Dpreview of the 80D

[unfocused]

Truncated to save space

...With these sensors, the idea is that you can set your shutter speed and aperture ...
...Now, that does sound brilliant and very valuable....
...I'd like to see some comparisons...to see if the promised advantages really exist or not

Almost. It's a common misconception that it's the ISO amplification that adds noise, but the reverse is true: ISO amplification actually helps reduce the noise that might result if you push in post. It's the decreased light levels available to the sensor when you deprive it of light (in low light, using high shutter speeds, e.g.) that lead to the higher noise levels, because of shot noise (http://bit.ly/shotnoise)...

...So, in the end, it's about saving highlights under high ISO conditions. And the ability to do so all comes down ISO-invariance...

The information you're looking for - the noise cost to doing this amplification in-post vs. in-camera, is exactly what the ISO-invariance test I implemented shortly after joining DPReview is designed to test.

...understand that at this point, we're talking 1/3EV or less increases in performance at best. And after a certain point, there won't be any more to gain from decreasing noise, because we already have such low levels of noise to begin with...

First of all, I appreciate your patience and willingness to engage on this site. Especially because there seem to be a number of people who have already come to their own opinions and don't want to be confused by facts.

I guess that on a tech-geek oriented site it's understandable that discussions will devolve into pointless but rabid debates over insignificant differences. Like academia, the arguments are so bitter here because the stakes are so small.

I've made my opinion known. I want review sites to tell me what they don't like about a product. I can make a judgment for myself if that criteria is relevant for me personally, but if no one writes about the downsides, then it's impossible to make intelligent choices. Instead of focusing on a couple of small points, I prefer to look at the overall review and I would say that DPR tends to have very thorough reviews. If people feel there is some bias in the review (which is not necessarily a bad thing, but rather just a fact of life) then it's a simple matter to take that into account when reading the reviews (or if people are offended by the reviews, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to read the reviews).

For those who want to read only positive things about Canon, there is a site they can go to: www.canonusa.com

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Maybe we could change this thread from a list of complaints to a list of suggestions. What sincere, legitimate changes would you have DPR make to its procedures to improve the objectivity of their review? I'll start:

(quoting self)

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.

That's just the thing - there's no 'problem' at all. We're not trying to prove whether or not X EV dynamic range is enough to cover all shooting scenarios in the world. We're not trying to answer: 'what scenes does this camera have enough DR for?' - that's actually a very interesting question, yes, but that's not what we're trying answer in side-by-side camera comparisons. In fact, that's a difficult question to answer, and would require shooting many different scenes at many different exposures for many different cameras. That'd be lovely - but it's important to understand what it is we're trying to test, what question we're trying answer, before declaring us useless or biased or whatever other adjective has been used here.

We're trying to show what the difference is between camera X and Y when exposed optimally for the scene being tested.

That requires us to have a common exposure method that is fair across all cameras, and that's why we use a saturation-based method for these tests. Just like DXO; like them or hate them, their actual testing methodology is sound.

We choose the following common basis: we choose the exposure where 1/3 EV higher exposure will clip tones we wish to preserve in the image, which provides a fair playing ground for comparisons across cameras. Sure a higher exposure that blows tones may be acceptable to you - but so what? Whatever advantage the D810 retains here over the 5DS R and the a7R II will be retained in the scenes that demand it, or in underexposures, be it due to a high contrast scene or imperfect metering: http://bit.ly/26Nrf38.

But don't even take our word for it - take the word of perhaps the greatest cinematographer of our time: read the whole interview linked above.

The saturation-based method is actually the same basis used by readers here who have claimed they expose to preserve highlights they care about. That's precisely what we're doing. And, no, there's no appreciable difference between 'highlight preservation' in Raw from camera to camera - and if there were, we'd account for it because we're exposing just short of clipping in the Raw. Any differences in highlight preservation would be up to the Raw converter - and they're not going to show huge differences from brand to brand or camera to camera.

Does this make sense? If not, please elaborate on your point of confusion or contention: I really want to make sure we're clear about our reasoning.

If we provided you bracketed shots, what would that tell you? A longer exposure that clipped tones in the sky will have less noise in the shadows, sure, but the D810 would retain whatever advantage it retains in our example. Particularly because it can eat up almost a stop more light before clipping the same tones because of its ISO 64 - hence our need to use saturation as our 'common basis' for these tests.

If it's performance under limited light you're interested in, though, we have our studio scene and high ISO comparisons available.

And that's the thing - we provide all the tests for you to examine whatever it is that's important to you. When dynamic range is one part of many points we cover in a review or conclusion, claiming we are all about that and nothing else just mocks your own position.

