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.