Why You Should Stick with Your Canon DSLR and Forget Sony FF Mirrorless

msm

EOS RP
Jun 8, 2013
309
1
neuroanatomist said:
msm said:
neuroanatomist said:
dilbert said:
Look, my opinions are just as valid as anyone else's and I don't see anyone else holding theirs back!

No. You have just as much right as anyone else to share your opinions, but that doesn't make your opinions valid. When others base their opinions on knowledge and understanding of facts, and you base your opinions inadequate knowledge, misunderstood facts and pure imagination, your opinions have an inherent lack of validity.

Yep, precisely like your opinions.

Yep, I can understand how you might believe the statement that, for example, "The 1D C is not really a dSLR," is a perfectly valid opinion based on properly understood facts. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. ::)

Your straw man arguments just back up my point.
 

ishdakuteb

EOS RP
Jul 5, 2012
475
0
dilbert said:
J.R. said:
If you have bought it, its good you have nice lens options now ... but "Maybe"? duh!

It's none of your (or anyone else on this forum) business what I own or do with my money and nor do I intend on making what I do with it public.

Agree with above statement, but it appears to be our business (or it is just my business) when you are trying to educate us while you are not be able to manage/utilize your tools to get nice images... Have been waiting for years to see your proof(s) that you can deliver decent (Yes, I just require decent look images from you. Sharp, nice images and composition is to muchhhh to expect from you.) ;)
 

J.R.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jan 13, 2013
1,749
0
dilbert said:
J.R. said:
Troll ... really? simply for asking whether Dilbert had finally purchased a Sony camera?
...

Yes.

If you google "internet troll", you'll see this:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into ...

Your post about me owning a Sony is/was off topic and was posted deliberately to provoke me.

;D ... Asking whether you have a Sony camera is provocation? How old are you ... 12?

You post no pictures, don't reveal what gear you shoot with and always have a supposedly "valid opinion" which at times interesting is so far detached from reality that it is laughable. But for you, what is it? Water of a duck's back!

I've wrestled with the proverbial pig (that's you) and feel extremely dirty in the process. Just reverting to your comment feels like I'm debasing myself right now. This discussion is over as far as I am concerned.
 

JohnDizzo15

EOS RP
Aug 23, 2013
524
0
Not really sure why we have gotten into the dogma of either having to choose one side or the other. There are obvious advantages and conversely, disadvantages to both platforms and only the shooter can determine for themselves which one is best suited to their needs.

It all goes back to the sayings "horses for courses," and "different strokes for different folks."

I for one got rid of my last Canon DSLR months ago as I just didn't feel it gave me what I needed as much as my mirrorless rigs. But that doesn't mean that I feel other people should make the same decision. Canon is still the most reliable company out there offering the widest range of products in their ecosystem and backing the entire line with highly regarded support. This is precisely why although I no longer own a DSLR, I still use numerous Canon DSLR lenses. I am also not opposed to one day picking up another Canon or other branded DSLR if there is to come a body I feel compelled enough to use over what I have in the bag now.

The best way to go is to walk the walk. Rent or buy and find out for yourself. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. All the arguing for one side or the other is merely an exercise in futility. Only one thing should be kept at the forefront of all our minds with regard to topics like these, shoot what is best for you.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,496
5,723
dilbert said:
d said:
dilbert said:
NorbR said:
dilbert said:
Nice! A second zoom lens that whips Canon's butt.

"Whips Canon's butt"?
So you didn't read the article, did you?

I did, maybe you didn't look at what the lens charts showed?

24mm - "All three of these are excellent lenses at 24mm. The Sony might be a hair better, but it’s a pretty minor hair."

70mm - "Again the Sony is at least as good as the others. It has, by a tiny hair the best center resolution, and while it isn’t quite as flat across the image as the Nikon, it is better in that regard than the Canon. It does have just a bit more astigmatism / lateral color on the MTF bench, though."

"Sure the fanboys can split hairs about this or that, but the differences in the lenses themselves are tiny."

Hardly a whipping.

People say sites like dpreview are biased because they are always anti-Canon in different ways.

If Lens Rentals really believe the differences in their measurements warrant those comments then Lens Rentals are biased in favor of Canon (vs Sony) because the graphs show a very significant difference in favor of Sony - much more than the "minor" or "hair" differences.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2016/04/24varcomp.jpg

Three things:-

1/ I'd take Rogers interpretation of his own optical measurements over your interpretation of his measurements any day.