It's an indefensible position when you then consider that we've also published articles demonstrating the D5's limited dynamic range, using a title harsher than anything we've used on any Canon article of late. Or tests showing severe problems with Nikon's VR mechanism. I see that these things are conveniently ignored by those claiming Nikon bias.

Or was it Sony bias?

 

[rishi_sanyal]

There is no excuse for 80D to perform worst in focusing test through view finder which is a core DSLR strength.
I would like to see another source (Michael) to do the test and confirm this. If it is really the case with 80d, then no excuse of Canon. It is worst DSLR camera Canon made ( 1 frame in focus out of 16 frames). I remember DPR review on d7100 and 70d, Where they went with similar tangent like d7100 being class leading in AF test and 70d is not up to the task (not those blurry pics issue with center point). Then Michael did a epic comparison and showed us 70d actually did better than d7100 in AF test ;D ;D.

Checking out the summary of review on main page, feels like it is an advertisement for a6300. Don't get me wrong, I am also liking what I see from a6300. As and when Sony updates their kit lens (16-50 is actually very wide for kit lens) and throw in some cheap glass (looking at sigma to do those 17-50/70 lens), I am going switch to Sony. But that summary page is written by Sony marketing department.

Come on, it is not completely inferior to the a6300 on paper except for 4k video. 80d live view performance is good. 80d can focus better in low light in live view compared to a6300 ;D ;D. Regarding D7200 and 80D are both starting to look a bit old fashioned compared to to the current crop of 4K-capable mirrorless APS-C cameras (like the Sony a6300), who else is doing 4k other than Sony a6300??

d7200 is almost same as a6300 and d500 in terms of very high Iso performance. 80d is definitely not up to a6300 at very high iso performance. 80d is actually worst in high iso performance during video. In terms of video, Canon did worst with 80d.

Our AF tests are always done in triplicate, to rule out a one-off error. We used the same 70-200 F2.8L IS II that we use in all our Canon body tests, a lens that has performed just fine with the 5DS R, for example.

Also, I think you're looking at the rollover that conflates both subject tracking and depth-tracking. The single-point AF-C results showed approximately 50% of the frames in focus. Which is still a low hit-rate for a Canon DSLR in terms of AI Servo single-point.

So we're just as concerned as you are. We've just gotten a 2nd 80D in the office and will be repeating the tests to see if it's a copy thing, which'd be odd. We usually only test one body but given the odd result, we'll be following up.

Cheers,
Rishi

Thanks Rishi. I will wait for your retest and see how it does. If results are same, you should reduce final score a lot. 84% for a camera which can't even do simple servo focus tracking (no eye/face/color tracking) is very high.
So, AF-C is same as AI-Servo single point tracking in Canon. When you refer to subject tracking, it is iTR tracking and depth tracking is simple AI servo tracking right? Looks like there is no improvement for 80d in terms of iTR which is kinda strange.

Thanks

You've got it, yes.

AF-C is Canon's term for 'AI Servo'. AF area mode is totally separate, and is orthogonal (for the most part) to AF-S vs AF-C (or 'One Shot' vs 'AI Servo').

Subject tracking is the ability of the camera to understand your subject and automatically pick AF points to stay on it in continuous focus mode.

iTR is Canon's name for Nikon's '3D tracking' or Sony's 'Lock-on AF'. The 80D, and cameras like the 5D Mark III, don't have a name for subject tracking, and also don't have iTR per se. On the 5D Mark III presumably because there is no RGB metering sensor to understand your subject and track it (it really only uses distance information to figure out which AF point to use for your subject, which is very much prone to error... see the theory behind this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F58xGAaxhrA). On the 80D, Canon doesn't call it iTR presumably because the 7,560-pixel metering sensor doesn't have enough resolution to reliably subject track. Oddly, Nikon's 2016-pixel metering sensor - e.g. on the D7200 - is still able to subject track relatively well compared to Canons, and we think this may be because Nikon is more willing to use pattern matching to subject track than Canon, which appears to us to rely mostly on distance information still, despite 150,000-pixel metering sensors in cameras like the 7D II.

Why do we think this? Because Canons still show a very distance-dependent ability to subject track. Objects with good phase difference isolation - e.g. far objects using telephoto lenses - are tracked very well by Canons, while objects with poor phase difference isolation (the eye of a face close up at 35mm) aren't. Nikons don't show this dependence.

We didn't really expect the 80D to be much better at subject tracking, but what's strange is that even depth-tracking (single point AI Servo) faltered.

That's what we'd like to re-test.

