects of it across multiple systems every day - because it is probably the most complex thing about a camera you can test (so I fully appreciate the concerns re: 'how can you test AF objectively?' -- we think about this every day). And not all our tests show Canon to be bad - that would be ludicrous. The 1D X II scored an 89% Gold, Canons nail Z-axis refocusing for steadily approaching subjects almost all the time in our tests, Canon's DPAF *does* nail subject tracking, we have the highest regard and only positive things to say about all of Canon's newest lenses, as well as Canon colors, like the following quote from my 5DS review:

"JPEGs exhibit the pleasing Canon colors we've come to expect, particularly when it comes to skintones. I spend countless hours fiddling with Nikon and Sony Raw colors to get the skintones I desire; compare that to the mere minutes I spent on the model shots on this page."

The words of an anti-Canon Nikon/Sony fanboy? Or just the words of someone who tries very hard to be realistic about positives and shortcomings of every system, just trying to share our observations and test results?

What's particularly funny re: the meat of the discussion here in this thread is that: for all the claims of our emphasis on Auto area selection (which as I understand none of you care about, and neither do we except as a fall-back method), the reality is there are only a couple sentences about the actual auto selection not being very successful (or as successful as the D5) in the motocross shootout scenario, with the real information being that Canon users should probably switch to manual point selection in Auto area.

It wasn't even talked about in the conclusion of that piece. So I'd ask: who is it that's making a big deal of Auto area AF? Us? Or the critics?

For your reference, the piece being referred to: https://www.dpreview.com/news/6990762465/motor-drive-and-motocross-with-the-nikon-d5-and-canon-1d-x-ii

Fair enough. You skipped these forums when D5 review published. You are very critical of 7D2 DR and explained thoroughly importance of DR and ISO invariance. You declared 7D2 DR situation is dire. Similarly with 5DSR and showed example how its DR going to be problem with lot of users other than landscapes.

"Getting an optimal ETTR exposure is difficult and usually only best done via extensive bracketing. Given the difficulty of absolutely nailing an optimal exposure, the flexibility offered by a camera with greater dynamic range cannot be understated for situations such as these: they prove more tolerant of any 'mis-exposure' which, in fact, may not be a 'mis-exposure' at all when you're using the in-camera exposure indicators to judge your exposure with higher dynamic range scenes such as this one."

"Note that the dynamic range advantages of cameras with high base ISO dynamic range can extend to higher ISOs as well, where the 'ISO-invariance' of cameras like the D7000 allows you to purposefully underexpose the image by lowering the levels of ISO amplification. This gives you extra highlight headroom in accordance with the amount of reduction in ISO amplification. The 7D Mark II is not amenable to this type of shooting."

Then down played similar DR situation for D5:

"Either way, in our opinion, we'd try not to over-stress the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important."

"In real world shooting, the D5's dynamic range hasn't been a huge problem. Sure, you'll need to watch your exposure in high contrast scenes more than you would on, say, a D750 or D810 - pushed low ISO Raw files out of the D5 exhibit a lot more shadow noise than those other cameras. But that's taken care of by either sacrificing some highlight detail during your exposure, or with a little bit of luminance noise reduction in post. And if you shoot JPEG and nail your exposure, or routinely in low light, there's even more to like."

Don't you think, you are kinda unintentionally playing to strengths of Nikon in your review by downplaying DR.
Barney justified this by saying, 7d2 is a general purpose camera and D5 is a specialized expensive tool which is fine for target users. When pointed out about how 7D2 is compared with 1dx in your review and your recommendation for Canon users to take a look at 7D2 instead of 1DX, he didn't respond.

 

[Loswr]

Don't you think, you are kinda unintentionally playing to strengths of Nikon in your review by downplaying DR.

Sure, let's go with 'kinda' and 'unintentionally'. :-X

 

[benperrin]

Why harp at poor Rishi when there is stuff like this out there. This guy is hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_FtiZB9DYQ

Jack

When I first started I used to be a sheep and would believe all the bs that reviewers like this would spew forth. I've found though that it's best to use the gear yourself and find out what you need in a camera. I don't need a high fps camera for 99% of my shooting so someone claiming that a camera is a turd because it doesn't have cfast doesn't translate for me. I love landscape photos and so the dr issues should be a bigger deal to me but they aren't. People turn the most minuscule issues into deal breakers. Even if a certain technology has never been available in the past people act like great photos can't be taken without said technology.

This will be a great camera. I'll probably buy one when the price goes down a bit.

Re: the 'bs that reviewers like this spew forth' and turning 'the most miniscule issues into deal breakers', allow me to quote the conclusion of the motocross piece being referred to throughout this thread as evidence of our incompetence, bias, overexertion on features, etc.:

"Obviously, both the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 are in a league of their own when it comes to professional sports cameras...

