# Canon Lenses Dominate The Sidelines As The New EOS-1D X Mark II Makes Its Debut At The Big Game



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 10, 2016)

```
<strong>MELVILLE, N.Y.</strong> – On February 7<sup>th</sup>, the top sports photographers from across the country gathered in the San Francisco Bay Area to cover the Big Game between the teams from Carolina and Denver. With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.</p>
<p>“Seeing such a large number of the country’s most talented sports photographers choosing Canon equipment to photograph the country’s biggest sporting event of the year is always such a humbling honor for Canon. Their iconic images of the game will be seen by millions of people around the world for years to come, and this drives Canon to ensure both our products and support live up to the requirements and expectations of our loyal customers,” said Yuichi Ishizuka, president and COO, Canon U.S.A., Inc.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p>Veteran sports photographers and Canon Explorers of Light Peter Read Miller and Damian Strohmeyer were on the sidelines using the brand-new EOS-1D X Mark II DSLR Camera, the first public use of the camera in the U.S. since being announced to the public on February 1. “The EOS-1D X Mark II is a marked improvement in file quality, and the performance was huge at higher ISO,” said Strohmeyer. “This camera is a big step up!”</p>
<p>A full complement of friendly and knowledgeable staff from Canon Professional Services (CPS), a fixture at major sporting events throughout the year, were on site at the stadium for the entire weekend providing comprehensive equipment maintenance, extensive equipment loans and expert technical support to the major photo agencies and individual photographers covering the game. “The equipment loan from CPS really gave us some opportunities for our coverage we wouldn’t have otherwise,” said Carlos Avila Gonzalez, photo/video journalist for the San Francisco Chronicle. “When an event as large and globally renowned as this is in your area, you have to step up to deliver the kind of work that keeps readers and viewers engaged and constantly seeing your publication as the go-to source for visual content. Canon’s help with equipment allowed us to provide that kind of coverage.”</p>
<p>Canon Professional Services will be proudly attending to photographers at over 32 events this year including major sporting, auto racing, Hollywood, and political events throughout the year.</p>
<p>In addition to the lenses on the sideline, Canon’s line of HD broadcast lenses were also used extensively to help deliver the game to more than 110 million television viewers.</p>
<p>For more information about CPS: <a href="http://www.cps.usa.canon.com/" target="_blank">http://www.cps.usa.canon.com/</a></p>
<p>For more information about the EOS-1D X Mark II DSLR camera: <a href="http://usa.canon.com/EOS1DXMarkII" target="_self">http://usa.canon.com/EOS1DXMarkII</a></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.



Yeah, they paint 'em white mainly for thermal reasons. :


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.
> ...



Yes white deflects quarks or is it quirks, isn't that the theory? That way the quirks don't exhibit in the glass that is incapable of quirk transmission, heat would be the result. Anyway, I'm not sure, maybe check with Dilbert.

Jack


----------



## GoldWing (Feb 10, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> <strong>MELVILLE, N.Y.</strong> – On February 7<sup>th</sup>, the top sports photographers from across the country gathered in the San Francisco Bay Area to cover the Big Game between the teams from Carolina and Denver. With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.</p>
> <p>“Seeing such a large number of the country’s most talented sports photographers choosing Canon equipment to photograph the country’s biggest sporting event of the year is always such a humbling honor for Canon. Their iconic images of the game will be seen by millions of people around the world for years to come, and this drives Canon to ensure both our products and support live up to the requirements and expectations of our loyal customers,” said Yuichi Ishizuka, president and COO, Canon U.S.A., Inc.</p>
> <p><!--more--></p>
> <p>Veteran sports photographers and Canon Explorers of Light Peter Read Miller and Damian Strohmeyer were on the sidelines using the brand-new EOS-1D X Mark II DSLR Camera, the first public use of the camera in the U.S. since being announced to the public on February 1. “The EOS-1D X Mark II is a marked improvement in file quality, and the performance was huge at higher ISO,” said Strohmeyer. “This camera is a big step up!”</p>
> ...


 Nice ad perhaps we can talk about the defective mirror box and DR????


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.
> ...



Tongue in cheek.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.
> ...



Nikon have made white lenses for a long time, not many, but they are out there.


----------



## eml58 (Feb 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> You need to do more diligence than that now.



Let me see...Dilbert & Diligence ????

I'm sure Wikipedia covers this.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 10, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Yes, the Nikons have.


----------



## nda (Feb 10, 2016)

I wonder if Canon honour the person who said "let's make our big pro lenses white" 8)


----------



## Khufu (Feb 10, 2016)

Red lenses would go faster... with stripes.


