# Canon 7D Mark II - DXO, Tony Northrup, and You



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2014)

Our favorite long video gear talker : has chimed in on the DXO ratings for the 7D II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTuBr0W0Zhw

Where's my popcorn, dammit...

- A


----------



## lintoni (Nov 10, 2014)

No popcorn left I'm afraid, it was consumed in the followig thread, amongst other:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23590.0


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2014)

Choice quotes:

"37% is a whole lot more! We'll get more into that later."

"It's maybe 1/3 of a stop better, which is maybe 26% better."

"We're going to get real nerdy here, so brace yourself geeks."

"Bigger buckets gather more rain."

"It's like saying you like Key Lime pie."

Arbitrarily changes sign conventions in comparisons. Awesome.

- A


----------



## tayassu (Nov 10, 2014)

I absolutely looove to watch his videos!!!
They are soooo stupid, I can't believe that guy has got over 200k subscribers...

But, seriously, he had a point there about ISO being the most important factor and the 7DII being great.


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 10, 2014)

He kind of reminds me of a Vally girl but I agree the ISO ability is most important to me.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 10, 2014)

I appreciate that he did all this sussing out of what the comparisons really signify as a means of clarifying an inaccurate assumption he'd made in a video he made a night or two before.

In that previous video, he was looking at comparisons up on the monitor, and incorrectly assumed he had been successful in turning off all noise reduction in the 7d2 + DPP combo he'd used to get the images onto his computer. 

I like that he explicitly pointed that out and went the extra mile to explain the actual difference (which was less than he'd assumed earlier). I took it to be a stand-up way of doing it. 

The main points (1- the DXO data is good; 2- that their "overall" rating interpretation, however is not a good overall measure; and, finally, that the 7D2 is improved where it really counts) appear to be good ones, well justified. I haven't seen anyone else make these or opposing points as well.


----------



## johnctharp (Nov 10, 2014)

[email protected] said:


> The main points (1- the DXO data is good; 2- that their "overall" rating interpretation, however is not a good overall measure; and, finally, that the 7D2 is improved where it really counts) appear to be good ones, well justified. I haven't seen anyone else make these or opposing points as well.



That'd be a first for Tony- I'm still remembering his AF comparison between the 5D III and D810 using Tamron's 24-70/2.8 VC. And I actually don't mind his presentation so much as that he seems to be reaching well beyond his own knowledge in his videos.

(he also didn't seem to understand why people thought that the D8x0-series had Sony sensors in them while commenting on the same video...)


----------



## Hanibal49 (Nov 10, 2014)

I think that he makes excellent videos and I do not understand that bashing here


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Nov 10, 2014)

Hanibal49 said:


> I think that he makes excellent videos and I do not understand that bashing here



+1

Haters gotta hate . . .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 10, 2014)

Hanibal49 said:


> I think that he makes excellent videos and I do not understand that bashing here



In the first Northrup video I watched (which immediately became the last and only one I'll watch), he and his co-host basically concluded that the Canon 5D Mark III was probably ok for non-pros posting their pictures to Facebook. Really, really excellent. :


----------



## monkey44 (Nov 10, 2014)

I see a lot of folks sharing this information - and unless you are a professional and really know how to evaluate it, we have to be careful what we hear and watch, and then apply. 

Don't get me wrong, it's great to share our experiences. But the real test of all this "camera stuff' is to go out and shoot images, with your own settings and technique (use these threads, posts and comments to assist) and then look at a print image.

That's the only way anyone can tell if a camera suits that person. We all have different experience and different goals, and different technique. THE PRINT !! That's how you judge a camera ... 

Lots of folks talk about variation in electronics at a level that really is s minute, it can't possibly matter and ignores the fact that all the components work together and produce that image. One part of it taken alone means very little in the final product. Capturing that data, and transferring it to a useful configuration -- the camera and operator do that -- then the PP takes over and tweaks that data to create the final image. Desn't matter how it does that, as long as it does it ...

I'm betting once a set of prints lays out on the table - same settings, same image, different cameras - you won't be able to tell which camera shot it ... Canon, Nikon, Sony ... 

It's nice to understand the process, but the most effective part of any image is the one who pushes that shutter. 
(Despite that fact we recently had a monkey push that shutter on one of the most controversial images lately  )


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hanibal49 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that he makes excellent videos and I do not understand that bashing here
> ...



It seems like he thinks someone needs to be the Carl Sagan (or perhaps Neil DeGrasse-Tyson) and fill the void between the data and the masses' interpretation of it. I admit, the less-well-read people out there could certainly use the help.

But this man seems under-read technically to pull that off. I'm sure he can work a camera, but his explanations are really off-target at times.