In the end, we saw firsthand the advantages of a ridiculous burst rate and practically bottomless buffer while shooting objects that move very, very fast. We saw that the 1D X Mark II shoots at a noticeably higher burst rate than the D5, and that it is able to track subjects noticeably better than other Canon cameras, including the EOS 7D Mark II and original 1D X. However, the Canon still can't match the Nikon's uncanny ability to track objects reliably and accurately as they progress across the frame while also coming toward or moving away from the camera. Regardless, both are impressively capable photographic machines worthy of professional sports photographers."

This is what we actually write (is it unreasonable?). Then we get labeled as being biased/incompetent by people who dislike one aspect of the entire piece where their camera didn't win. Then that's the conversation spread on these forums, which then turns CR readers off from potentially useful info they could've benefitted from. Like unfocused, who wrote: "I am not thrilled with any of the Canon autofocus tracking for sports photography. I'd love to be able to focus on a single player and then have the autofocus continue to track that player as they move through the scene. Maybe there is a way to do that, but I sure can't find it in any of their manuals or online resources." He would've benefited from reading our piece, but was probably told not to, because DPR is a joke, after all, right? Another with the same sort of feeling despite knowing of the manual point selection for Auto area AF might, on the other hand, benefit from knowing that there are cameras that are more reliable in this regard (1D X II over 5D IV, for example, or, yes heaven forbid, D5 over 1D X II).

Yet readers are turned off from this very information because of erroneous claims of bias and incompetence. And that is sad. I know of people who, for example, really did care about DR, yet never knew about the superiority of some cameras in this regard, because was fed erroneous information right here on CR that (1) it doesn't matter, (2) DXO is paid off, and (3) that DPP solves all your DR problems. So he was led to believe there actually weren't any differences, which is patently false. That's the kind of misinformation that was spread for years (probably still is), and it's particularly worrying when it comes from someone that otherwise appears knowledgeable and perfectly capable of logical reasoning. Because that sort of person earns trust, and yet then must be willfully misleading people by disallowing any negative conversations about his favorite brand by balking at, and continually trying to discredit, any source of any negative discourse. I saw the crusades against jrista, with dilbert, etc. - all of whom are, I'm sure, trolls in everyone's book here, right? Is that the truth though? It's a similar story now for AF subject tracking.

What ends up happening is that posts and experiences like Sharlin, who said: "At least with my lowly 80D - and I fully admit I'm a newbie at using complex AF systems - with full 45pt mode the AF just often gets distracted and locks on contrasty background elements when it loses the actual subject for a moment. OTOH with enough subject separation it seems to work pretty well. The Live View Face&Tracking is definitely superior, though, as seems to be the case with the 5D4 as well."

... get buried amidst all the erroneous claims of bias and incompetence. He sees exactly the behavior that we refer to and have been digging into the causes (relying too heavily on phase information vs. metering sensor for subject tracking, and the ramifications on which shooting scenarios this works vs. doesn't work well for). He sees this either because his shooting scenarios highlight these shortcomings, or because he doesn't have blind bias, or some combination thereof. But all he hears here is how he shouldn't listen to us (whether it's us telling readers how to more effectively use their system, or comparing it to other cameras/systems), and that's a missed opportunity for education.

Wow. Seriously Rishi you are not doing yourself any favours. I specifically was having a go at the video by Theoria Apophasis. My response even includes a reply with that link in it. I wasn't even having a go at your article. Yes, I think too much emphasis is placed on low iso dynamic range (not that we all wouldn't like a little more). This is something I see dpreview doing but to be fair, others are doing a worse job in that regard. The example 5dsr image posted on the thread is a great example where dynamic range was not the issue but a poorly exposed image was. Then, you've been getting defensive about the focusing. Now to me the 5d2 is mostly adequate for my focusing needs (not for weddings though) so generally I just skip that portion. However, since you brought it up I find it very hard to find credibility in your claims when the test images appear to be shot by an amateur with all sorts of focusing errors occurring. I'm talking about the ones posted here https://www.dpreview.com/samples/0574215952/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-real-world-samples-gallery.

You seem to be confusing who is posting what. I have an a7r2 so I'm not a Canon fanboy. Just posting my honest opinion. I stand by what I said. Technique is more important than having the latest technology and too much blame is placed on current generation cameras and not enough on the skill of the photographer. Yes, it's great that modern cameras are making it easier for newbies to take great pics. However as an owner of an a7r2 I feel that I'm quite familiar with it's shortcomings and the overemphasis of certain areas of performance. I wouldn't sell it but I'd also be just as happy with a 5dsr or a 5d4. Just my opinion. I never had a go at your article, but I never believe everything I read on dpreview (or other websites). There is bias included regardless of what your intentions are. There probably has to be. I take the parts that are important to me and consider those points. The rest is ignored.

 

[Freddell]

Interesting postings. Sometimes the "sound" of the postings is a little bit rude.

In my opinion every magazine and author is biased and has its favourite product. Favourite, because he thinks the product is really good, or his company earns money for writing positive reviews.
If I read DPreview reviews, they are sometimes not Canon friendly. And that for, they are critizised here in this forum - as it is a Canon fan-forum.
And sometimes, such reviews miss some details that are the reason for someone to buy it. (e.g.: I personally will use an Canon 80D or 5DIV, because I like to use the f8-AF with my 600mm & 2x extender. But where in most reviews is this mentioned?)