2/ People say DPR are biased because what they write is easily shown to be biased, and the 'examples' they post to illustrate Canon 'issues' are complete falsifications. Roger, on the other hand, is giving his professional opinion (he is not a paid reviewer) of the empirical data he personally measures, along with that data, and his work does not rely on the good grace, sales, nor advertising dollars of the camera companies, unlike DPR.

3/ At a rate of two lenses so far it will take until hell freezes over for Sony to make even a modest inroad into the lens range Canon has for sale today. You are going to miss a lot of shots between now and then...........
 

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,346
595
I can't see why DPR would be biased at all. You might not agree with their methods or what they look for in a camera but I couldn't see why they would have any reason to be biased at all. As far as I know its owned by Nikon or Sony. I couldn't see it to be in their interest at all to be biased. I've read many DPR reviews and found them to be pretty reasonable in their comments in terms of praise and criticism of particular cameras. They tend to be the personal view of the reviewer and are just one source of information. My personal favourite is Bryan at the Digital Picture but there are many good ones out there.

Canon do so well partially because they have such a fantastic range of lens to go with rock solid cameras.
Sony are really pushing the forefront of technology with their cameras but don't (as yet) have the same range of glass.

From this article I got the impression that the Canon Mount has a great potential for mirrorless than Sony. Sony is a bit hemmed in. Because the mirror is a mechanical moving part I presume at some point it will be consigned to history. I'm looking forward to Canon's first attempt at it in full frame. I like Fuji's EVFs. I like the ability to view the photograph after it's taken through the view finder. It's very handy in bright sunshine. I believe Canon will be able to produce a brilliant mirrorless full frame camera. Hopefully first they will produce a brilliant M camera to show the way.

[/quote]
2/ People say DPR are biased because what they write is easily shown to be biased, and the 'examples' they post to illustrate Canon 'issues' are complete falsifications. Roger, on the other hand, is giving his professional opinion (he is not a paid reviewer) of the empirical data he personally measures, along with that data, and his work does not rely on the good grace, sales, nor advertising dollars of the camera companies, unlike DPR.


[/quote]
 

jd7

EOS R
CR Pro
Feb 3, 2013
915
276
Hector1970 said:
I can't see why DPR would be biased at all. You might not agree with their methods or what they look for in a camera but I couldn't see why they would have any reason to be biased at all. As far as I know its owned by Nikon or Sony. I couldn't see it to be in their interest at all to be biased. I've read many DPR reviews and found them to be pretty reasonable in their comments in terms of praise and criticism of particular cameras. They tend to be the personal view of the reviewer and are just one source of information. My personal favourite is Bryan at the Digital Picture but there are many good ones out there.

My theory is DPR isn't intentionally biased. However, from what I have read (and admittedly I haven't read much recently - I gave up on DPR a while ago) they seem more interested in the technology than photography. Also, they have an obvious interest in generating hits for their website, and I assume also in having people buy products via links on DPR. In that context, it is not so hard to see why DPR seems biased against Canon, and towards Sony and Nikon. Those companies introduce new models relatively frequently, they tend to throw in "new technology" each time, and Sony's Exmor sensor has been measurably better for low ISO DR ... which gives DPR plenty of things to write about in an "exciting" (ie hit inducing) way, whether by saying how fantastic some new thing is, or even just talking about some new product even if they aren't that impressed by it. In fact, even just lamenting the fact that Canon "still lags" in some way is probably helpful in generating hits. Compared to companies like Sony and Nikon, Canon is a little slower and more deliberate with its new models, and often they don't seem to have specs which immediately sound exciting ... which is fine by me but perhaps not so helpful if you are trying to produce a photography website.

For my part, I think Canon makes excellent tools for photography. Others may lead on a particular metric here or there from time to time, but the question is how much practical difference those things make to the photographs which are produced. Certainly as an overall package I am very happy with the Canon system.
 

sdsr

EOS R
Jul 14, 2012
912
7
Sator said:
They should have kept the 42MP FF sensor for the A mount DSLTs. They probably could have added IBIS to the A mount too since it is wide enough to accommodate it (it's wider than the K mount).

Is that what you meant to write? Sony's A mount cameras have IBIS (which is why I almost bought one, but then the a7 series came along and I , with "irrational exuberance," bought one, then another, and another.... Said exuberance has yet to fade).
 