But this discussion brings up a good point. Some people here claim 'well my results are great so I don't see what problem you're talking about' - while never testing what the other brand/camera offers. That's fine, as long as you keep in mind that there are users who are finding the limits of their systems, and it's our job to find those and also let them know when alternatives offer advantages. For example, some Canon users found that when going from the 5D3 to the 7D2, they could trust their camera much more to subject track: automatically select AF points to stay on their subject in AI Servo. This is largely true - because of the 150k-pixel RGB+IR metering sensor. But an even larger benefit is to be had in this regard by going to Nikon's 3D tracking - which many who've switched from Canon to Nikon have realized.

And yet there are those who claim the 5D Mark III subject tracked just fine for them. Which gets back to a point I've made repeatedly: you don't even know what you're missing until you know the entire playing field. Whether or not that matters to you is a different matter entirely: but it has to matter to us because it's our job to inform photographers of these things.

It's up to the photographer to decide whether or not it matters. Not to tell us that we're biased because we care to test these things.

-Rishi

 

[rishi_sanyal]

I've made my opinion known. I want review sites to tell me what they don't like about a product. I can make a judgment for myself if that criteria is relevant for me personally, but if no one writes about the downsides, then it's impossible to make intelligent choices. Instead of focusing on a couple of small points, I prefer to look at the overall review and I would say that DPR tends to have very thorough reviews. If people feel there is some bias in the review (which is not necessarily a bad thing, but rather just a fact of life) then it's a simple matter to take that into account when reading the reviews (or if people are offended by the reviews, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to read the reviews).

One of the most sensible passages I've ever read on the internet.
-Rishi

 

[Orangutan]

Let me repeat that I'm not claiming bias. I've only glanced at your review of the 80D, and probably should read it carefully before I to go into any detailed comments.

We're trying to show what the difference is between camera X and Y when exposed optimally for the scene being tested.
<snip>
We choose the following common basis: we choose the exposure where 1/3 EV higher exposure will clip tones we wish to preserve in the image, which provides a fair playing ground for comparisons across cameras.

Here's why I'm puzzled: as far as I can tell, "the scene being tested" is inherently subjective. If I'm taking macro photos of the reflections in a raindrop and don't care about the surrounds, then maybe I'll reduce exposure. If I'm interested in a forest scene with light glinting off droplets, then I'll increase exposure and accept that the droplets will be blown. For a more concrete example, if I'm shooting an evening shot just before or after sunset, I can choose how much of the sky I'm willing to overexpose for the sake of the shadows.

Don't get me wrong: I have a 70D and have been frustrated when I try to balance forest scenes with dappled light and deep shadow. It would not surprise me at all that the successor is only marginally better. It would also not surprise me if a Sony sensor has better DR at low ISO, since this has been demonstrated for several years. However, I'm at a loss to understand how an objective comparison of DR can be done outside a controlled environment. For "real world" tests I'd like to see each camera show its best; the problem is that "best" is relative, depending on what part of the scene is important to you. The only solution I can think of is to present a range of exposures, each with optimal post-processing, and let the viewer decide.

Does that make any sense to you?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've made my opinion known. I want review sites to tell me what they don't like about a product. I can make a judgment for myself if that criteria is relevant for me personally, but if no one writes about the downsides, then it's impossible to make intelligent choices. Instead of focusing on a couple of small points, I prefer to look at the overall review and I would say that DPR tends to have very thorough reviews. If people feel there is some bias in the review (which is not necessarily a bad thing, but rather just a fact of life) then it's a simple matter to take that into account when reading the reviews (or if people are offended by the reviews, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to read the reviews).

One of the most sensible passages I've ever read on the internet.
-Rishi

I've found that reviews tend to hit the things that cover most users. I tether my Canon cameras (Starting with the 40D) to my computer and found out the hard way that Nikon DSLRs are or were weak in that area to the point of being very frustrating to use. I wish this area was covered in more depth.

I have not seen a hands-on review of the tethering capabilities and software for the A7RII. Is there such a thing where I can remotely control the camera similar to Canon? Is it fast and reliable giving near real time feedback that is good enough for stills? I know that there is some minimal software bundled with the camera, but how well does it work?

Now, with the D1X II having built-in high speed Wi-Fi, that's of interest to me, can it be linked up by a Wi-Fi network and controlled quickly and reliably by a computer, tablet, or phone.

If the 5D MK IV has similar Wi-Fi capability, I'd be interested there as well.

Right now, I use a iusbport camera2 to tether my 5D MK III by Wi-Fi. It works, but its somewhat frustrating. The delay in closing the shutter is just long enough that a bird may leave the FOV before the shutter closes. I like to zoom in, I could use a wider angle, but I want close ups.