First paragraph of my 'AF' section in my First Impressions:

"The 24% greater vertical frame coverage of the peripheral points will benefit non-central compositions, and F8 autofocus at all points — with the right lens/teleconverter combinations — will be an asset to birding and wildlife photographers."

Other suboptimal things are not reported or not underrated. Like AF at sports in sony A7 or the heat problem, also the crowded menu.

Our a7R II review and dedicated piece on shooting football with the a7R II essentially said that sports shooters should simply ignore this camera. I don't think it gets more damning than that.

The overheating was listed as a con until it was addressed, at which point we removed it. Re the menu and ergonomics, here's what I wrote directly in the cons of our a7R II review:

• Buttons and dials are either too small, recessed, or mushy
• Inane interactions between menu items lead to poor experience and too many greyed out items
• Buffer is sluggish to clear, making quick image review and focus check difficult

Some more text of what I wrote about Sony menus, again in our full review:

"Sony's full menu system, accessed by pressing the 'Menu' button on the back of the camera, is frankly a disorganized mess. For example, 22 AF options are split across 11 different submenu pages under 2 different main menu headers. The lack of organization is inexplicable, but what makes it even worse is the lack of a customizable 'My Menu', which would at least have allowed user to collate all frequently used menu options under customizable tabs. It's silly that I have to go to the second line of the fifth page of the sixth tab simply to format my memory card, something you might (and should) often do."

I believe that addresses all your points?

-Rishi

Rishi, I would want a camera to focus on the closest subject automatically if possible since to many shots with my Fuji end up with focus on the background.
I also would like spot metering to meter the selected af spot. Not only center.

Admitting that a camera has bad color reproduction, broken auto focus, bad ergonomics then awarding it 90% gold award? It is not that a great camera with such flaws.
If a canon would have such flaws it would be dismissed completely.

I advice you to stop posting here because you are only exposing your bias and ignorance.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Rishi, I'm afraid you can't win. It's a tough row to hoe.

Jack

 

[tpatana]

I advice you to stop posting here because you are only exposing your bias and ignorance.

No, I want him to stay here. For one I don't think he means ill, and also for both us and him it's good to discuss the conclusions and such. He might have missed something during the review and it's good for all if that gets corrected, and other times could be there was something during the shoot that wasn't mentioned on the text and that's why it got misunderstood, again good if he's here to give more details to explain.

So I really hope he keeps talking with us.

 

[Dan Renţea]

No offense Rishi, but what DPReview calls a review I tend to call it just your first impression about a camera or an easy afternoon read. A proper review means that the photographer had spent at least 1-2 months with a camera in order to have some conclusions based on arguments and thousand of photographs taken in various scenarios to back up his statements about af, dynamic range, ISO capabilities, handeling, and so on.

These days most of the reviews are written based on the camera's specs, on some lab tests and based on a day trip in wich you take 400-600 images... I know, you don't have time to spent more time with the cameras you test and I understand the reasons (you have many cameras to test, you have to return the cameras in a short period of time, etc.), but try and be honest, you don't educate anyone with your reviews. In the most optimistic scenarios, after I read your "reviews" I focus a little longer on the things you say are not as good as you expected. Last time I did that was with my friend's Pentax K1. What a bad joke was that part of your review about K1's af. So, saying you educate your readers is amusing, but far from reality. DPReview used to be more credible a few years ago. Now it's just an easy afternoon read.

 

[Deleted member 378221]

No offense Rishi, but what DPReview calls a review I tend to call it just your first impression about a camera or an easy afternoon read. A proper review means that the photographer had spent at least 1-2 months with a camera in order to have some conclusions based on arguments and thousand of photographs taken in various scenarios to back up his statements about af, dynamic range, ISO capabilities, handeling, and so on.

Well, in the Internet age this is just not possible, you don't get a lot of extra points for being 100% right, but you get a lot of points for being faster than the next guy. I would just love to see more honesty. Call the "review" what it is, a preliminary impression from someone who had the camera for a couple of days.
Please don't use titles like "Putting Image Microadjust to the test on the Canon 5D Mark IV" when apparently all you did was try out the feature on two images that do not even meet the guidelines on where this tech is actually supposed to be useful.

Please, just some honesty how you present your articles and findings. Don't want anything else really.

 

[Sharlin]

No offense Rishi, but what DPReview calls a review I tend to call it just your first impression about a camera or an easy afternoon read. A proper review means that the photographer had spent at least 1-2 months with a camera in order to have some conclusions based on arguments and thousand of photographs taken in various scenarios to back up his statements about af, dynamic range, ISO capabilities, handeling, and so on.

I don't think that's really fair. Their "first impression" articles are labeled as exactly that. The full reviews come later, usually published in parts as the parts get written.

