Dpreview of the 80D

[Don Haines]

...
I thought it was a very well done review. My only complaint with it is the fascination that the camera industry has with ISO 100 and would have liked to see more tests done at high ISO like 3200 or 6400 so the readers get an idea of the relative merits of cameras when you start to push things a bit.....
...

What is this fascination that only canonrumors has with ISOs like 3200 or 6400?

We don't blame you for your lack of comprehension, as we all know there's always ample light and subjects never move...in dilbertland.

unfortunately, some us have had to shoot musicians with a F1.4 lens and crank the ISO up to 12800 to get the shutter speed down to 1/100 of a second because flash was not allowed...... Many of us do not buy cameras for their low ISO performance as we seldom use it. If you live your life at ISO 100, then good for you..... but be nice to those who need something more.

I'll bet that very few of the pictures from Neuro's 1DX were at ISO 100.... Myself, out of 34,726 pictures shot with my 7D2, 160 were at ISO100....

 

[Loswr]

Let's say you are shooting at 600mm on a crop camera....

Who owns a 600mm lens? Not your average punter that will read reviews on DPR.

Your comments just get ever more asinine. I'm sure nobody owns any of the multiple 3rd party 150-600mm zooms in the $800-2000 range. Never see those at popular birding spots in dilbertland. : :

 

[rishi_sanyal]

I recon you were about two to three stops under where you could have been and still hold highlights in the evening sky.

No, our real-world comparisons are perfectly ETTR'd - there is not even 1/3 EV headroom.

That woooshing sound you hear is Sporgon's point flying over your head.

I guess you either understand saturation-based controlled tests, or you don't.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

Mt Spokane Photography and Don Haines- all excellent points, and duly noted. Thank you for your perspectives; they're ones we are definitely considering as we try and figure what is and isn't worth even attempting.

Rishi

 

[Don Haines]

Who owns a 600mm lens? Not your average punter that will read reviews on DPR.

Yet somehow, Sigma and Tamron are selling 150-600 lenses like popcorn and Nikon is having a hard time supplying 200-500 lenses because of the huge demand......

This is why you have IS and why the "stops rating" of IS is beneficial. A "3 stops IS" system brings 1/1200 down to 1/150.

True, but it does not slow down the wings so you still need a high shutter speed.

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

OK, bad example, replace bird with Bambi. Here's a shot of Bambi taken at 600mm on a heavily overcast day (light snowfall) and cropped to get in closer.....

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.

You could be right..... look at my second shot of the squirrel... 600mm, overcast day, and there does not seem to be much colour......

Look, everyone understands that colour and DR are better at low ISO, but sometimes you need higher ISO and we live with the limitations it causes. We would all like more, but we have to live in the present.

If low ISO represents the majority of photographs or at least the majority of photographs that people like (and thus end up on flickr's front page), it would seem to me to be a sensible move to talk more about camera performance at ISO 100 than at ISO 6400.

How often is it mentioned here that 80% or 90% (I forget which) of Canon DSLRs never see a lens on them aside from the one bought when the camera is mentioned. That's 80%-90% of Canon DSLRs that will never see a 600mm lens on them. Yet you want DPR to put more focus on a camera setting that will serve maybe 10% (probably) less of Canon DSLR owners.

of course it's the minority. Anyone who buys a higher end camera, like the 80D, is in the minority. People who shoot RAW are in the minority. People not using the green box mode are in the minority. People who use lightroom or more than the basic functionality of DPR are in the minority. CR members are in the minority. People who read DPR are in the minority. DPR does not target the vast bulk of camera owners, they target the minority who are their target audience..... and that is a good thing. This minority is the group of people most likely to push their gear and to them, performance away from base levels is of greater concern to them than it is to the general public.

 

[scyrene]

Who owns a 600mm lens? Not your average punter that will read reviews on DPR.

Most people don't, but there are plenty of enthusiast-affordable lenses that go to the mid hundreds of mm now, like the X-600mm f/6.3 mentioned. Your *average* punter won't even read through a twenty page review.

"you generally need twice the focal length for the shutter speed so you are shooting at 1/1200th of a second"

This is why you have IS and why the "stops rating" of IS is beneficial. A "3 stops IS" system brings 1/1200 down to 1/150.

You've got a point, but have missed another. You can't generally shoot birds at 1/150sec. They move. Even perched birds move enough that this is generally too slow. 1/250-320 is in my experience the lower limit. IS is very useful but has its limitations - shooting wildlife isn't as reliant on short exposures as sports/action but it is fairly reliant on them.

.
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!

Most people don't take photos with 600mm lenses on overcast days of birds flying.

