Dpreview of the 80D

[unfocused]

First, let me say that I generally agree with you, jebbrady, and this is not meant to challenge or argue against your viewpoint. It is just that this section has me a bit confused:

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?

My first reaction would be to say that if it were Robert Johnson reviewing the guitar it might be most helpful for Clapton.

But, seriously, I'm not sure what the point is here. To follow your analogy a little further, I would say that having Jimi, Stevie Ray and BB King review three different guitars and offer their opinions in a totally personal, unscientific and biased (as in colored by their own preferences and experiences) might be more useful.

Now, to move that to cameras: No one uses (or at least should use) a camera in a completely controlled, repeatable, laboratory setting. If a reviewer tests the autofocus of three cameras by shooting a basketball game and comes back and says that in their opinion camera "B" had the most reliable autofocus, I know that it is impossible to draw a precise and repeatable comparison between the three cameras, but rather I'm relying on the reviewer's own experience. I can reject that experience or take it into consideration, my choice.

It seems like some people on this forum want to seize on these kinds of reviews and argue because they don't feel the results are uniformly "scientific." I don't care, I'd rather know the person's opinion. And, if that person happens to have a bias for or against a specific brand? So what? Just take that into consideration. Reviewers are human beings and we should treat their reviews as written by humans offering their opinion.

Thus, if I had any talent for music I'd rather get the "impressions" of three guitars from Hendrix, SRV and BB King than expect them to conduct scientific experiments on the guitars.

 

[jebrady03]

I do agree with you. The reason I wrote controlled, repeatable, etc., is because that's more up DPR's alley. I was trying to make the analogy as similar to DPR as possible. But yeah... again... agreed

 

[bdunbar79]

First, let me say that I generally agree with you, jebbrady, and this is not meant to challenge or argue against your viewpoint. It is just that this section has me a bit confused:

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?

My first reaction would be to say that if it were Robert Johnson reviewing the guitar it might be most helpful for Clapton.

But, seriously, I'm not sure what the point is here. To follow your analogy a little further, I would say that having Jimi, Stevie Ray and BB King review three different guitars and offer their opinions in a totally personal, unscientific and biased (as in colored by their own preferences and experiences) might be more useful.

Now, to move that to cameras: No one uses (or at least should use) a camera in a completely controlled, repeatable, laboratory setting. If a reviewer tests the autofocus of three cameras by shooting a basketball game and comes back and says that in their opinion camera "B" had the most reliable autofocus, I know that it is impossible to draw a precise and repeatable comparison between the three cameras, but rather I'm relying on the reviewer's own experience. I can reject that experience or take it into consideration, my choice.

It seems like some people on this forum want to seize on these kinds of reviews and argue because they don't feel the results are uniformly "scientific." I don't care, I'd rather know the person's opinion. And, if that person happens to have a bias for or against a specific brand? So what? Just take that into consideration. Reviewers are human beings and we should treat their reviews as written by humans offering their opinion.

Thus, if I had any talent for music I'd rather get the "impressions" of three guitars from Hendrix, SRV and BB King than expect them to conduct scientific experiments on the guitars.

The reviewer is the one claiming to be scientific. The REVIEWER. Why can't people understand this? It has nothing to do with anything but that. I don't care if it's scientific or not (it's not) but if you are at least going to make that claim, then at least demonstrate that it is so.

 

[Mikehit]

The reviewer is the one claiming to be scientific. The REVIEWER. Why can't people understand this? It has nothing to do with anything but that. I don't care if it's scientific or not (it's not) but if you are at least going to make that claim, then at least demonstrate that it is so.

A scientist can both subjective and objective - the important thing is that they are clear when they are being subjective.
DxO as far as I can tell offer 'scientific' assessments (whose methodology is pretty well laid out) and offer little subjective assessment - they seem to me to be quite clear that it is up to the reader to make their own minds up as to what is important. Problem is that joe public reads 'model XX is 92 points, model YY is 89 points" and conclude that XX must be better. I blame the fool reading the article, not DxO.
And despite believing that DxO have in the last few years been stretching interpretations, including inventing dodgy definitions of dynamic range, it is still one set of information I use to assess new models.

In my experience, DPR do the test, they even make the raw files available and people can process them in their preferred workflow. And they try to present any conclusions in a context of comparison, and refer to the tests that support any subjective opinion. And that is where I sympathise with Rishi's comments about being criticised by people who have only ever used one marque (or changed marques so long ago it is almost irrelevant). If people are going to criticise them for their subjective opinions, should those people work to he same principle and openly admit 'I have never used brand XX so my experience is only really from one side of the fence and my own bias knowing what I have works for me'.

 

[unfocused]

The reviewer is the one claiming to be scientific. The REVIEWER. Why can't people understand this? It has nothing to do with anything but that. I don't care if it's scientific or not (it's not) but if you are at least going to make that claim, then at least demonstrate that it is so.

You are confusing understanding and caring. I understand, I just don't care to get my panties all in a twist over it.

 

[Sharlin]

As an aside:

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.

Well, we're on the internet now, and you should respect established norms of communication. ALL CAPS is almost universally considered rude, and one should not expect others to remember or adapt to one's idiosyncracies - instead, it's one's own responsibility to make oneself understood by others. This forum, like most others, supports italics for emphasis, and for those situations where only plain text is available, *asterisks* or _underlines_ are well-established ways to represent accentuation.