 

[JohanCruyff]

On Pentax Forums I'm an anti-Pentax Canon fanboy, after the Pentax K-1 review. On Sony forums after the a7 II review, I was labeled a 'hack' scientist for daring to suggest the a7/II's low light Raw noise performance fell to the level of the best APS-C sensors, despite all our controlled lighting/SNR tests proving it. And after the Nikon VR analysis, I was labeled an anti-Nikon Canon fanboy for daring to suggest there were vibration issues with Nikon because, if there were, how could knowledge of it not be more widespread (nevermind a lot of people felt safe 'coming out of the woods' and admitting they'd seen the same issues after we published the article - a reminder that tones of discussions in forums can be stifling to knowledge).

Then you are worse than evil: you are Satan!

Fair enough. You skipped these forums when D5 review published. You are very critical of 7D2 DR and explained thoroughly importance of DR and ISO invariance. You declared 7D2 DR situation is dire. Similarly with 5DSR and showed example how its DR going to be problem with lot of users other than landscapes.

"Getting an optimal ETTR exposure is difficult and usually only best done via extensive bracketing. Given the difficulty of absolutely nailing an optimal exposure, the flexibility offered by a camera with greater dynamic range cannot be understated for situations such as these: they prove more tolerant of any 'mis-exposure' which, in fact, may not be a 'mis-exposure' at all when you're using the in-camera exposure indicators to judge your exposure with higher dynamic range scenes such as this one."

"Note that the dynamic range advantages of cameras with high base ISO dynamic range can extend to higher ISOs as well, where the 'ISO-invariance' of cameras like the D7000 allows you to purposefully underexpose the image by lowering the levels of ISO amplification. This gives you extra highlight headroom in accordance with the amount of reduction in ISO amplification. The 7D Mark II is not amenable to this type of shooting."

Then down played similar DR situation for D5:

"Either way, in our opinion, we'd try not to over-stress the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important."

"In real world shooting, the D5's dynamic range hasn't been a huge problem. Sure, you'll need to watch your exposure in high contrast scenes more than you would on, say, a D750 or D810 - pushed low ISO Raw files out of the D5 exhibit a lot more shadow noise than those other cameras. But that's taken care of by either sacrificing some highlight detail during your exposure, or with a little bit of luminance noise reduction in post. And if you shoot JPEG and nail your exposure, or routinely in low light, there's even more to like."

Don't you think, you are kinda unintentionally playing to strengths of Nikon in your review by downplaying DR.
Barney justified this by saying, 7d2 is a general purpose camera and D5 is a specialized expensive tool which is fine for target users. When pointed out about how 7D2 is compared with 1dx in your review and your recommendation for Canon users to take a look at 7D2 instead of 1DX, he didn't respond.

I kinda noticed this too. ???
The side problem I noticed is that, if one googles "5D review", "7D Mark II review" or whatever photographic gear review, the first result provided by Google is the link to DPReview, which is clearly unbiased, but sometimes a bit inconsistent in giving importance to some features.

 

[Loswr]

Well, in the Internet age this is just not possible, you don't get a lot of extra points for being 100% right, but you get a lot of points for being faster than the next guy. I would just love to see more honesty. Call the "review" what it is, a preliminary impression from someone who had the camera for a couple of days.
Please don't use titles like "Putting Image Microadjust to the test on the Canon 5D Mark IV" when apparently all you did was try out the feature on two images that do not even meet the guidelines on where this tech is actually supposed to be useful.

Please, just some honesty how you present your articles and findings. Don't want anything else really.

You're correct that in the clickbait business of today, fast is more important than accurate. Well, to some...I don't see Bryan publishing reviews on TDP within hours or even days of an announcement...but then, he generally buys gear he reviews through normal retail channels. As for honesty, Rishi claims it's important to him:

My first and foremost objective every morning I wake up is to provide meaningful and correct information to my audience.

It would be nice if he lived up to his ideals. The fact that he edits articles to correct omissions (such as when I pointed out they ignored the f/8 AF differences in their 1D X II / D5 comparison) is encouraging. But the bias is still manifest, the most recent glaring example being their excuses and justifications for the D5 having less low ISO DR than its predecessor. Imagine if the 1D X II had lost a stop of DR compared to the 1D X...does anyone believe that they'd have 'tried not to over-stress the importance' of that, and concluded from real-world testing that it 'isn't a huge problem'? No...it would have been trumpeted through the review and conclusions, with lots of comparisons to 'peers' (like Sony APS-C MILCs) to demonstrate the glaring flaw.

 

[Jack Douglas]

OK, the trial is over! NOT guilty as charged by reason of insanity.

Joking aside, there are some good points that have been made and I think Rishi is between a rock and a hard place. Obviously, it is always possible to improve but a person can only do their best and sometimes one's best is not what people are willing to accept. I suggest criticism should always be delivered in a kindly fashion and emotions kept out of it, and everyone will benefit. If I was constantly in the public eye ....... I shudder.