 

[whothafunk]

Now, with the D1X II having built-in high speed Wi-Fi, that's of interest to me, can it be linked up by a Wi-Fi network and controlled quickly and reliably by a computer, tablet, or phone.

If the 5D MK IV has similar Wi-Fi capability, I'd be interested there as well.

Right now, I use a iusbport camera2 to tether my 5D MK III by Wi-Fi.

It's a 1DX (one-d-x), not D1X (d-one-x). Weird you're not reversing it with other Canon camera models, D53 or rather D5MKIII..

On the other note, 80D review on DPreview is just horrible. However did this review didn't do his homework properly and should be banned from doing dslr reviews.

 

[Mikehit]

On the other note, 80D review on DPreview is just horrible. However did this review didn't do his homework properly and should be banned from doing dslr reviews.

As one considering buying an 80D, in what way was it 'horrible' and what 'homework' didn't they do?

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Let me repeat that I'm not claiming bias. I've only glanced at your review of the 80D, and probably should read it carefully before I to go into any detailed comments.

We're trying to show what the difference is between camera X and Y when exposed optimally for the scene being tested.
<snip>
We choose the following common basis: we choose the exposure where 1/3 EV higher exposure will clip tones we wish to preserve in the image, which provides a fair playing ground for comparisons across cameras.

Here's why I'm puzzled: as far as I can tell, "the scene being tested" is inherently subjective. If I'm taking macro photos of the reflections in a raindrop and don't care about the surrounds, then maybe I'll reduce exposure. If I'm interested in a forest scene with light glinting off droplets, then I'll increase exposure and accept that the droplets will be blown. For a more concrete example, if I'm shooting an evening shot just before or after sunset, I can choose how much of the sky I'm willing to overexpose for the sake of the shadows.

Don't get me wrong: I have a 70D and have been frustrated when I try to balance forest scenes with dappled light and deep shadow. It would not surprise me at all that the successor is only marginally better. It would also not surprise me if a Sony sensor has better DR at low ISO, since this has been demonstrated for several years. However, I'm at a loss to understand how an objective comparison of DR can be done outside a controlled environment. For "real world" tests I'd like to see each camera show its best; the problem is that "best" is relative, depending on what part of the scene is important to you. The only solution I can think of is to present a range of exposures, each with optimal post-processing, and let the viewer decide.

Does that make any sense to you?

Yes, it does make sense - and thank you for being constructive.

The thing though is that we have a controlled environment - our studio scene - where we do various degrees of pushing to show differences. The real world DR shootouts, OTOH, are only useful for comparisons between the cameras being compared for that particular shootout, that day, that sunset.

However, the comparative results between the two will at least hold true for any other scene with that much dynamic range, or more.

This all started particularly because DXO numbers were thrown around as gospel, and while they may be correct (most of the time, from an 'engineering' dynamic range standpoint anyway), those numbers don't mean much to the photographer. Hence, we wanted to visualize differences, particularly because SNR thresholds of 1 may not even be relevant to the photographer. Our real-world DR shootouts give some idea of those those 1, 2, or 3 EV stated differences in DR look like.

So it's about comparisons, not necessarily 'this is what the camera will do in every sunset'. First of all, all sunsets differ. Second, you may be OK with blowing more tones than I. But setting the threshold of clipping Raw channels in the Raw file forms a common basis for comparisons between cameras, which is ultimately the point of those real-world shootouts.

I hope that helps, and apologies if it doesn't. Keep in mind further that we make the Raw files available to you - so you can process it yourself. As for the exposure itself, the skies already show clipping on the back of the camera for the exposures we choose, because when channels are clipping in Raw, they're almost definitely clipping in JPEG. So the preview of these shots tend to have the skies looking white, and so aren't at all unreasonable exposures that a photographer wouldn't have chosen on the scene. At least, the photographer is unlikely to have chosen more exposure. So however you look at it, setting aside that the choice of exposure doesn't particularly matter much for our test as long as it's on an equivalent basis for both cameras, we've still chosen a reasonable exposure. The next 1/3 EV higher exposure lost detail in recovered orange clouds above the horizon in our 5DS R vs D810 comparison, and that's probably not acceptable to a landscape photographer. That's our common basis.

Sure there are many situations less demanding, there are many more demanding, and there are others where you won't choose to post-process as we do. But we had at least hoped that these visual comparisons would be welcome compared to the DXO numbers being thrown around. And for the most part, they have been - we've received numerous messages from many members indicating how helpful it has been to visualize these differences using controlled comparisons.

My hope is that you will also see the utility in this, and if there's something we can do better to help a majority of you, then we will consider it.