Larsskv

EOS R
Jun 12, 2015
847
294
jd7 said:
Hector1970 said:
I can't see why DPR would be biased at all. You might not agree with their methods or what they look for in a camera but I couldn't see why they would have any reason to be biased at all. As far as I know its owned by Nikon or Sony. I couldn't see it to be in their interest at all to be biased. I've read many DPR reviews and found them to be pretty reasonable in their comments in terms of praise and criticism of particular cameras. They tend to be the personal view of the reviewer and are just one source of information. My personal favourite is Bryan at the Digital Picture but there are many good ones out there.

My theory is DPR isn't intentionally biased. However, from what I have read (and admittedly I haven't read much recently - I gave up on DPR a while ago) they seem more interested in the technology than photography. Also, they have an obvious interest in generating hits for their website, and I assume also in having people buy products via links on DPR. In that context, it is not so hard to see why DPR seems biased against Canon, and towards Sony and Nikon. Those companies introduce new models relatively frequently, they tend to throw in "new technology" each time, and Sony's Exmor sensor has been measurably better for low ISO DR ... which gives DPR plenty of things to write about in an "exciting" (ie hit inducing) way, whether by saying how fantastic some new thing is, or even just talking about some new product even if they aren't that impressed by it. In fact, even just lamenting the fact that Canon "still lags" in some way is probably helpful in generating hits. Compared to companies like Sony and Nikon, Canon is a little slower and more deliberate with its new models, and often they don't seem to have specs which immediately sound exciting ... which is fine by me but perhaps not so helpful if you are trying to produce a photography website.

For my part, I think Canon makes excellent tools for photography. Others may lead on a particular metric here or there from time to time, but the question is how much practical difference those things make to the photographs which are produced. Certainly as an overall package I am very happy with the Canon system.

+1. I could have stated almost exactly the same, but I have thought some of their reviewers and their editing, as intentionally biased against Canon. I remember them writing something glowing about Sony/mirrorless, and next to the glowing article was a video of a guy destroying a Canon DSLR with a golf club.
 

msm

EOS RP
Jun 8, 2013
309
1
Larsskv said:
jd7 said:
Hector1970 said:
I can't see why DPR would be biased at all. You might not agree with their methods or what they look for in a camera but I couldn't see why they would have any reason to be biased at all. As far as I know its owned by Nikon or Sony. I couldn't see it to be in their interest at all to be biased. I've read many DPR reviews and found them to be pretty reasonable in their comments in terms of praise and criticism of particular cameras. They tend to be the personal view of the reviewer and are just one source of information. My personal favourite is Bryan at the Digital Picture but there are many good ones out there.

My theory is DPR isn't intentionally biased. However, from what I have read (and admittedly I haven't read much recently - I gave up on DPR a while ago) they seem more interested in the technology than photography. Also, they have an obvious interest in generating hits for their website, and I assume also in having people buy products via links on DPR. In that context, it is not so hard to see why DPR seems biased against Canon, and towards Sony and Nikon. Those companies introduce new models relatively frequently, they tend to throw in "new technology" each time, and Sony's Exmor sensor has been measurably better for low ISO DR ... which gives DPR plenty of things to write about in an "exciting" (ie hit inducing) way, whether by saying how fantastic some new thing is, or even just talking about some new product even if they aren't that impressed by it. In fact, even just lamenting the fact that Canon "still lags" in some way is probably helpful in generating hits. Compared to companies like Sony and Nikon, Canon is a little slower and more deliberate with its new models, and often they don't seem to have specs which immediately sound exciting ... which is fine by me but perhaps not so helpful if you are trying to produce a photography website.

For my part, I think Canon makes excellent tools for photography. Others may lead on a particular metric here or there from time to time, but the question is how much practical difference those things make to the photographs which are produced. Certainly as an overall package I am very happy with the Canon system.

+1. I could have stated almost exactly the same, but I have thought some of their reviewers and their editing, as intentionally biased against Canon. I remember them writing something glowing about Sony/mirrorless, and next to the glowing article was a video of a guy destroying a Canon DSLR with a golf club.

I can see how it seems that way to you, seeing how you have demonstrated that you are anti Sony biased to the point of being delusional in this thread. Throwing out accusation after accusation against Sony with no data to back it up.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,797
4,203
Larsskv said:
...but I have thought some of their reviewers and their editing, as intentionally biased against Canon.

