Dpreview of the 80D

[Don Haines]

But people are treating this as though DPR is the only review they should read.
I like to read DPR because it gives me an idea of the camera's technical capability and I read other sites for the user experience and both complement each other. So for example, their noise tests show what the camera can do in studio conditions, but I have only ever bought a camera after the field tests have taken place, and I have a group of photographer sites whose opinions I trust. I can then see their comments on whether that difference in the studio makes a difference to me in the real world.

As an example from direct experience, one review of the 7D2 showed how the camera had only a 1-stop difference in noise over the original 7D (not too impressive) but a field review explained that for him the way the noise rendered on screen made it more visually acceptable and was effectively almost a 2-stop improvement when it came to usable photos. And that is what I found when I bought the 7D2.

I find that after reading 'benchmark' sites like DPR, subjective comments from very experienced photographers along the lines of 'I did not compare side by side but felt the AF hit rate was higher' or 'the raw files were nicer to work with' make much more sense.

I also read DPR because I like their technical testing, but think that a few additions could make it even better... like taking it out into the field and gathering impressions, and pushing the limits.

Yes, by all means consistency between devices is a very important part of testing, many people, myself included, would say that it is the most important part of testing. But what happens when you get to features and abilities that are unique to the camera or so far from normal testing that that there is no way to look at them, yet stay consistent between devices?

Many people buy high end cameras for specific purposes. For example, I bought a 7D2 for it's toughness. I shoot in the winter, in rain, high humidity, on the ocean where the air is laced with salt..... for me that toughness factor beat out all others, yet short of destructive testing in an immersion tank, how would a review site test it and more importantly, why would a review site test it? This is an example of something that a user with very particular requirements would find essential, yet really does not matter for the great masses. One would not do the same thing to test a 6D so all hope of consistency is gone, yet because Canon sells the 7D2 with a claim of toughness, to leave it out would be a dis-service to potential buyers....

Similarly, Add a test to the 80D for video under challenging conditions.... and that test would be different than testing the 1DX2 video under challenging conditions because different cameras face different challenges... The info gained would be good for the reader. By no means would it be directly comparable, but it would give good info to the reader.

so Rishi..... additional testing sections....
(17) Field impressions
(18) Pushing the limits

Just a thought.....

 

[Mikehit]

yet because Canon sells the 7D2 with a claim of toughness, to leave it out would be a dis-service to potential buyers....

But I don't see that as DPR's remit, I don't go there for a one-stop all-encompassing review.
As dilbert (and others) have said, how do you define 'toughness'? Waterproof, bounceability off a rock face? Does the durability needs of a wildlife photographer match the needs of a paparazzo? I would prefer to hear those comments from eople relevant to what I do (in my case, the likes of Andy Rouse) than some lab-coated person working to a protocol that I have no idea is relevant to me.

Similarly, Add a test to the 80D for video under challenging conditions.... and that test would be different than testing the 1DX2 video under challenging conditions because different cameras face different challenges

So if the challenges are different, and if the expectations are different then the testing has to be different and if you do that, what conclusions could you draw to say whether body A is better than body B?
And what if the test exceeds the capability of the camera and DPR are left with a trashed body? :-X


That, I think comes to the core of it. I see DPR as a (hopefully) objective way of comparing cameras. You are talking about a review of 'will this body do what I want it to do' which is a different question. And having done quality testing in different arenas I am a great believer in sticking to what your remit is, which is where I think DxO is starting to go wrong because it is trying to extend its conclusions beyond what the testing regimes enable it to.
Rishi has said they want to extend their testing but they are doing it very cautiously to make sure that their conclusions are robust.