I nominate Neuro, Jrista and anyone else over 3000 posts to fill the void. The world needs you.

- A


----------



## quod (Nov 10, 2014)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> Hanibal49 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that he makes excellent videos and I do not understand that bashing here
> ...


+1 

Especially on camera/photo sites like CR.


----------



## jrista (Nov 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hanibal49 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that he makes excellent videos and I do not understand that bashing here
> ...




He really said that? Yikes...that's nuts. I have my issues with the 5D III, and there are things about it that BUG THE CRAP out of me...but I have no doubt it's a professional grade DSLR.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Nov 11, 2014)

I am not a huge Northrop fan and I find their videos often quite lengthy, but in this one I really appreciate T. N.'s very good explanation of the DxO ranking system from a user's viewpoint. It is quite absurd for DSLRs made for action shooting such as the 7D2. The bad thing about DxO is that they might prevent customers from getting just the right camera for their purposes with their verdicts. Fortunately in this case, potential users of DSLRs such as a 7D2 are typically quite well informed...


----------



## Steve (Nov 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> He really said that? Yikes...that's nuts.



Not really, no. The context makes it pretty clear they are saying there is no reason to switch from Canon to Nikon unless you need the absolute best IQ. The wording was clumsy but you'd have to really have an axe to grind to think they were dogging on the 5DIII.

[sub]Will the CR admins delete this comment too? Lets find out![/sub]


----------



## LSV (Nov 11, 2014)

Steve said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > He really said that? Yikes...that's nuts.
> ...



They also deleted my comment praising your fairness and eloquence.


----------



## jrista (Nov 11, 2014)

LSV said:


> Steve said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...




I think it was the, um, rumphurt stuff.


----------



## LSV (Nov 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> LSV said:
> 
> 
> > Steve said:
> ...



Sure, I understand that, but I've heard more colorful language from old church ladies.


----------



## David Hull (Nov 11, 2014)

tayassu said:


> I absolutely looove to watch his videos!!!
> They are soooo stupid, I can't believe that guy has got over 200k subscribers...
> 
> But, seriously, he had a point there about ISO being the most important factor and the 7DII being great.



He is the larval form of Ken Rockwell.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 11, 2014)

David Hull said:


> He is the larval form of Ken Rockwell.



+1



Direct quotes...

[quote author=Northrup D810 infomercial]
21:40 Chelsea: "Ok, I'd also say though, that..If someone has the Mark III and they're not pro, then I don't think its worth switching over."
[/quote]

Corollary: If you have the 5DIII and _are_ a pro, you should switch. 

Interpretation: The 5DIII is not the right camera for professional photographers. 


[quote author=Northrup D810 infomercial]
21:51 Tony: "I think If you're putting pictures on Facebook, if you're sharing pictures electronically, it probably won't make much of a difference."
[/quote]

Corollary: If you're doing something _other_ than posting pictures on Facebook (e.g., printing your images), then it probably _does_ make a significant difference. 

Interpretation: The 5DIII is okay for posting to Facebook. 

It's worth noting that in this same review infomercial, his 'sports test' consisted of his co-host walking sedately toward him (even she didn't swallow that tripe, calling it a 'moving portrait'). In that test, he claimed D810 was far superior to the 5DIII's ~63% keeper rate (IIRC, low-sixties regardless). He was using an AF mode that Canon doesn't recommend for moving subjects, but even so...63%?!? Anyone buying that as a fair test? Servo AF on my PowerShot S100 does better...heck, I can manually focus on a walking subject at f/2.8 with a higher keeper rate. 

Steve, you feel free to interpret those quotes or his 'testing' differently, especially if it better supports your preconceived notions. Don't fall on your face or hurt anything of yours that already has a crack, if you take my meaning.


----------



## quod (Nov 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Steve, you feel free to interpret those quotes or his 'testing' differently, especially if it better supports your preconceived notions. Don't fall on your face or hurt anything of yours that already has a crack, if you take my meaning.


It's obvious that you have preconceived notions (i.e., "larval," "tripe," "infomercial," etc.), and you misstated Tony Northrup's review of the 5D3. Perhaps you could stop falling on your face, misstating others, and misinterpreting facts, yet again. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 12, 2014)

quod said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Steve, you feel free to interpret those quotes or his 'testing' differently, especially if it better supports your preconceived notions. Don't fall on your face or hurt anything of yours that already has a crack, if you take my meaning.
> ...



Larval was not my word. Tripe is an appropriate term for a 'sports test' that involves portraits of a person walking slowly...my apologies if you're an avid fan of tortoise racing. Northrup's videos are a revenue-generating stream for him, information presented with the intent of getting people to buy his books/videos/etc. An infomercial by any other name...