Indeed, they are.

[quote author=DPR Canon 7DII review]
The 7D Mark II's base ISO Raw dynamic range capabilities, though improved over its predecessor and on par with the 5D Mark III, falls far short of what the competition offers and has offered for some time.
[/quote]

So the 7DII has DR that's on par with the 5DIII, and that 'falls far short'. DPR published a piece entitled, "Studio report: Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR." In fact, Bill Claff's recent data the D5 show that it is 'on par' with the 5DIII and 7DII. Does the D5 'fall far short'?

[quote author=DPR Nikon D5 review]
Either way, in our opinion, we'd try not to over-stress the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important.
[/quote]

No, for the 7DII that 'poor low ISO DR' means it "falls far short" but that same amount of (poor) low ISO DR in the D5 is apparently perfectly acceptable given the intended audience (which is basically the same audience as that for the 7DII, but with more money).

But DPR claims they're not biased. ::)
 

Larsskv

EOS R
Jun 12, 2015
847
294
msm said:
Larsskv said:
jd7 said:
Hector1970 said:
I can't see why DPR would be biased at all. You might not agree with their methods or what they look for in a camera but I couldn't see why they would have any reason to be biased at all. As far as I know its owned by Nikon or Sony. I couldn't see it to be in their interest at all to be biased. I've read many DPR reviews and found them to be pretty reasonable in their comments in terms of praise and criticism of particular cameras. They tend to be the personal view of the reviewer and are just one source of information. My personal favourite is Bryan at the Digital Picture but there are many good ones out there.

My theory is DPR isn't intentionally biased. However, from what I have read (and admittedly I haven't read much recently - I gave up on DPR a while ago) they seem more interested in the technology than photography. Also, they have an obvious interest in generating hits for their website, and I assume also in having people buy products via links on DPR. In that context, it is not so hard to see why DPR seems biased against Canon, and towards Sony and Nikon. Those companies introduce new models relatively frequently, they tend to throw in "new technology" each time, and Sony's Exmor sensor has been measurably better for low ISO DR ... which gives DPR plenty of things to write about in an "exciting" (ie hit inducing) way, whether by saying how fantastic some new thing is, or even just talking about some new product even if they aren't that impressed by it. In fact, even just lamenting the fact that Canon "still lags" in some way is probably helpful in generating hits. Compared to companies like Sony and Nikon, Canon is a little slower and more deliberate with its new models, and often they don't seem to have specs which immediately sound exciting ... which is fine by me but perhaps not so helpful if you are trying to produce a photography website.

For my part, I think Canon makes excellent tools for photography. Others may lead on a particular metric here or there from time to time, but the question is how much practical difference those things make to the photographs which are produced. Certainly as an overall package I am very happy with the Canon system.

+1. I could have stated almost exactly the same, but I have thought some of their reviewers and their editing, as intentionally biased against Canon. I remember them writing something glowing about Sony/mirrorless, and next to the glowing article was a video of a guy destroying a Canon DSLR with a golf club.

I can see how it seems that way to you, seeing how you have demonstrated that you are anti Sony biased to the point of being delusional in this thread. Throwing out accusation after accusation against Sony with no data to back it up.

I´m surprised that you follow this up, since you have backed out of the discussions we have had in this thread after beeing presented with facts. Do I have to remind you of the AF with glue attaching moving parts in at least two Sony AF lenses, or the much faster depreciation in the value of the A7 compared to Canon?
 

Larsskv

EOS R
Jun 12, 2015
847
294
neuroanatomist said:
Larsskv said:
...but I have thought some of their reviewers and their editing, as intentionally biased against Canon.

Indeed, they are.

[quote author=DPR Canon 7DII review]
The 7D Mark II's base ISO Raw dynamic range capabilities, though improved over its predecessor and on par with the 5D Mark III, falls far short of what the competition offers and has offered for some time.

So the 7DII has DR that's on par with the 5DIII, and that 'falls far short'. DPR published a piece entitled, "Studio report: Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR." In fact, Bill Claff's recent data the D5 show that it is 'on par' with the 5DIII and 7DII. Does the D5 'fall far short'?

[quote author=DPR Nikon D5 review]
Either way, in our opinion, we'd try not to over-stress the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important.
[/quote]

No, for the 7DII that 'poor low ISO DR' means it "falls far short" but that same amount of (poor) low ISO DR in the D5 is apparently perfectly acceptable given the intended audience (which is basically the same audience as that for the 7DII, but with more money).