Best, Rishi

 

[Mr. Low Notes]

I want to clear up what I quoted from another commenter, GMCPhotographics, and what were my comments in regard to his. Please see a follow up at the end of the quotes. Thanks, MLN

It looks like in the review the shooter doesn't get an initial lock...so the camera and lens are then struggling to re-adjust. This shouts of a poor technique from the reviewer...he's only a press hack I guess.

Leaving aside the fact that that's simply insulting to our reviewer (not me), we repeat every test at least 3x. We always initiate focus on the biker while he's static, then ask him to start coming towards the camera. If it didn't get an 'initial lock' on 3 tries on a static biker, you might say there's a problem. And that was with single-point 'One Shot'.

I'm an uncertain of how that is an 'Idiot Method'. Also, claiming intended bias here would require every single one of our reviewers happens to be biased, or is forced to have a brand-specific bias by management. Readers of this site (and ours) should ask themselves how likely that would be.

To be honest...I steer clear of DPR....the forum isn't a nice place to hang out, there's a lot of weird and frankly ruthless attitudes there and their reviews are just glorified eye candy.

If tireless testing and re-testing and thoughts of 'did I miss anything in our tests?' that keep us up at night is 'glorified eye candy', then, yes, our controlled side-by-sides and meticulously controlled tests are really just 'glorified eye candy'.

Again, this is very insulting considering that in reality, we're constantly refining our methodologies - we now carefully control all lighting and exposure down to < 1/3 EV error to make sure our high ISO comparisons correlate with real-world performance, for example. Why would we do that if we were just in this for the 'eye candy'? I'm not actually even sure what that means - long wordy reviews aren't really eye-candy to me.

There's nothing in those reviews which do much for me..except maybe comparing iso noise between similar cameras. The original owner was very biased towards Canon and very open about his opinion. I think you'll find there's very few 1D series reviews, certainly no 1DX but you'll find every Nikon Dx series reviewed...all with glowing reviews...like the D4, which they failed to mention the numerous lockups and AF issues which plagued every pro photographer that I met using one. Which is why so many pros got frustrated with Noik and traded in for Canon and the (working) 1DX.

Like the D4S, which we didn't review?

I now refer to DP Review as DR Review since that is all they concentrate on.

1 page of 16 page reviews is 'all they concentrate on'? 1/16 = 6.25%.

You could say the same about our focus on high ISO performance and analysis via our studio scene, JPEG noise reduction and detail retention, color (where we typically state that Canon is our 'benchmark'), and, pun intended, our focus on focus, which typically takes up multiple pages.

In fact, our body and menus and ergonomics pages take up more pages than our DR pages. Dynamic range is a but a small percentage of our final weighted score.

'All they concentrate on'?

I'm surprised they haven't banned me yet because they don't like me saying that. I'm with you. I'm about done with DR Review. It's a nasty place in the comments section and getting worse. I do admit to throwing my two cents in but I try to be positive and not nasty. No matter. Negativity is king there as is Canon hate.

There's just as much Nikon hate. Every time we publish a Nikon interview, I feel sorry for Nikon Japan if they're reading our site. Which they are.

You're right about one thing though - the negativity. Which is evidently not limited to DPR.

Sony shooters seem to have a chip on their shoulder and Canon shooters a bulls eye on their back. I use a 60D, 70D and EOS M and I'm happy with them as are my customers with my results and that is what matters.

That is not only what matters when you're running a review site that tries to cover all technologies and all cameras relative to one another. I'm happy that in isolation you're happy with your gear - that doesn't mean there isn't other gear that performs better along certain axes, and it's our job to find those things and talk about them.

-Rishi

Rishi, I'm new to posting at CR and the top part was a quote from another person, GMCPhotographics. I messed up reposting the quote and I'm sorry about that. Mine were the second and third paragraphs below.

"I now refer to DP Review as DR Review since that is all they concentrate on. I'm surprised they haven't banned me yet because they don't like me saying that. I'm with you. I'm about done with DR Review. It's a nasty place in the comments section and getting worse. I do admit to throwing my two cents in but I try to be positive and not nasty. No matter. Negativity is king there as is Canon hate. Sony shooters seem to have a chip on their shoulder and Canon shooters a bulls eye on their back. I use a 60D, 70D and EOS M and I'm happy with them as are my customers with my results and that is what matters.

As for the 80D, it looks to be a fine camera. As for Sony I have nothing against them. Glad they are putting pressure on the other companies to improve. Competition is good. Being overly biased is not."