Wait, I think I just got the whole red-ring/stripe thing. Wow. *mind blown*


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 10, 2016)

Looks like none of them doesn't know about 3D tracking. I guess DPR is going to educate all of these users about class leading 3D eye tracking by showing their studio test where subject doesn't move.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2016)

I have it on good authority that NONE of those big white lenses were Canon lenses..... It is obvious that since these pro photographers need all the reach they can get, yet still need portability, that instead of those overpriced Canon lenses with those gimmicky DO and fluorite elements, that they went for the Bower 650-1300mm zoom lens instead...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> I'm not saying that this was the case but white lens no longer just means Canon. You need to do more diligence than that now.



I'm not sure if random meaningless counts are *due* any diligence.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not saying that this was the case but white lens no longer just means Canon. You need to do more diligence than that now.
> ...


But it is anecdotal evidence gathered in a situation non-representative of typical use....... shouldn't we get into internet fights over this?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 10, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I know you are but what am I? ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...


Don't make me bring out the squirrels


----------



## Berowne (Feb 10, 2016)

Another exotic white Supertele: 

http://www.reddotforum.com/forums/topic/leica-s2-meets-the-leica-apo-telyt-modular-r-400mm-f4/


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.
> ...



LOL - Sony? At a high profile sporting event???

Seriously. Bravo on being a comedian... 

There were probably more SIGMA black lenses on Canon bodies than any Sony DSLR at the event as well


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.
> ...



Looking at the photo and assuming that it was taken at the same time as the article. I can see a lot of 200-400 LIS and 400 f2.8 LIS lenses there. Some of the 400's are mk I's and some are mk II's.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 10, 2016)

Lest we forget the Pentax entry in the white lens brigade... mounted on a K3-II it actually is a decent, but longish, sports/wildlife set-up.


----------



## Jopa (Feb 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.
> ...



Did you check prices for the "white" Sony lenses? For the price of the outdated Sony 500 f/4 you can buy the 5dm3 + the Canon 500 f/4L II.

Good luck catching in-focus shots with the Metabones & a Sony mirroless 

Edit: 2x 5dm3 + the 500 f/4L II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2016)

Jopa said:


> Good luck catching in-focus shots with the Metabones & a Sony mirroless



In dilbertland, Super Bowl L was the San Fierro 69ers vs. the Vice City Mambas, and was shot entirely with Sony gear. 

You'll have to ask him who won, news coverage is spotty in his Mom's basement.


----------



## Maui5150 (Feb 10, 2016)

Jopa said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Oh please! Who cares about focus. It is all about that extra .5 of DR.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.
> ...



[patient explanation to goofy trolling post] At a major sporting event every photographer is credentialed. Nobody gets in at the last minute. You can be sure that Canon (and Nikon) knows every one of those photographers and knows exactly what equipment they use. If they don't then Canon and Nikon professional services wouldn't be doing their job. [/patient explanation]


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 10, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not saying that this was the case but white lens no longer just means Canon. You need to do more diligence than that now.
> ...



Sure it does. I'm quite confident that many of those lovely great whites were mounted to Sony's with metabones adapters... or none of them were... probabaly more the later. Those guys need pro bodies that are reliable and work.


----------



## et31 (Feb 10, 2016)

Excuse me! Hi there! Could you please back up and redo that goal you just made.
I only have a one degree viewing angle! Thanks! Do what you did, just like before, but a bit further away. ;D


----------



## iaind (Feb 10, 2016)

et31 said:


> Excuse me! Hi there! Could you please back up and redo that goal you just made.
> I only have a one degree viewing angle! Thanks! Do what you did, just like before, but a bit further away. ;D



Bang Bang!!


----------



## LDS (Feb 10, 2016)

unfocused said:


> [patient explanation to goofy trolling post] At a major sporting event every photographer is credentialed. Nobody gets in at the last minute. You can be sure that Canon (and Nikon) knows every one of those photographers and knows exactly what equipment they use. If they don't then Canon and Nikon professional services wouldn't be doing their job. [/patient explanation]



Also, Canon itself is there with gear loans and repair/maintenance people (and maybe to find more high profile customers...). So it knows who's there and with what gear - and both parties rely on the other for good business.

And in my humble opinion, I do not know how many sport photographers would like to risk putting together different lenses, adapters and bodies instead of going for the most simple and reliable solution, without a good reason. Is a very well lit but fast evolving event one?


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 10, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Super Bowl L



Canon missed a huge marketing opportunity...

*L*

;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 10, 2016)

unfocused said:


> [patient explanation to goofy trolling post] At a major sporting event every photographer is credentialed. Nobody gets in at the last minute.



True, barring perhaps someone ultra beyond belief connected.



> You can be sure that Canon (and Nikon) knows every one of those photographers and knows exactly what equipment they use.



Doubtful. Absolutely not even close to true for say NCAA D1 Men's Basketball Finals or any other big college game of any sort (where I have actually been credentialed and shot) and I doubt that is true for even the Super Bowl.