Jack

 

[ritholtz]

Well, in the Internet age this is just not possible, you don't get a lot of extra points for being 100% right, but you get a lot of points for being faster than the next guy. I would just love to see more honesty. Call the "review" what it is, a preliminary impression from someone who had the camera for a couple of days.
Please don't use titles like "Putting Image Microadjust to the test on the Canon 5D Mark IV" when apparently all you did was try out the feature on two images that do not even meet the guidelines on where this tech is actually supposed to be useful.

Please, just some honesty how you present your articles and findings. Don't want anything else really.

You're correct that in the clickbait business of today, fast is more important than accurate. Well, to some...I don't see Bryan publishing reviews on TDP within hours or even days of an announcement...but then, he generally buys gear he reviews through normal retail channels. As for honesty, Rishi claims it's important to him:

My first and foremost objective every morning I wake up is to provide meaningful and correct information to my audience.

It would be nice if he lived up to his ideals. The fact that he edits articles to correct omissions (such as when I pointed out they ignored the f/8 AF differences in their 1D X II / D5 comparison) is encouraging. But the bias is still manifest, the most recent glaring example being their excuses and justifications for the D5 having less low ISO DR than its predecessor. Imagine if the 1D X II had lost a stop of DR compared to the 1D X...does anyone believe that they'd have 'tried not to over-stress the importance' of that, and concluded from real-world testing that it 'isn't a huge problem'? No...it would have been trumpeted through the review and conclusions, with lots of comparisons to 'peers' (like Sony APS-C MILCs) to demonstrate the glaring flaw.

I might be wrong here. I think, lot of things are unintentional in their reviews. But not doing comparisons between 1DX2/d5 focusing systems with f/8 setup is intentional. How does 3D/iTR/Non intelligent focusing is going to work with F8 setup. On paper as long as DPR chooses initial AF point as suggested by Rudy/Neuro, Canon AF system should work as it is in F8 setup with all 61 points. Whereas D5 is limited with F8 setup. What is going to happen to superior D5 focusing argument? Can it 3D focus like Canon with F8 setup? Can DPR still claim D5 has superior focusing system to Canon even after testing it with F8 lens setup. It is like testing f1.4 and f2.0 lens using f2.0 aperture claiming one is superior.

There are articles explaining how difficult is to incorporate all F8 focusing system. Why do you think DPR ignored such a important feature in their reviews? Considering there are lot demanding users here in terms of focusing system, between iTR/3D focusing vs all F8 focusing system which one do you think important for d5/1dx2 users.

 

[Jack Douglas]

If Rishi is willing to take them to heart, there are valid points being made that will help him to improve and and we're not talking about Canon praise here, just equal treatment. That would be a good outcome.

It's like a kid being king of the castle and a dozen others climbing up to knock him off. That is unproductive and serves no purpose, and so we should simply continue to give useful suggestions, maybe sometimes with a little less harshness.

Jack

 

[rishi_sanyal]

I might be wrong here. I think, lot of things are unintentional in their reviews.

You're not wrong. They are unintentional. You (and others) are complaining about possible bias in downplaying the D5's DR by quoting Carey's personal experience/opinions in the review without the context of all the other places where - including in the review - we wrote things like "This limits the ability of the D5 to shoot at a low ISO setting in low light (to protect highlight information), rather than pushing up the ISO amplification."

Why are you doing that? Reviews are necessarily both objective and opinion, and I can't rewrite someone's entire opinion unless it's wrong. But what I can do, and did, was add passages like the above statement (which sounds awfully a lot like what I wrote for the 7D II) and repeatedly drew comparisons to the superior 1D X II.

Furthermore, we literally published a piece entitled "Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR".

And here's what Barney and I wrote in our slideshow:

"With the D5, you have to chose. Expose for highlight detail and color and lose definition in midtones and shadows, or expose for midtones and say goodbye to the brighter areas. With the EOS-1D X Mark II, while not best-in-class, Raw files are much more flexible."

Why ignore all that? Confirmation bias? How could we be any clearer? You act as though we're tough on Canon and not on Nikon in this regard, and it's just not true. In fact, we've never published something as alarming as that D5 DR article title. One could argue we're soft on Canon.

The quote you cherry pick from Barney "Either way... we'd try not to over-stress the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers" was an Editor's Note in direct response to a bunch of Nikonians complaining about our harsh 'Worst dynamic range' title. You know, like you guys complain.

So to appease those readers, we lessened the blow. How fitting, like a taste of your own medicine...

But not doing comparisons between 1DX2/d5 focusing systems with f/8 setup is intentional.

You're correct, it's absolutely intentional, for the reasons below.

How does 3D/iTR/Non intelligent focusing is going to work with F8 setup. On paper as long as DPR chooses initial AF point as suggested by Rudy/Neuro/DPR itself

Sorry, just had to fix that for you because it appears you missed the fact that we talk about manual initial AF point selection for Canon 61pt iTR all the time.

