Dpreview of the 80D

[Monchoon]

...
I think you missed the part where I said that we CR readers and DPR readers are in the minority....

I'm not so sure that those who read DPR reviews are in the minority. They're widely published and referred to.

Do you not comprehend what Don Wrote?

 

[Loswr]

...doesn't get it...

Describes you perfectly.

 

[Orangutan]

Caveat: I have not read the review, so I don't have an opinion on this specific item; I'm just addressing some points about your post.

And, it's the reviewers right (no it's their) obligation to give their opinion.

Opinions can exist only in the absence of factual information. One can't have an opinion about gravity, one simply measures it. It can be measured using good methods or not. To the extent that a web site claims to be doing objective testing, there is no room for opinion. That said, they can have an opinion as to whether the aggregate of qualities meet a subjectively-defined need.

And, as I've said before, I want to know what these reviewers don't like about Canon cameras. That's what makes a review useful.

I think everyone does; the question is whether those conclusions are arrived at legitimately. Again, I have no opinion on this article, I'm just dismayed at the people saying reviews are subjective. Nope.

 

[Don Haines]

...
I think you missed the part where I said that we CR readers and DPR readers are in the minority....

I'm not so sure that those who read DPR reviews are in the minority. They're widely published and referred to.

Do you not comprehend what Don Wrote?

probably not....
Most car drivers do not read "Road and Track"
Most people with bicycles do not read "Cyclist"
Most people who listen to radios do not read "IEEE Spectrum"
Most people who walk somewhere do not read "Walk!"
Most people with a cat do not read "Cat Fancy"
Most people with a camera do not read DPR, Canon Rumors, and think DR is someone with a medical degree....
There is a pattern here....

 

[Orangutan]

No, our real-world comparisons are perfectly ETTR'd - there is not even 1/3 EV headroom. We bracket hundreds of shots and take the one that is just short of clipping tones we wish to preserve in the Raw file, as explained repeatedly every time we present our results.

I wonder if this is the problem. Perhaps in future reviews you could publish several of your bracketed shots so readers could decide for themselves which tones they would choose to preserve in the raw file.

 

[Don Haines]

when people leave in disgust, it does not mean that you won the debate or that your point of view is valid.

Goodbye.

If sanity returns, so shall I..... but I expect to be silent on this thread.

 

[3kramd5]

Low ISO is where the camera is meant to perform best.

Can you point to any evidence that camera designers intend their products to perform better at one setting than another?

You could state perhaps that by some measures (e.g. dynamic range) cameras *do* perform better at low ISO (and by other measures, e.g. amplification, they perform better at high ISO). But to state they are supposed to perform better at low ISO is a huge stretch.

 

[Monchoon]

...
I think you missed the part where I said that we CR readers and DPR readers are in the minority....

I'm not so sure that those who read DPR reviews are in the minority. They're widely published and referred to.

Do you not comprehend what Don Wrote?

I did, but I wonder if you comprehended what I wrote.

Why? It has no bearing on what Don wrote.

 

[Loswr]

Low ISO is where the camera is meant to perform best.

Can you point to any evidence that camera designers intend their products to perform better at one setting than another?

Evidence is anathema to dilbert.

As for evidence of where camera designers intend best performance, perhaps dilbert should consider the D5's performance at ISO 100 compared to its predecessors.

 

[unfocused]

Don, I completely agree with your point about the fascination with low ISO. Dynamic range at base ISO is mildly interesting, but largely irrelevant for many (probably most) photographers.

Low ISO is where the camera is meant to perform best. Isn't it therefore worthwhile examining where a camera is meant to perform best rather than out on an edge where its performance is not at its best?

Do you want to see cars do 0-60 on a dry straight track or on a track that's covered in snow and curved? Where will they perform best and where is their performance compromised? Yes it can be worthwhile knowing how car performs on a snow covered track but that isn't where it performs best and is subsequently less interesting.

I live in the Midwest. We have snow and ice and even a few curves. So, no, I really could not care less about how a car performs on dry, straight track. I want to know how it performs in my world.

Same with my cameras. I live in a high ISO world. My clients expect me to bring back publishable pictures and they don't know or care about the lighting conditions. It's not academic for me. It's bread and butter. I want to know how a camera performs at high ISO.

 

[unfocused]

You people should all be ashamed of yourselves.

You are arguing with a troll. Nothing good can come out of this. No logical argument can ever be presented and discussed. This can never be resolved because the troll is doing this on purpose and you are all feeding it's disruptive behavior.

The only way to end this is to ban the troll from the site.

Dilbert is pretty much the official troll of the Canon Rumors site. We know his traits very well. Sometimes you have to keep one troll around and feed him occasionally. It's the price we pay to keep other trolls from moving in and overrunning the village.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

Oh the DRAMA! :

 

[ritholtz]

It did so bad in their AF test through the viewfinder test. Not sure where did reviewer start focusing at the beginning. Even 1st pic itself is not properly focused by camera. Out of 16, only 13th frame is in proper focus.

 

[Woody]

It did so bad in their AF test through the viewfinder test. Not sure where did reviewer start focusing at the beginning. Even 1st pic itself is not properly focused by camera. Out of 16, only 13th frame is in proper focus.

;D

 

[bdunbar79]

It did so bad in their AF test through the viewfinder test. Not sure where did reviewer start focusing at the beginning. Even 1st pic itself is not properly focused by camera. Out of 16, only 13th frame is in proper focus.