<Citation needed>. It's not the best, but it is done. You may not choose to do it, but since when are you the arbiter of what is allowed?

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.

Now you've way overreached. Actually lots of things look good on overcast days - sometimes they look *better* because of the reduced contrast and more neutral colours. 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...

Last time I checked the photos on the front page of flickr, there were vastly more photos ISO 100-800 than there were 1600 and above.

There could be a lot of reasons for that. According to Flickr's own blog http://blog.flickr.net/en/2015/12/18/top-cameras-and-brands-on-flickr-in-2015/, the top 6 camera models for 2015 were iPhones - which don't even have ISO settings of 3200-6400. So there's a sampling bias. To state you can deduce what most DSLR customers want or need from this is... absurd, to say the least.

So yes, canonrumors has an obsession with high ISO that is generally not representative of the wider population.

Absolutely - but you are even less representative than us, judging by what you say. And your pronouncements on the average camera buyer are at least as biased by your own experience and judgment as everyone else here.

 

[Sporgon]

I recon you were about two to three stops under where you could have been and still hold highlights in the evening sky.

No, our real-world comparisons are perfectly ETTR'd - there is not even 1/3 EV headroom.

That woooshing sound you hear is Sporgon's point flying over your head.

Indeed. I thought I'd been pretty clear in my analysis. Ah well.

 

[Don Haines]

I recon you were about two to three stops under where you could have been and still hold highlights in the evening sky.

No, our real-world comparisons are perfectly ETTR'd - there is not even 1/3 EV headroom.

That woooshing sound you hear is Sporgon's point flying over your head.

Indeed. I thought I'd been pretty clear in my analysis. Ah well.

seems like a mis-understanding.... perhaps you could explain your reasoning in greater detail so our guest will understand what you meant.....

 

[Loswr]

I recon you were about two to three stops under where you could have been and still hold highlights in the evening sky.

No, our real-world comparisons are perfectly ETTR'd - there is not even 1/3 EV headroom.

That woooshing sound you hear is Sporgon's point flying over your head.

Indeed. I thought I'd been pretty clear in my analysis. Ah well.

seems like a mis-understanding.... perhaps you could explain your reasoning in greater detail so our guest will understand what you meant.....

Did you read the post to which Sporgon provided a link, with examples from PBD? What was unclear?

 

[Don Haines]

I recon you were about two to three stops under where you could have been and still hold highlights in the evening sky.

No, our real-world comparisons are perfectly ETTR'd - there is not even 1/3 EV headroom.

That woooshing sound you hear is Sporgon's point flying over your head.

Indeed. I thought I'd been pretty clear in my analysis. Ah well.

seems like a mis-understanding.... perhaps you could explain your reasoning in greater detail so our guest will understand what you meant.....

Did you read the post to which Sporgon provided a link, with examples from PBD? What was unclear?

I got it.... and I agree with it.... I was wondering about our guest.....

We often run out of DR and have to choose how best to expose our image (what to keep, what to throw away). Following a hard rule like ETR means always throwing away from the same side, where artistically, you are often better off throwing away from the other end of the range, or a bit from each....

The problem with a review site is that they have to do it the same way for everyone, so from the point of view of a standard, ETR makes perfect sense..... it is repeatable and easily measured. I think there is nothing with saying/showing what happens when things get raised 4 or 5 stops. It is good valid information. It tells us not to do it. It tells us that if we expose for 2 or 3 more stops and then only raise it two in post production, that we will have better results.

 

[unfocused]

So if a review praises the camera dozens of times and criticizes it a few times then it is biased against it? I don't think so......

I have found that DPR does the best reviews of any of the review sites. Could they be better? Of course they could..... there is always room for improvement as perfection is something to be strived for, yet never obtained....

I thought it was a very well done review. My only complaint with it is the fascination that the camera industry has with ISO 100 and would have liked to see more tests done at high ISO like 3200 or 6400 so the readers get an idea of the relative merits of cameras when you start to push things a bit.....

But overall, it was well done, well organized, and easy to read.

A voice of reason in a largely unreasonable thread.

I really don't get the obsession that otherwise rational people on this forum have developed with DPR. These are reviews. Very thorough reviews actually. And, it's the reviewers right (no it's their) obligation to give their opinion. Just because you disagree with their opinion, that doesn't mean they are wrong and you are right.

I completely get the complaints about DXO, which uses pseudo-science to extrapolate broad interpretations from tiny data points and then oversprays their ratings with one-size-fits-all generalizations.

But, that's not the case with DPR or the Digital Picture. How many of us have tested multiple copies of Canon and Nikon cameras side by side and attempted to write fair, but honest, reviews highlighting the good and criticizing the bad?