Canon AF system should work as it is in F8 setup with all 61 points. Whereas D5 is limited with F8 setup. What is going to happen to superior D5 focusing argument? Can it 3D focus like Canon with F8 setup? Can DPR still claim D5 has superior focusing system to Canon even after testing it with F8 lens setup. It is like testing f1.4 and f2.0 lens using f2.0 aperture claiming one is superior.

I don't need to do a test to tell you what will happen. The answer to that is easy: the 1D X II (and 5D IV) will be better. (1) Because as we've mentioned many times, iTR does appear to work well for telephoto subjects that have good phase difference separation, and (2) doesn't matter how much better 3D tracking is than iTR if you have far fewer points to work with...

What test would we do? Why would we do a test? Isn't that a waste of time for an already resource-strained group that constantly gets complaints about late review and an utter lack of lens reviews?

The bigger question is: why are you suddenly emphasizing F8 focus as if it's the end all be all of all photography (kind of like how high ISO DR was back when it was the only aspect of DR Canon was good/equal at)? The reality is that it's relevant to a fairly small faction of photographers, and for those photographers where that really matters, yes I'd argue the 1D X II is a better choice.

Which is what we said in its review. Note we also emphasized it in our 5D IV coverage: F8 focus implications is literally in the 2nd sentence of my AF section in my First Impressions.

There are articles explaining how difficult is to incorporate all F8 focusing system. Why do you think DPR ignored such a important feature in their reviews? Considering there are lot demanding users here in terms of focusing system, between iTR/3D focusing vs all F8 focusing system which one do you think important for d5/1dx2 users.

I don't understand why you think or erroneously claim we ignored this important feature, when in reality, we mentioned it repeatedly as a plus for wildlife photography and birding in the 1D X II review.

 

[ritholtz]

I might be wrong here. I think, lot of things are unintentional in their reviews.

You're not wrong. They are unintentional. You (and others) are complaining about possible bias in downplaying the D5's DR by quoting Carey's personal experience/opinions in the review without the context of all the other places where - including in the review - we wrote things like "This limits the ability of the D5 to shoot at a low ISO setting in low light (to protect highlight information), rather than pushing up the ISO amplification."

Why are you doing that? Reviews are necessarily both objective and opinion, and I can't rewrite someone's entire opinion unless it's wrong. But what I can do, and did, was add passages like the above statement (which sounds awfully a lot like what I wrote for the 7D II) and repeatedly drew comparisons to the superior 1D X II.

Furthermore, we literally published a piece entitled "Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR".

And here's what Barney and I wrote in our slideshow:

"With the D5, you have to chose. Expose for highlight detail and color and lose definition in midtones and shadows, or expose for midtones and say goodbye to the brighter areas. With the EOS-1D X Mark II, while not best-in-class, Raw files are much more flexible."

Why ignore all that? Confirmation bias? How could we be any clearer? You act as though we're tough on Canon and not on Nikon in this regard, and it's just not true. In fact, we've never published something as alarming as that D5 DR article title. One could argue we're soft on Canon.

The quote you cherry pick from Barney "Either way... we'd try not to over-stress the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers" was an Editor's Note in direct response to a bunch of Nikonians complaining about our harsh 'Worst dynamic range' title. You know, like you guys complain.

So to appease those readers, we lessened the blow. How fitting, like a taste of your own medicine...

But not doing comparisons between 1DX2/d5 focusing systems with f/8 setup is intentional.

You're correct, it's absolutely intentional, for the reasons below.

How does 3D/iTR/Non intelligent focusing is going to work with F8 setup. On paper as long as DPR chooses initial AF point as suggested by Rudy/Neuro/DPR itself

Sorry, just had to fix that for you because it appears you missed the fact that we talk about manual initial AF point selection for Canon 61pt iTR all the time.

Canon AF system should work as it is in F8 setup with all 61 points. Whereas D5 is limited with F8 setup. What is going to happen to superior D5 focusing argument? Can it 3D focus like Canon with F8 setup? Can DPR still claim D5 has superior focusing system to Canon even after testing it with F8 lens setup. It is like testing f1.4 and f2.0 lens using f2.0 aperture claiming one is superior.

I don't need to do a test to tell you what will happen. The answer to that is easy: the 1D X II (and 5D IV) will be better. (1) Because as we've mentioned many times, iTR does appear to work well for telephoto subjects that have good phase difference separation, and (2) doesn't matter how much better 3D tracking is than iTR if you have far fewer points to work with...

What test would we do? Why would we do a test? Isn't that a waste of time for an already resource-strained group that constantly gets complaints about late review and an utter lack of lens reviews?

The bigger question is: why are you suddenly emphasizing F8 focus as if it's the end all be all of all photography (kind of like how high ISO DR was back when it was the only aspect of DR Canon was good/equal at)? The reality is that it's relevant to a fairly small faction of photographers, and for those photographers where that really matters, yes I'd argue the 1D X II is a better choice.

Which is what we said in its review. Note we also emphasized it in our 5D IV coverage: F8 focus implications is literally in the 2nd sentence of my AF section in my First Impressions.