It's called the Idiot Method.

 

[Alex_M]

... Why is DPR more exposed? As an example, if you look on the Amazon web page for the 80D, you will find mention of dpreview's review. At the very least, everyone that goes to Amazon to purchase a Canon 80D will be presented with a link to the DPR review of the 80D.

because of this:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1690663587/amazonacquiresdpreview

 

[scyrene]

A bird that is 200m away is going to be small even with a 600mm lens.

Again, I can only assume you have little experience with bird photography. Yes it'll be small, but 200m is by no means excessive in this genre. Also depends a lot on the size of the bird!

A 2' long bird will be 5% of a FF sensor at 200m away (where m = meters, not miles.) You're going to need a really big bird for it to take up significant sensor real estate. Which is why it doesn't interest me.

It may not interest *you*, but I thought you were talking about what 'most photographers' think. If you're now admitting you're just speaking for yourself then there's no problem. (There's no way *most people* would take shots like this, but just dismissing it because *you* don't see the value in it is not enough to demonstrate the opposing view is irrelevant or worthless).

To be honest, most everything looks crap on overcast days when there is no sunlight because colors are muted. Or maybe those that shoot ISO 3200 and above don't like color very much? Would explain a lot.

I can only assume that you've grown up in a part of the world where it is overcast most of the time. I've never been anywhere that looks better with neutral colors and dull gray skies. And if there are parts of the world that are overcast most of the time, so what? Just as you can't turn a pig into a princess just by adding lipstick, so too you can't make overcast days look good.

Portraits of birds, photographs of flowers, some portraits and architecture...Flat/soft light can be very useful*. Are you just talking about landscapes and birds in flight? You're extraordinarily closed-minded. That's fine, you have that right, but again please don't pretend your personal view is universal, or even mainstream (it may be the latter, but nothing you've said so far demonstrates that).

*Ironically, all these people who say they want better shadow lifting capabilities are aiming for images with less contrast. One easy way to achieve that is to shoot when the light is softer.

You're being excessively narrow-minded as to what constitutes normal/reasonable/acceptable photographic conditions. I'd add that you wouldn't do much shooting at all in a lot of the world if you took this attitude...

Do you have an example location for this "in a lot of the world"?

Northern Europe, the Pacific Northwest, anywhere under dense tree cover... Anywhere on the map in this article that is white (showing average cloudiness) http://www.livescience.com/50824-cloudiest-places-on-earth-nasa-image.html

Or maybe in not being representative of the average CR shooter I'm more representative of the average Joe.

Maybe you are, maybe you're not. To demonstrate your views are representative, perhaps you could, I dunno, provide evidence that the average/mainstream view lines up with your own. Just spouting your own opinions and *saying* they are clearly sensible or obvious isn't enough. I provide my own countervailing view - so we have 50:50 out of a sample size of two. Hardly compelling. (The difference is, I admit my own views are not usually mainstream - I have no pretensions of being 'representative'. I'd rather be openminded, rational and evidence-based but each to their own).

 

[scyrene]

Don, I completely agree with your point about the fascination with low ISO. Dynamic range at base ISO is mildly interesting, but largely irrelevant for many (probably most) photographers.

Low ISO is where the camera is meant to perform best. Isn't it therefore worthwhile examining where a camera is meant to perform best rather than out on an edge where its performance is not at its best?

Do you want to see cars do 0-60 on a dry straight track or on a track that's covered in snow and curved? Where will they perform best and where is their performance compromised? Yes it can be worthwhile knowing how car performs on a snow covered track but that isn't where it performs best and is subsequently less interesting.

I live in the Midwest. We have snow and ice and even a few curves. So, no, I really could not care less about how a car performs on dry, straight track. I want to know how it performs in my world.

Same with my cameras. I live in a high ISO world. My clients expect me to bring back publishable pictures and they don't know or care about the lighting conditions. It's not academic for me. It's bread and butter. I want to know how a camera performs at high ISO.

I think this is at the heart of the disagreement here. Some people (naming no names) think that their world is the *only* world that matters, and people with different needs are just wrong. Some of us use high ISO more than low. Apparently we're stupid for even bothering...

 

[Mikehit]

"ISO 100" is meant to be where there is "no" amplification of the signal from the sensor.

I thought it was 'base ISO' not 'ISO 100'?

 

[Loswr]

To be honest, most everything looks crap on overcast days when there is no sunlight because colors are muted. Or maybe those that shoot ISO 3200 and above don't like color very much? Would explain a lot.

Portraits of birds, photographs of flowers, some portraits and architecture...Flat/soft light can be very useful*. Are you just talking about landscapes and birds in flight? You're extraordinarily closed-minded. That's fine, you have that right, but again please don't pretend your personal view is universal, or even mainstream (it may be the latter, but nothing you've said so far demonstrates that).

*Ironically, all these people who say they want better shadow lifting capabilities are aiming for images with less contrast. One easy way to achieve that is to shoot when the light is softer.

+1

Sure, pictures of an overcast sky are usually not satisfying, but it's often much better to take pictures of some subjects lit by an overcast sky. There's a reason I carry a pop-open diffuser when I'm out shooting flowers.

But I suppose people lacking in creativity might have trouble seeing the benefits of soft lighting.