But DPR claims they're not biased. ::)
[/quote]

I just had to repost this. +1. DPR should be embarrassed.
 

JClark

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 4, 2013
64
0
neuroanatomist said:
Larsskv said:
...but I have thought some of their reviewers and their editing, as intentionally biased against Canon.

Indeed, they are.

[quote author=DPR Canon 7DII review]
The 7D Mark II's base ISO Raw dynamic range capabilities, though improved over its predecessor and on par with the 5D Mark III, falls far short of what the competition offers and has offered for some time.

So the 7DII has DR that's on par with the 5DIII, and that 'falls far short'. DPR published a piece entitled, "Studio report: Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR." In fact, Bill Claff's recent data the D5 show that it is 'on par' with the 5DIII and 7DII. Does the D5 'fall far short'?

[quote author=DPR Nikon D5 review]
Either way, in our opinion, we'd try not to over-stress the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important.
[/quote]

No, for the 7DII that 'poor low ISO DR' means it "falls far short" but that same amount of (poor) low ISO DR in the D5 is apparently perfectly acceptable given the intended audience (which is basically the same audience as that for the 7DII, but with more money).

But DPR claims they're not biased. ::)
[/quote]

I disagree with your belief that the market for the D5 and the 7DII are differentiated only by purchasing power, and as such, I think the comparison is a stretch. Elsewhere in the review, DPR acknowledges that the 7dII will likely be seen and purchased as a consumer-grade camera despite it's pro-level features cribbed from the 1dx. In the conclusion, DPR is quite complementary:

So, should you take the plunge? Most likely, yes. If you're thinking about moving up from the 7D, the Mark II is a great upgrade and can run circles around the 7D while remaining comfortable and familiar. If you're a 5D III shooter and need extra telephoto reach or crazy fast shooting with reliable autofocus it would be tough to go wrong. Image quality is extremely high, and the two bodies are virtually indistinguishable. For that matter, anyone who's ever considered buying a 1D X should probably take a look at the 7D Mark II as well; it might actually meet your needs at a much lower price point. Finally, for raw shooters using most other EOS body, can you say "goodbye banding?"

The EOS 7D Mark II is an exciting camera and a great upgrade from its predecessor. It's not without its faults, but it has a lot more pros going for it than cons.

So why give the D5 a pass on its base ISO DR? Because while the 7D2 is clearly a consumer-grade camera with pro features, and as such, must be all things to all people, the D5 isn't. Of course there will be aspirational buyers (hell, probably MOST purchasers of D5 (and 1dx) bodies are not in fact actual pros, but aspirational or wealthy hobbyists), but nevertheless the intended usage profile is almost certainly different, and DPR knows this.

To be fair, I'm not a dedicated reader of DPR, DXO or any other measurement or ratings site, so I have no basis for making a general statement on any perceived bias. But from what I'm reading of the referenced DPR review, I don't see it. To make an analogy, an uncomfortably jittery, track-biased ride is a flaw in a general-purpose sports car like, say, a BMW M4. In a Viper, it's a feature, brought about by an uncompromised special usage case. ;)

Incidentally, I shoot Canon, Sony and digital MF professionally, and rely almost exclusively on Canon for my lens kit, so I'm not "against" the company at all.
 

Larsskv

EOS R
Jun 12, 2015
847
294
JClark said:
neuroanatomist said:
Larsskv said:
...but I have thought some of their reviewers and their editing, as intentionally biased against Canon.

Indeed, they are.

[quote author=DPR Canon 7DII review]
The 7D Mark II's base ISO Raw dynamic range capabilities, though improved over its predecessor and on par with the 5D Mark III, falls far short of what the competition offers and has offered for some time.

So the 7DII has DR that's on par with the 5DIII, and that 'falls far short'. DPR published a piece entitled, "Studio report: Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR." In fact, Bill Claff's recent data the D5 show that it is 'on par' with the 5DIII and 7DII. Does the D5 'fall far short'?

[quote author=DPR Nikon D5 review]
Either way, in our opinion, we'd try not to over-stress the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important.

No, for the 7DII that 'poor low ISO DR' means it "falls far short" but that same amount of (poor) low ISO DR in the D5 is apparently perfectly acceptable given the intended audience (which is basically the same audience as that for the 7DII, but with more money).