There are articles explaining how difficult is to incorporate all F8 focusing system. Why do you think DPR ignored such a important feature in their reviews? Considering there are lot demanding users here in terms of focusing system, between iTR/3D focusing vs all F8 focusing system which one do you think important for d5/1dx2 users.

I don't understand why you think or erroneously claim we ignored this important feature, when in reality, we mentioned it repeatedly as a plus for wildlife photography and birding in the 1D X II review.

Good points Rishi. I still do not understand why do you think it is waste of resources comparing how F8 focusing system works. It is one the most important functionality added to 1dx2 by Canon. How can you say Nikon focusing system is superior/class leading when in your own words it is limited to work only with F5.6 set up. When canon is going to work with F8 lens setup. Between f8 focusing and 3d/iTR focusing, which one do you think is important for target users of D5/1DX2?

 

[scyrene]

The bigger question is: why are you suddenly emphasizing F8 focus as if it's the end all be all of all photography (kind of like how high ISO DR was back when it was the only aspect of DR Canon was good/equal at)? The reality is that it's relevant to a fairly small faction of photographers, and for those photographers where that really matters, yes I'd argue the 1D X II is a better choice.

I think you've generally acquitted yourself pretty well here. However this quotation could be refashioned to apply to low-ISO DR. Many (most?) photographers managed quite well before low DR became one of the key bones of contention in online forums and reviews, and still do* - a stop or two of low ISO DR is of importance to most only rarely, yet you've devoted a fair amount of energy to evaluating and discussing it. But here you dismiss other similar issues as minutiae essentially beneath you. Why one and not the other?

I don't doubt that f/8 AF is important to fewer people and in fewer situations than higher low ISO DR, but I suggest it's not as big a difference as your coverage might imply (a lot of bird photographers can benefit from it, both budget-conscious amateurs and demanding professionals). And as for high ISO performance, that's pretty important too...

*while in actual fact virtually everyone on these forums has agreed that the more DR the better, those of us who've said in real life it makes far less difference than some evangelists have claimed, and have pointed out other ways of dealing with it (ETTR, HDR, exposure bracketing, use of ND filters, etc) have been accused of defending outmoded technology, hating change, being luddite, and so on.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Well, in the Internet age this is just not possible, you don't get a lot of extra points for being 100% right, but you get a lot of points for being faster than the next guy. I would just love to see more honesty. Call the "review" what it is, a preliminary impression from someone who had the camera for a couple of days.
Please don't use titles like "Putting Image Microadjust to the test on the Canon 5D Mark IV" when apparently all you did was try out the feature on two images that do not even meet the guidelines on where this tech is actually supposed to be useful.

Please, just some honesty how you present your articles and findings. Don't want anything else really.

You're correct that in the clickbait business of today, fast is more important than accurate. Well, to some...I don't see Bryan publishing reviews on TDP within hours or even days of an announcement...but then, he generally buys gear he reviews through normal retail channels.

We take months to review gear to make sure we're right and thorough - one of the biggest complaints leveled against us. But when camera companies give us early access, we try to get as many initial impressions as possible, and we work hard for it, because of the level of interest at launch. We still don't write things we're not confident about - and in this case, we actually had some extensive time with the 5D IV prior to launch.

We're trying our best to balance being thorough in an age where thoroughness is not rewarded by business return.

My first and foremost objective every morning I wake up is to provide meaningful and correct information to my audience.

It would be nice if he lived up to his ideals. The fact that he edits articles to correct omissions (such as when I pointed out they ignored the f/8 AF differences in their 1D X II / D5 comparison) is encouraging. But the bias is still manifest, the most recent glaring example being their excuses and justifications for the D5 having less low ISO DR than its predecessor. Imagine if the 1D X II had lost a stop of DR compared to the 1D X...does anyone believe that they'd have 'tried not to over-stress the importance' of that, and concluded from real-world testing that it 'isn't a huge problem'? No...it would have been trumpeted through the review and conclusions, with lots of comparisons to 'peers' (like Sony APS-C MILCs) to demonstrate the glaring flaw.

Erroneous claims. Excuses and justifications? Like an article headlined: "Nikon D5 has worse dynamic range of any FF Nikon"? Or like writing: "With the D5, you have to chose. Expose for highlight detail and color and lose definition in midtones and shadows, or expose for midtones and say goodbye to the brighter areas. With the EOS-1D X Mark II, while not best-in-class, Raw files are much more flexible."? Or like repeatedly mentioning in each respective review that the 1D X II bests the D5 in this area?

You've simply cherry picked a couple of quotes of either Carey's opinion or of our Editor's response reminding people to retain perspective given our overtly negative 'worst dynamic range' title. Meanwhile, you've conveniently ignored all the negatives we've written, some of which I've shown above, others of which are scattered throughout our Nikon D5 pieces, including the review itself. We have similar justifications for some Canon DSLRs, notably, in two recent Canon DSLR reviews: "it's debatable whether this [dynamic range performance] will matter to buyers." Or, after a comment on iTR's foibles: "But if you can follow the action yourself with a chosen AF point or zone, the camera will reward you with a very high amount of in-focus 'keepers.'"