 

[jebrady03]

I'm not asking anyone to remember anything. That's why I prefaced my post with the information

...
Well, we're on the internet now, and you should respect established norms of communication. ALL CAPS is almost universally considered rude, and one should not expect others to remember or adapt to one's idiosyncracies - instead, it's one's own responsibility to make oneself understood by others. This forum, like most others, supports italics for emphasis, and for those situations where only plain text is available, *asterisks* or _underlines_ are well-established ways to represent accentuation.

Writing:

GET OFF MY LAWN

represents a different use of capital letters than:

The BLUE car had an accident, not the red one.

Using italics correctly means not using them for emphasis.

See, this guy gets it!

 

[3kramd5]

...
Well, we're on the internet now, and you should respect established norms of communication. ALL CAPS is almost universally considered rude, and one should not expect others to remember or adapt to one's idiosyncracies - instead, it's one's own responsibility to make oneself understood by others. This forum, like most others, supports italics for emphasis, and for those situations where only plain text is available, *asterisks* or _underlines_ are well-established ways to represent accentuation.

Writing:

GET OFF MY LAWN

represents a different use of capital letters than:

The BLUE car had an accident, not the red one.

And, it allows all the nuance of other markups.

Get OFF my lawn
Get off MY lawn
Get off my LAWN

Three different meanings.

I mostly post from a smartphone, which makes using the [] type markups more tedious. I'll keep capitalizing; if someone mistakes it as rudeness, oh well.

 

[Mr. Low Notes]

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.

Ya know I was kinda with you until you gave me that nasty dig. BTW, How old were you in 1986? 6?

 

[unfocused]

Hey you! Get off of my lawn!

Isn't that an updated version of the Rolling Stones song to reflect the changing attitudes of us baby boomers?

 

[Mr. Low Notes]

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

+1

I totally agree too!

 

[Mr. Low Notes]

...
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.

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.

You should go back and read what rishi wrote on this - 1 page of the review talks about DR. 1 page out of 16. Maybe you should actually read the review, from start to end, before commenting on it.

Oh I read it well. That comment refers to DPR's general regard for DR and their commentators obsession with it that I also state elsewhere. And the fact that DR is pretty much the first thing they discuss in a review. See their "preview" review of the Nikon D500.

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
...

Aside from composition, think of it this way...

Lower noise leads to higher DR. Is low noise good or bad?
A high range of sensor sensitivity leads to higher DR. Is being able to capture darker shows as well as highlights good or bad?

You can't have good DR without generally good IQ.

The better a camera's sensor, the better its IQ.
The better the IQ, the better the DR.

I'm with ya.

 

[rrcphoto]

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'.

so you test AI servo by being in one shot mode? or are you in single point AI Servo?

or you acquire your initial AI servo lock on a stationary object and then have that object move? for AI servo which is predictive distance and speed tracking, that's a test that is assured to fail, or the camera (or lens) to struggle with, especially depending on your AF case selection.

 

[Jopa]

According to dpreview any camera without a sony sensor is an outdated piece of garbage. The DR is the only thing that matters in a modern camera LOL! Wondering who's taking those clowns seriously except of the brick wall shooters who underexpose their brick wall shots by 5 stops.

 

[scyrene]

Using italics correctly means not using them for emphasis.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Monchoon]

Using italics correctly means not using them for emphasis.

What on earth are you talking about?

It's Dilbert, what more can one say. Maybe he might be able to understand this.

Italics are a way to emphasise key points in a printed text, or when quoting a speaker a way to show which words they stressed.

 

[Sporgon]

Using italics correctly means not using them for emphasis.

What on earth are you talking about?

dilbertland of course !

 

[Loswr]

Using italics correctly means not using them for emphasis.

What on earth are you talking about?

It's Dilbert, what more can one say. Maybe he might be able to understand this.

Italics are a way to emphasise key points in a printed text, or when quoting a speaker a way to show which words they stressed.

Use of italicized type is appropriate when providing a Linnaean taxonomic classification, for example: most denizens of this forum are Homo sapiens, however, at least one member is known to be a Trollus stultus.

 

[rishi_sanyal]

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'.

so you test AI servo by being in one shot mode? or are you in single point AI Servo?

or you acquire your initial AI servo lock on a stationary object and then have that object move? for AI servo which is predictive distance and speed tracking, that's a test that is assured to fail, or the camera (or lens) to struggle with, especially depending on your AF case selection.

Oops, it was late. I meant AI Servo single point.

For subject tracking tests we use the full AF array with 'Manual' initial point selection- where you pre-specify your subject by initiating focus on it.

Why would the scenario you described fail? Surely if an object is stationary and then starts moving the camera's subject tracking system might be expected to follow it?

 

[Mikehit]

Why would the scenario you described fail? Surely if an object is stationary and then starts moving the camera's subject tracking system might be expected to follow it?

The optimum way for many is to focus on the stationary subject then release the shutter, follow it as it starts moving without refocussing then reacquire focus, follow and fire. It also depends on if you have your camera set to focus priority or fire priority.