But DPR claims they're not biased. ::)
[/quote]

I disagree with your belief that the market for the D5 and the 7DII are differentiated only by purchasing power, and as such, I think the comparison is a stretch. Elsewhere in the review, DPR acknowledges that the 7dII will likely be seen and purchased as a consumer-grade camera despite it's pro-level features cribbed from the 1dx. In the conclusion, DPR is quite complementary:

So, should you take the plunge? Most likely, yes. If you're thinking about moving up from the 7D, the Mark II is a great upgrade and can run circles around the 7D while remaining comfortable and familiar. If you're a 5D III shooter and need extra telephoto reach or crazy fast shooting with reliable autofocus it would be tough to go wrong. Image quality is extremely high, and the two bodies are virtually indistinguishable. For that matter, anyone who's ever considered buying a 1D X should probably take a look at the 7D Mark II as well; it might actually meet your needs at a much lower price point. Finally, for raw shooters using most other EOS body, can you say "goodbye banding?"

The EOS 7D Mark II is an exciting camera and a great upgrade from its predecessor. It's not without its faults, but it has a lot more pros going for it than cons.

So why give the D5 a pass on its base ISO DR? Because while the 7D2 is clearly a consumer-grade camera with pro features, and as such, must be all things to all people, the D5 isn't. Of course there will be aspirational buyers (hell, probably MOST purchasers of D5 (and 1dx) bodies are not in fact actual pros, but aspirational or wealthy hobbyists), but nevertheless the intended usage profile is almost certainly different, and DPR knows this.

To be fair, I'm not a dedicated reader of DPR, DXO or any other measurement or ratings site, so I have no basis for making a general statement on any perceived bias. But from what I'm reading of the referenced DPR review, I don't see it. To make an analogy, an uncomfortably jittery, track-biased ride is a flaw in a general-purpose sports car like, say, a BMW M4. In a Viper, it's a feature, brought about by an uncompromised special usage case. ;)

Incidentally, I shoot Canon, Sony and digital MF professionally, and rely almost exclusively on Canon for my lens kit, so I'm not "against" the company at all.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure that the D5 review was the first time DPR hinted, that dynamic range really isn't that important. I guess Rishi was ill that day. ;)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,797
4,203
JClark said:
I disagree with your belief that the market for the D5 and the 7DII are differentiated only by purchasing power, and as such, I think the comparison is a stretch.

So why give the D5 a pass on its base ISO DR? Because while the 7D2 is clearly a consumer-grade camera with pro features, and as such, must be all things to all people, the D5 isn't. Of course there will be aspirational buyers (hell, probably MOST purchasers of D5 (and 1dx) bodies are not in fact actual pros, but aspirational or wealthy hobbyists), but nevertheless the intended usage profile is almost certainly different, and DPR knows this.

To be fair, I'm not a dedicated reader of DPR, DXO or any other measurement or ratings site, so I have no basis for making a general statement on any perceived bias.

Fair enough. I agree it's not so much the same market as it is the factors which DPR lists as key for D5 users (high ISO, AF, durability) are also likely key for 7DII users, but no pass on low ISO for the latter.

I'd suggest you compare DPR's review of the Nikon D4 and D4s to their review of the 1D X, except that while they did review the two prior Nikon flagship bodies, they didn't review the 1D X (to be fair, the D4/D4s didn't get 'full' reviews, but did have static scene test results/comparisons published). Overall, their tone is that Nikon and Sony cameras deliver stellar images under challenging conditions, and Canon cameras take decent pictures. It's more of a damning with faint praise sort of bias, not flagrant.

The point is that DPR have hammered the joys of more DR, created a comparison page where you can push images 6 stops to highlight the importance of ISO invariance, and suddenly those don't really matter. For a Nikon flagship, that is. We'll see what they say about the 1D X II, if they bother to test it at all. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised, but I won't hold my breath.
 

d

EOS RP
Mar 8, 2015
417
0
neuroanatomist said:
I'd suggest you compare DPR's review of the Nikon D4 and D4s to their review of the 1D X, except that while they did review the two prior Nikon flagship bodies, they didn't review the 1D X (to be fair, the D4/D4s didn't get 'full' reviews, but did have static scene test results/comparisons published). Overall, their tone is that Nikon and Sony cameras deliver stellar images under challenging conditions, and Canon cameras take decent pictures. It's more of a damning with faint praise sort of bias, not flagrant.