No one can hope for ultimate consistency for every piece of content with multiple writers. You should know that. But you're ignoring it and purposefully cherry picking excuses - which exist even for Canon products - in our content.

We may need to hire a full-time employee to respond to the hundreds of erroneous claims of bias that cherry pick data to fit a preconceived narrative. Come to think of it, this type of behavior matches that of this news organization that constantly filters out negative opinion of their supported camera candidate...

 

[ritholtz]

Well, in the Internet age this is just not possible, you don't get a lot of extra points for being 100% right, but you get a lot of points for being faster than the next guy. I would just love to see more honesty. Call the "review" what it is, a preliminary impression from someone who had the camera for a couple of days.
Please don't use titles like "Putting Image Microadjust to the test on the Canon 5D Mark IV" when apparently all you did was try out the feature on two images that do not even meet the guidelines on where this tech is actually supposed to be useful.

Please, just some honesty how you present your articles and findings. Don't want anything else really.

You're correct that in the clickbait business of today, fast is more important than accurate. Well, to some...I don't see Bryan publishing reviews on TDP within hours or even days of an announcement...but then, he generally buys gear he reviews through normal retail channels.

We take months to review gear to make sure we're right and thorough - one of the biggest complaints leveled against us. But when camera companies give us early access, we try to get as many initial impressions as possible, and we work hard for it, because of the level of interest at launch. We still don't write things we're not confident about - and in this case, we actually had some extensive time with the 5D IV prior to launch.

We're trying our best to balance being thorough in an age where thoroughness is not rewarded by business return.

My first and foremost objective every morning I wake up is to provide meaningful and correct information to my audience.

It would be nice if he lived up to his ideals. The fact that he edits articles to correct omissions (such as when I pointed out they ignored the f/8 AF differences in their 1D X II / D5 comparison) is encouraging. But the bias is still manifest, the most recent glaring example being their excuses and justifications for the D5 having less low ISO DR than its predecessor. Imagine if the 1D X II had lost a stop of DR compared to the 1D X...does anyone believe that they'd have 'tried not to over-stress the importance' of that, and concluded from real-world testing that it 'isn't a huge problem'? No...it would have been trumpeted through the review and conclusions, with lots of comparisons to 'peers' (like Sony APS-C MILCs) to demonstrate the glaring flaw.

Erroneous claims. Excuses and justifications? Like an article headlined: "Nikon D5 has worse dynamic range of any FF Nikon"? Or like writing: "With the D5, you have to chose. Expose for highlight detail and color and lose definition in midtones and shadows, or expose for midtones and say goodbye to the brighter areas. With the EOS-1D X Mark II, while not best-in-class, Raw files are much more flexible."? Or like repeatedly mentioning in each respective review that the 1D X II bests the D5 in this area?

You've simply cherry picked a couple of quotes of either Carey's opinion or of our Editor's response reminding people to retain perspective given our overtly negative 'worst dynamic range' title. Meanwhile, you've conveniently ignored all the negatives we've written, some of which I've shown above, others of which are scattered throughout our Nikon D5 pieces, including the review itself. We have similar justifications for some Canon DSLRs, notably, in two recent Canon DSLR reviews: "it's debatable whether this [dynamic range performance] will matter to buyers." Or, after a comment on iTR's foibles: "But if you can follow the action yourself with a chosen AF point or zone, the camera will reward you with a very high amount of in-focus 'keepers.'"

No one can hope for ultimate consistency for every piece of content with multiple writers. You should know that. But you're ignoring it and purposefully cherry picking excuses - which exist even for Canon products - in our content.

We may need to hire a full-time employee to respond to the hundreds of erroneous claims of bias that cherry pick data to fit a preconceived narrative. Come to think of it, this type of behavior matches that of this news organization that constantly filters out negative opinion of their supported camera candidate...

I agree about cherry picking few lines from your reviews. I have one more question about your scoring,
-D5 has worse dynamic range compared to 1DX2
-D5 focusing system doesn't work with f8 lens setup(With F5.6 lens setup D5 is better. But f8 Canon is better).
-D5 I think has less number of selectable AF points with less coverage.
-D5 can only record 4k 30p when Canon do 4k 60p
-D5 can only record for 3min max at the time of your review.
-D5 doesn't do proper video AF and inferior Live view implementation (Canon dpaf).
-D5 has slower FPS (14 vs 12).
-No frame grabs for D5 when you are very excited to pull 60 frames from 1DX2 with low rolling shutter.

How come D5 scored as much as 1dx2? Did you guys rig the scoring system. Is it possible to write one common head to head through review where we get to see comparisons between only these two. Sometimes you kinda throw in different camera (a7r2, a6300) for some tests (DR, Video) in order to dilute Canon strengths instead of doing straight comparison with D5.