Perhaps you could stop making spurious accusations and misrepresentations that serve mainly to make you look foolish. Actually, it's too late to prevent that.


----------



## crashpc (Nov 13, 2014)

David Hull said:


> tayassu said:
> 
> 
> > I absolutely looove to watch his videos!!!
> ...



++++ You made my day :-D

Anyway it´s more difficult to judge and evaluate others acting and knowledge when you know way more. I could be rude about many coleagues with great luck not effing things up in their profession, but it wouldn´t do good to anyone. I believe each entity needs to find knowledge and practice itself. Cannot be taught. It has to be learnt. Anything...
Sometimes he does good job, sometimes he doesn´t. Whatever. If I don´t like it, it´s not my business. If someone follows his BS, I might point it out, but that´s it...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 13, 2014)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> Hanibal49 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that he makes excellent videos and I do not understand that bashing here
> ...



What I don't understand are people who don't like or don't agree with his videos making threads calling attention to his videos. If you don't like his videos, ignore his videos. Simple.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 13, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> IgotGASbadDude said:
> 
> 
> > Hanibal49 said:
> ...


But... but... this is an internet forum!


----------



## ahsanford (Nov 13, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> What I don't understand are people who don't like or don't agree with his videos making threads calling attention to his videos. If you don't like his videos, ignore his videos. Simple.



It's a little more complicated than that. This gent is trying to fill a void out there and trying to educate the ignorant or short-sighted into how to rate the performance of photography products. As I said before, he's trying to be the pleasant voicebox that articulates what all this camera minutiae and ratings mean -- a Carl Sagan / Neil DeGrasse Tyson of photography, if you will. To my knowledge, no one else is parsing this down into simple terms for the masses to soak in (except for odd, one-off efforts I've seen on YouTube).

Though the guy seems to be well-intentioned (other than hawking his books), this forum has pointed out on numerous occasions that the dude isn't on top of things technically. So the comments are not just from haters and fanboys -- folks who care about the correct interpretation of the data are miffed as well. 

But the scale of his visibility on the net is of concern. If it was ignorance on a forum-level of conversation, that's one thing. But the man is speaking as if things are *so* with high visibility across the photography community, and there is no loud, vocal rebuttal or alternative viewpoint. It would be like if there was _only_ Fox News or _only_ MSNBC on cable. 

I personally don't dislike the man -- I just want him to get it right or have someone call him out when he doesn't. Call me crazy, but a bunch of photographers who watch his videos are thinking "Oh, man, I could do this _so_ much better than this guy." I hope they follow that muse and put their perspective out there.

Again: I nominate Neuro to replace him, or -- oh, wow, even better -- Neuro to become his Ed McMahon or Andy Richter sidekick. His running comeback would be "No, Tony. That's not true, Tony. _Bad Tony!_" and he could explain where the guy got it wrong.

- A


----------



## MichaelTheMaven (Nov 13, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > What I don't understand are people who don't like or don't agree with his videos making threads calling attention to his videos. If you don't like his videos, ignore his videos. Simple.
> ...



I actually spend a good deal of my time doing camera reviews on Youtube and I try very hard to publish as accurate and as fair information as possible. (you can see my latest epic shootout between the 5D3 and the D750 here: http://youtu.be/EsZtUZvoeO0

From the side of the Youtuber, it is a lot of ridiculously hard work to create a Youtube channel. If you say one little thing wrong, even accidentally, you won't hear the end of it. Trust me I know first hand, and this is the risk we assume when we put information out there. 

I have only watched a handful of Tonys videos, and I think he is making a good & sincere effort, on the other hand I have to agree that when anyone on youtube seeds incorrect information, it can be quite harmful. I have had many, many comments of my channel who repeat things they saw on other channels and I am left to correct this commenter because they believe something they heard, even if it was a simple misunderstanding. It feels endless. I can't tell you how many times I have had to correct someone who actually believes the concentration of light photons is greater on full frame cameras because tony said they "let in more light". I realize he was talking about surface area and greater sampling accuracy, but his audience hears "full frames let in more light", and interpret as they will. 

The biggest problem with you tubers in general is imprecision in both comments and testing- it distracts from otherwise good content. Occasional careless personal statements thrown off the cuff like the 5D3 being good for Facebook comments do not help either. Once or twice, ok. Consistently? Not good for the long run. 

I am also against any Youtube reviewer who gives advice or recommendations on cameras they haven't actually used in a real shooting situation. I understand the "preview" thing, but how in the world can they know about a camera's performance without actually using it? 

Tony must work very hard so I can have no ill will towards him. I get it. He (as well as many others) do however need to be more careful and precise with what they are sharing. I have seen him in the past post corrections for errors, so that is definitely a good thing to see and at least lets me know he is trying to be sincere.


----------