The point is that DPR have hammered the joys of more DR, created a comparison page where you can push images 6 stops to highlight the importance of ISO invariance, and suddenly those don't really matter. For a Nikon flagship, that is. We'll see what they say about the 1D X II, if they bother to test it at all. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised, but I won't hold my breath.

I'd been thinking about the same thing - the 1DX review that they never wrote. And if there was ever a flagship camera to review, the 1DX was it - going backwards in pixel count relative to one of the *two* bodies it was designed to replace.
 

ritholtz

EOS RP
Mar 25, 2014
588
14
neuroanatomist said:
JClark said:
I disagree with your belief that the market for the D5 and the 7DII are differentiated only by purchasing power, and as such, I think the comparison is a stretch.

So why give the D5 a pass on its base ISO DR? Because while the 7D2 is clearly a consumer-grade camera with pro features, and as such, must be all things to all people, the D5 isn't. Of course there will be aspirational buyers (hell, probably MOST purchasers of D5 (and 1dx) bodies are not in fact actual pros, but aspirational or wealthy hobbyists), but nevertheless the intended usage profile is almost certainly different, and DPR knows this.

To be fair, I'm not a dedicated reader of DPR, DXO or any other measurement or ratings site, so I have no basis for making a general statement on any perceived bias.

Fair enough. I agree it's not so much the same market as it is the factors which DPR lists as key for D5 users (high ISO, AF, durability) are also likely key for 7DII users, but no pass on low ISO for the latter.

I'd suggest you compare DPR's review of the Nikon D4 and D4s to their review of the 1D X, except that while they did review the two prior Nikon flagship bodies, they didn't review the 1D X (to be fair, the D4/D4s didn't get 'full' reviews, but did have static scene test results/comparisons published). Overall, their tone is that Nikon and Sony cameras deliver stellar images under challenging conditions, and Canon cameras take decent pictures. It's more of a damning with faint praise sort of bias, not flagrant.

The point is that DPR have hammered the joys of more DR, created a comparison page where you can push images 6 stops to highlight the importance of ISO invariance, and suddenly those don't really matter. For a Nikon flagship, that is. We'll see what they say about the 1D X II, if they bother to test it at all. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised, but I won't hold my breath.
As soon as 1DX2 released, DPR published article by comparing with D5 stating it is evolutionarily. They argued that, Canon did not mention any DR improvements in sensor to them.
 

msm

EOS RP
Jun 8, 2013
309
1
Larsskv said:
msm said:
Larsskv said:
jd7 said:
Hector1970 said:
I can't see why DPR would be biased at all. You might not agree with their methods or what they look for in a camera but I couldn't see why they would have any reason to be biased at all. As far as I know its owned by Nikon or Sony. I couldn't see it to be in their interest at all to be biased. I've read many DPR reviews and found them to be pretty reasonable in their comments in terms of praise and criticism of particular cameras. They tend to be the personal view of the reviewer and are just one source of information. My personal favourite is Bryan at the Digital Picture but there are many good ones out there.

My theory is DPR isn't intentionally biased. However, from what I have read (and admittedly I haven't read much recently - I gave up on DPR a while ago) they seem more interested in the technology than photography. Also, they have an obvious interest in generating hits for their website, and I assume also in having people buy products via links on DPR. In that context, it is not so hard to see why DPR seems biased against Canon, and towards Sony and Nikon. Those companies introduce new models relatively frequently, they tend to throw in "new technology" each time, and Sony's Exmor sensor has been measurably better for low ISO DR ... which gives DPR plenty of things to write about in an "exciting" (ie hit inducing) way, whether by saying how fantastic some new thing is, or even just talking about some new product even if they aren't that impressed by it. In fact, even just lamenting the fact that Canon "still lags" in some way is probably helpful in generating hits. Compared to companies like Sony and Nikon, Canon is a little slower and more deliberate with its new models, and often they don't seem to have specs which immediately sound exciting ... which is fine by me but perhaps not so helpful if you are trying to produce a photography website.

For my part, I think Canon makes excellent tools for photography. Others may lead on a particular metric here or there from time to time, but the question is how much practical difference those things make to the photographs which are produced. Certainly as an overall package I am very happy with the Canon system.