Rishi, I'm glad you look at CR and took the time comment on the post the way that you did. I certainly have more respect for you than I did before. There are a lot of things I like about DPR but the negativity is starting to outweigh the good. However I'm not backing down on DR being discuss as a top priority at DP Review regardless of the number of pages devoted to it. Mainly by the commentators. Some of which are obsessed with it. A little moderation wouldn't hurt but I guess, sadly, the mud slinging keeps the traffic high. As for me I do not disagree that more DR is better but it's not the only thing that makes for good image quality. That starts with the photographer. Buying a high end Fender Stratocaster won't make you suddenly play like Eric Clapton anymore than buying a high end camera, regardless of brand, will suddenly make you a better photographer. I came from film in the mid 80s. Read a lot of photography books that I still have. Learned my camera (Chinon CP7-m, no auto focus either) and made every shot count. Had to. Film. ;-)

BTW, I'm not in isolation with my Canon gear. I have used other brands. My brother has two Nikon Dfs and several lenses. I also have friends that have Nikon, Canon and Sony gear that I have borrowed and used. And I have a Sony, Yeah, Sony, AS200 action cam. Love it! I think GoPro needs to be more worried about Sony than Canon.

Patrick - AKA MLN

 

[brad-man]

OK. I just about shot my wad on verses. I'm afraid the "yellow N" reference went right over my head. Verily. Nice retort though.

A play on Nathaniel Hawthorne. In retrospect, painted with a scarlet-orange alpha may have been a more obvious reference, albeit less fitting.

Actually, I got the Hawthorne reference. It was the meaning of "yellow N" that eluded me. Still does.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It looks like in the review the shooter doesn't get an initial lock...so the camera and lens are then struggling to re-adjust. This shouts of a poor technique from the reviewer...he's only a press hack I guess.

Leaving aside the fact that that's simply insulting to our reviewer (not me), we repeat every test at least 3x. We always initiate focus on the biker while he's static, then ask him to start coming towards the camera. If it didn't get an 'initial lock' on 3 tries on a static biker, you might say there's a problem. And that was with single-point 'One Shot'.

I'm an uncertain of how that is an 'Idiot Method'. Also, claiming intended bias here would require every single one of our reviewers happens to be biased, or is forced to have a brand-specific bias by management. Readers of this site (and ours) should ask themselves how likely that would be.

To be honest...I steer clear of DPR....the forum isn't a nice place to hang out, there's a lot of weird and frankly ruthless attitudes there and their reviews are just glorified eye candy.

If tireless testing and re-testing and thoughts of 'did I miss anything in our tests?' that keep us up at night is 'glorified eye candy', then, yes, our controlled side-by-sides and meticulously controlled tests are really just 'glorified eye candy'.

Again, this is very insulting considering that in reality, we're constantly refining our methodologies - we now carefully control all lighting and exposure down to < 1/3 EV error to make sure our high ISO comparisons correlate with real-world performance, for example. Why would we do that if we were just in this for the 'eye candy'? I'm not actually even sure what that means - long wordy reviews aren't really eye-candy to me.

There's nothing in those reviews which do much for me..except maybe comparing iso noise between similar cameras. The original owner was very biased towards Canon and very open about his opinion. I think you'll find there's very few 1D series reviews, certainly no 1DX but you'll find every Nikon Dx series reviewed...all with glowing reviews...like the D4, which they failed to mention the numerous lockups and AF issues which plagued every pro photographer that I met using one. Which is why so many pros got frustrated with Noik and traded in for Canon and the (working) 1DX.

Like the D4S, which we didn't review?

I now refer to DP Review as DR Review since that is all they concentrate on.

1 page of 16 page reviews is 'all they concentrate on'? 1/16 = 6.25%.

You could say the same about our focus on high ISO performance and analysis via our studio scene, JPEG noise reduction and detail retention, color (where we typically state that Canon is our 'benchmark'), and, pun intended, our focus on focus, which typically takes up multiple pages.

In fact, our body and menus and ergonomics pages take up more pages than our DR pages. Dynamic range is a but a small percentage of our final weighted score.

'All they concentrate on'?

I'm surprised they haven't banned me yet because they don't like me saying that. I'm with you. I'm about done with DR Review. It's a nasty place in the comments section and getting worse. I do admit to throwing my two cents in but I try to be positive and not nasty. No matter. Negativity is king there as is Canon hate.

There's just as much Nikon hate. Every time we publish a Nikon interview, I feel sorry for Nikon Japan if they're reading our site. Which they are.

You're right about one thing though - the negativity. Which is evidently not limited to DPR.

Sony shooters seem to have a chip on their shoulder and Canon shooters a bulls eye on their back. I use a 60D, 70D and EOS M and I'm happy with them as are my customers with my results and that is what matters.

That is not only what matters when you're running a review site that tries to cover all technologies and all cameras relative to one another. I'm happy that in isolation you're happy with your gear - that doesn't mean there isn't other gear that performs better along certain axes, and it's our job to find those things and talk about them.