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.

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.

On the other hand, I am intrigued by this new concept promoted by DPR of ISO independent sensors. It does seem very useful to me to be able to set your exposure based on the necessary shutter speed and f-stop and then raise that underexposed image in post. What I would like to know more about, however, is the relative benefits/drawbacks. Is it now better, for example, to shoot a subject at ISO 400 and underexpose by four stops, than to shot at ISO 6400 and expose properly.

Those are the comparisons I hope to begin seeing on sites like DPR.

 

[3kramd5]

What I would like to know more about, however, is the relative benefits/drawbacks. Is it now better, for example, to shoot a subject at ISO 400 and underexpose by four stops, than to shot at ISO 6400 and expose properly.

The whole concept of "invariance" (a term they use to describe sensors which have a relatively constant read noise) is that it makes no difference; it's neither better nor worse. Underexposing in camera and lifting in post may facilitate better highlight detail (since you can lift selectively in lost versus only globally in camera) at potentially the expense of shadow detail.

 

[Loswr]

I completely get the complaints about DXO, which uses pseudo-science to extrapolate broad interpretations from tiny data points and then oversprays their ratings with one-size-fits-all generalizations.

But, that's not the case with DPR or the Digital Picture.

Sony a7R II, DPR Overall Score 90%
Nikon D7200, DPR Overall Score 84%
Canon 5DIII, DPR Overall Score 82%

'Cuz, you know, accurate and unbiased DPR doesn't use a one-size-fits-all generalization. :

TDP, on the other hand, doesn't rate or score, and doesn't review Nikon (for which they provide only standardized ISO12233 and Imatest data for their lenses).

 

[zim]

I completely get the complaints about DXO, which uses pseudo-science to extrapolate broad interpretations from tiny data points and then oversprays their ratings with one-size-fits-all generalizations.

But, that's not the case with DPR or the Digital Picture.

Sony a7R II, DPR Overall Score 90%
Nikon D7200, DPR Overall Score 84%
Canon 5DIII, DPR Overall Score 82%

and to make matters worse these overall scores are points in time

Canon 7D, DPR Overall Score 84%

It's exactly the same trap DxO have fallen into but I have hope for DPR unlike DxO

 

[unfocused]

Seriously, your comment above sounds like sulking to me.

A much as it pains me to say this, Dilbert is right.

What is it about "review" that people don't understand. It's like boys arguing over who is hotter, Lois Lane or Lana Lang. It doesn't matter.

 

[3kramd5]

Is there such a thing as "general photographer?" If so, "he/she who relies primarily on smartphones" is the leading candidate. Anyway, the myriad use cases for cameras makes ranking them a fool's errand.

 

[Don Haines]

...
unfortunately, some us have had to shoot musicians with a F1.4 lens and crank the ISO up to 12800 to get the shutter speed down to 1/100 of a second because flash was not allowed...... Many of us do not buy cameras for their low ISO performance as we seldom use it. If you live your life at ISO 100, then good for you..... but be nice to those who need something more.

Many people that post on CR don't buy cameras for low ISO performance, but most CR folks have more than just the kit lens and thus fall into the minority of camera owners.

Myself, out of 34,726 pictures shot with my 7D2, 160 were at ISO100....

And that makes you representative of the general photographer how?

I think you missed the part where I said that we CR readers and DPR readers are in the minority.... If you want to representative of the general photographer, go pick up a phone and snap away. If you want to be representative of the general DSLR user, shoot with your one and only kit lens, in green box mode, save in jpg, and other than crop the image, never process it.

For them (or us) to target the average user would be to forget those interested in your product in order to cater to those who will never read it....

 

[Loswr]

What is it about "review" that people don't understand. It's like boys arguing over who is hotter, Lois Lane or Lana Lang. It doesn't matter.

What it is, is that most boys don't describe themselves as unbiased reviewers of superhero girlfriends, whereas DPR claims to be an unbiased camera review site, and their own website fails to support that contention.

Besides, Lana Lang is clearly hotter...

 

[Don Haines]

What is it about "review" that people don't understand. It's like boys arguing over who is hotter, Lois Lane or Lana Lang. It doesn't matter.

What it is, is that most boys don't describe themselves as unbiased reviewers of superhero girlfriends, whereas DPR claims to be an unbiased camera review site, and their own website fails to support that contention.

Besides, Lana Lang is clearly hotter...

It doesn't matter, neither of them shoot with a Canon.......

 

[Woody]

What it is, is that most boys don't describe themselves as unbiased reviewers of superhero girlfriends, whereas DPR claims to be an unbiased camera review site, and their own website fails to support that contention.

Well said.