+1. I could have stated almost exactly the same, but I have thought some of their reviewers and their editing, as intentionally biased against Canon. I remember them writing something glowing about Sony/mirrorless, and next to the glowing article was a video of a guy destroying a Canon DSLR with a golf club.

I can see how it seems that way to you, seeing how you have demonstrated that you are anti Sony biased to the point of being delusional in this thread. Throwing out accusation after accusation against Sony with no data to back it up.

I´m surprised that you follow this up, since you have backed out of the discussions we have had in this thread after beeing presented with facts. Do I have to remind you of the AF with glue attaching moving parts in at least two Sony AF lenses, or the much faster depreciation in the value of the A7 compared to Canon?

I got better things to do than sit check this website all day every day, like for instance going outside and actually using a camera ::).

You provided 0 data that any Sony lens or camera has higher failure rate than Canon.
You provided 0 data about second hand prices on A7, you cherry pick to look at prices at 1 specific point in time when it comes to prices of new cameras. Why are we even comparing the A7 which already has been succeeded (at which point it price dropped from 13.5k to 11k) with a 5D3 which has not yet been succeeded? What do you think will happen to second hand 5D3 prices once the 5D4 is out? Already see a lot of used 1DX on the market.
 

Larsskv

EOS R
Jun 12, 2015
847
294
msm said:
Larsskv said:
msm said:
Larsskv said:
jd7 said:
Hector1970 said:
I can't see why DPR would be biased at all. You might not agree with their methods or what they look for in a camera but I couldn't see why they would have any reason to be biased at all. As far as I know its owned by Nikon or Sony. I couldn't see it to be in their interest at all to be biased. I've read many DPR reviews and found them to be pretty reasonable in their comments in terms of praise and criticism of particular cameras. They tend to be the personal view of the reviewer and are just one source of information. My personal favourite is Bryan at the Digital Picture but there are many good ones out there.

My theory is DPR isn't intentionally biased. However, from what I have read (and admittedly I haven't read much recently - I gave up on DPR a while ago) they seem more interested in the technology than photography. Also, they have an obvious interest in generating hits for their website, and I assume also in having people buy products via links on DPR. In that context, it is not so hard to see why DPR seems biased against Canon, and towards Sony and Nikon. Those companies introduce new models relatively frequently, they tend to throw in "new technology" each time, and Sony's Exmor sensor has been measurably better for low ISO DR ... which gives DPR plenty of things to write about in an "exciting" (ie hit inducing) way, whether by saying how fantastic some new thing is, or even just talking about some new product even if they aren't that impressed by it. In fact, even just lamenting the fact that Canon "still lags" in some way is probably helpful in generating hits. Compared to companies like Sony and Nikon, Canon is a little slower and more deliberate with its new models, and often they don't seem to have specs which immediately sound exciting ... which is fine by me but perhaps not so helpful if you are trying to produce a photography website.

For my part, I think Canon makes excellent tools for photography. Others may lead on a particular metric here or there from time to time, but the question is how much practical difference those things make to the photographs which are produced. Certainly as an overall package I am very happy with the Canon system.

+1. I could have stated almost exactly the same, but I have thought some of their reviewers and their editing, as intentionally biased against Canon. I remember them writing something glowing about Sony/mirrorless, and next to the glowing article was a video of a guy destroying a Canon DSLR with a golf club.

I can see how it seems that way to you, seeing how you have demonstrated that you are anti Sony biased to the point of being delusional in this thread. Throwing out accusation after accusation against Sony with no data to back it up.

I´m surprised that you follow this up, since you have backed out of the discussions we have had in this thread after beeing presented with facts. Do I have to remind you of the AF with glue attaching moving parts in at least two Sony AF lenses, or the much faster depreciation in the value of the A7 compared to Canon?

I got better things to do than sit check this website all day every day, like for instance going outside and actually using a camera ::).

You provided 0 data that any Sony lens or camera has higher failure rate than Canon.
You provided 0 data about second hand prices on A7, you cherry pick to look at prices at 1 specific point in time when it comes to prices of new cameras. Why are we even comparing the A7 which already has been succeeded (at which point it price dropped from 13.5k to 11k) with a 5D3 which has not yet been succeeded? What do you think will happen to second hand 5D3 prices once the 5D4 is out? Already see a lot of used 1DX on the market.

I believe everyone reading our posts will see that I have backed up my statements with facts. You have not, and you have backed out.

If you read lensrentals more carefully, you will see that they have had problems with Sony lenses.