-Rishi

Rishi
I don't know your history with DP review, who you are or what role you perform for them. It's a free internet and a public forum: and all views are welcome here. It seems that you don't like my criticism of DPR. My views of that forum have history, my first post was in 2004 (Gazzajagman) and I used to post heavily to Ben Egbert's show and tell landscape threads. I stopped posting around 2011 because I was tired of the hostility in the forums and I found the reviews to be concentrating on areas that I didn't feel were in any way relevant to my work. Please feel free to defend that site as much as you want to...but to me it smacks of a lack of humility and underlines the prevalent attitude of chasing down or calling out anyone who holds a different opinion to you. There are a number of "test" or "review" web sites that regularly come into question regardless of how thorougher they claim their tests. DXO labs, Photozone and DPR are regularly showing graphs and charts which highlight non issues as "biggies" or fail to demonstrate what some one in the real world experiences. Many here laugh at some of their historical reviews and have formed their opinion about those sites over time and experience.
I have been a photographer since the Canon A1 / AE1 days and have seen a progression through auto exposure, auto focus and then into digital. I have been amateur, semi pro and fully professional in a number of photograph genres...but I don't have to use my credential to justify my opinion. I don't write for you or for money, I write for me.
So feel free to come onto this forum, which has little to do with DR review, where many talented and experienced photographers have left those forums to seek safer shores. Many here have little care for them due to sour experience. Please feel free to come here and self justify your existence and your opinion, but don't think I am in any way intimidated or scared of your writings....you are just underlining the reasons why I distance myself from DPR. Humility would have asked how to DPR could change or fix...but no...you just want to argue, fight and self justify.

 

[3kramd5]

I have not seen a hands-on review of the tethering capabilities and software for the A7RII. Is there such a thing where I can remotely control the camera similar to Canon? Is it fast and reliable giving near real time feedback that is good enough for stills? I know that there is some minimal software bundled with the camera, but how well does it work?

It exists, but in my experience isn't particularly good. I was hoping to use it to blast a series of photos for astro work, but couldn't find a way to set the desired number of exposures and was left mashing the mouse button down. However, the transfer speeds are so slow that the whole thing got bogged down and I wasn't able to reliably control it.

This was when the R2 was new; perhaps the software has improved (and note I haven't tried it for less demanding tasks).

 

[3kramd5]

Humility would have asked how to DPR could change or fix...but no...you just want to argue, fight and self justify.

Reading back over the past few changes, he has asked for constructive criticism (i.e. how DPR could change), and he's not self-justifying, so to speak, but explaining and defending, which is perfectly acceptable.

The team there has clearly put a lot of effort into creating a fair (yes), repeatable, generic methodology for testing camera performance. If a given test is biased in favor of one brand or another, I personally suspect that to be unintentional. In other words, I don't think they're designing tests with the intent of clobbering canon; if canon gets clobbered, it's a consequence of the results they value. Further, it doesn't impeach any of the good qualities canon offers, nor any consumer's choice to purchase a canon product.

 

[Mikehit]

I agree with 3kramd5 - I have found Rishi's comments far from 'self justifying', instead trying to explain in the face of some quite blunt non-specific criticism (more like lambasting) why they do what they do.

Humility would have asked how to DPR could change or fix...but no...you just want to argue, fight and self justify.

If you had bothered to actually read Rishi's comments he has said in several places about how they are wanting to
broaden their testing regime and even thanked posters for their suggestions. But I guess in your one-eyed way of reading you somehow missed that.

Review sites come in all shapes and sizes, some are people who use a different model (even different brand) and compare it to their usual camera and give coherent explanations on their findings even when highly subjective (the 'I don't shoot test charts, I am a real-world shooter' brigade). For those guys I need to know pretty accurately if their needs/style matches mine and over time if their comments are constructive or overly simplistic.
Others are more structured organisations trying to give subjective assessments and in so doing have to try create standardised tests that may or may not replicate what any particular shooter is trying to achieve. I have found Rishi's comments informative as to why they have taken the choices they have and I can use that information when deciding 'is that relevant to me'.


But to use the comments by trolls on the DPR forum as a way to criticise the DPR methodology is, to my mind, ridiculous. And having shot Canon all your life is hardly a platform from which to lambast Rishi and DPR for even attempting to do what they do.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

OK, I recently pulled the trigger on the 80D super badass eBay combo discount package a couple weeks ago. When they decide to finally ship it to me (next week perhaps?) I'll clear all this up with my very own detailed review! I'll dutifully slap a fresh battery in and aim it out the front door, at the cat and maybe at a lamp or two and fire off several shots. I'll share my in-depth review of those results here for everyone to absorb and debate.

No thanks required! I'm happy to do my part to clear up this debacle! ;D

 

[jebrady03]

A quick note about my writing style. When I capitalize a word or series of words, I'm not "yelling", I'm emphasizing. It's like using voice inflection. I'm from the south, and where I was raised, and who I was raised around, emphasis on your words was EASILY as important as the words themselves.

A little moderation wouldn't hurt but I guess, sadly, the mud slinging keeps the traffic high.

Indeed.

As for me I do not disagree that more DR is better but it's not the only thing that makes for good image quality.

Agree wholeheartedly!

That starts with the photographer.

PUMP THE BRAKES! We've entered into a COMPLETELY irrelevant arena when it comes to a website dedicated to REVIEWING AND COMPARING CAMERAS! If the website were dedicated to reviewing and comparing photographers, or techniques, THEN you would have a great point. But seeing as how a photographer will be choosing which CAMERA (and lens) to take a specific picture with, the photographer is the "constant" and the camera/lens is the "variable" which needs reviewing/comparing. If that doesn't make sense to someone, they should probably excuse themselves from commenting on or about ANY camera or lens review.

Buying a high end Fender Stratocaster won't make you suddenly play like Eric Clapton anymore than buying a high end camera, regardless of brand, will suddenly make you a better photographer.

There's so much floating around in my head right now in response to this, but I'll do my best to keep it short. I make no guarantees about "sweet"
If Eric Clapton were deciding between 3 guitars, do you think it would be helpful to have Stevie Ray Vaughn, BB King, and Jimi Hendrix review the same guitar and tell him all about it? I mean, besides the fact that it would be AWESOME to have all 3 of those guys back and playing again, how meaningful would their analysis be to Mr Clapton if they all reviewed only one guitar, and it happened to be the same guitar? For sure, we could say that the guitarist makes a difference in how the guitar is played and thus, what comes out of it. But so what? SRV, BBK, and JH aren't looking to buy the guitar, Mr Clapton is. And the skills those 3 "reviewers" posses aren't the exact same skills Mr Clapton possesses and thus, Mr Clapton will necessarily obtain different results. So how are their reviews relevant? Answer: They're not. Not without context. And if all 3 legendary guitarists reviewed all 3 options that Mr Clapton is considering and COMPARED THEM TO ONE ANOTHER USING A CONTROLLED, REPEATABLE METHODOLOGY then THAT would be useful to Mr Clapton. Would it not?
Regarding the whole "better equipment doesn't make you a better photographer" cliche. That might be among the dumbest, most trite statements bandied about by those who are SO completely closed minded that they can't even BEGIN to realize how asinine they sound. Why is it a dumb statement? Because it's SO incredibly true. But at the same time, ignores the fact that better cameras can do 2 things (for the sake of this discussion)... 1) they can take better QUALITY pictures which WILL improve the output of said photographer, making their WORK better (but again, not THEM) and 2) they can enable the same photographer to utilize their skillset more completely which can improve their work and can enable them to take pictures they were unable to take previously due to the limitations of their gear. So ,no... Gear will not make the photographer BETTER. But gear ABSOLUTELY can make the photographers RESULTS (quality, diversity) better. If this weren't the case, everyone would still be using the very first camera and lens ever made because it wouldn't make sense to make anything else.
Ok... so that wasn't even remotely short... my apologies...

I came from film in the mid 80s. Read a lot of photography books that I still have. Learned my camera (Chinon CP7-m, no auto focus either) and made every shot count. Had to. Film. ;-)

Congratulations.

 

[arcer]

...
There are a lot of things I like about DPR but the negativity is starting to outweigh the good.

DPR is not more or less negative than it has been in the past in so far as reviews, their summaries and findings. I should know, I've been reading them for more than 10 years.

Nice to know more about the origins of one of the major contributors here on CR. Maybe now I can understand your viewpoints much better.

 

[arcer]

OK, I recently pulled the trigger on the 80D super badass eBay combo discount package a couple weeks ago. When they decide to finally ship it to me (next week perhaps?) I'll clear all this up with my very own detailed review! I'll dutifully slap a fresh battery in and aim it out the front door, at the cat and maybe at a lamp or two and fire off several shots. I'll share my in-depth review of those results here for everyone to absorb and debate.

No thanks required! I'm happy to do my part to clear up this debacle! ;D

Sweet, I look forward to your review Rusty
But make a new tread, this one has too much clutter.

 

[3kramd5]

So ,no... Gear will not make the photographer BETTER. But gear ABSOLUTELY can make the photographers RESULTS (quality, diversity) better.

+1