Also to those who laugh at the thermal properties of white, shoot a baseball game in 100deg temps and touch a black lens and touch a white lens....


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2016)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Also to those who laugh at the thermal properties of white, shoot a baseball game in 100deg temps and touch a black lens and touch a white lens....



I KNEW there must have been a good reason why all of our outdoor equipment enclosures are white........

And seriously, stop for lunch, leave that carbon-fibre kayak paddle in the sun, and by the time you are finished lunch it is too hot to hold so you throw it into the water to cool down before paddling with it....


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 10, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



[SARCASM]

Inconceivable! Inconceivable! 

These are pros who are paid to get that split second timing shot of that tiny football flying through the air as it is caught by a fast moving person running erratically in a different direction and partially screened by the rest of the players. They don't care in the least about AF speed and accuracy, or the ability to track the target.... They don't care about burst rate.... They don't care about lens quality.... They don't care about a decent user interface that allows them to quickly change settings... They don't care about how easy it is to hand-hold for three hours..... and they certainly don't care about weather sealing because nobody ever pays football in anything other than perfect sunshine... They only care about two things.... is it mirrorless and how well does DXO rate it for shooting a stationary object in a dimly lit room.... because if there anything that screams superbowl at you, it's stationary objects in a dimly lit room...

[/SARCASM]


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 10, 2016)

I have studied that image looking for the bump of the 1DX Mark II, but for the life of me, I cannot see one.

Can anyone?

I find it strange that Canon would send out a press release with such an image where at least one 1DX Mark II was visible. There are plenty of 1DX Mark I but I cannot spot a bump....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> ...because if there anything that screams superbowl at you, it's stationary objects in a dimly lit room...



Because DxOMark Sports Score.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 10, 2016)

dilbert said:


> This is the conundrum that DxO presents: all of the scores for lenses are done in conditions where you would want to use high ISO - where Canon is supposedly "better" (or at least not any worse)



You only find it to be a conundrum because you lack comprehension. All of the subscore components are tested in conditions where you would want to use high ISO...yet for two of the three subscores, only the measurements *at base ISO* are used for the Biased Scores (BS). 

But we all know BS smells like roses in dilbertland. :


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...


DXO tests at 150 Lux and ISO100.

150 Lux is 5.5EV

With your F4.0 lens and 5.5EV of light, at ISO100 your exposure is 1/3 of a second.... [BIGGER SARCASM] I am sure that the vast bulk of sports photographers at the superbowl are shooting like that. [/BIGGER SARCASM]To get the minimum 1/1000 exposure speed that you need to capture action, you would need to set your ISO to 25,600. These are pathetic conditions to shoot action under, particularly because you really need 1/2000 or better to freeze the action...

Fortunately for fans and particularly photographers, professional sports have invested in these things called "light switches", and by turning these thing to the ON position the light level in pro stadiums jumps to about 11EV-12EV, and all of a sudden the photographer can shoot 1/1000th of a second at ISO 640-800

EDIT: I wanted to see what 5.5EV was like, so I turned off all the lights in my house except for one 60W bulb in the next room. That got me a reading of 5.5, but I had to go back into the other room to read the meter BECAUSE IT WAS TOO FREAKING DARK TO READ THE NUMBERS!!!!!!!! These are the dumb-ass unrealistic conditions that DXO tests under..... I don't know about you, but when it is too dark to find the camera, I don't take many pictures..... But boy oh boy would it change pro sports! he throws the pass.... now the players are trying to find the ball....wait... no the linesmen is passing out flashlights.... pause..... and there's the ball at the 35 yard line!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> DXO tests at 150 Lux and ISO100.
> 
> 150 Lux is 5.5EV
> 
> With your F4.0 lens and 5.5EV of light, at ISO100 your exposure is 1/3 of a second....



Well, except that DxO tests at 150 lux, ISO 100, and a 1/60 s exposure. :


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > DXO tests at 150 Lux and ISO100.
> ...


So.....

They like underexposing...... That's why it is so important to be able to adjust your picture 5 stops in Lightroom or Photoshop..... proper exposure is so 1980's.....


----------



## Diltiazem (Feb 11, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



I have a funny suspicion that the person you are referring to is the CR guy himself. He just says things to keep a thread interesting and enjoyable. ;D

Just a suspicion, I have no proof. Is it illegal to say things here without proof? 8)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 11, 2016)

So a conspiracy theory!? And without proof! Oh boy, look out.

Jack


----------



## Local Hero (Feb 11, 2016)

10 years ago, before Canon dropped the ball on this, there would have been 99% Canon shooters there.

70%, whilst still impressive, is a declining market share for Canon.

I know down here, heaps of Pro sports guys are shooting Nikon.

I worked on the ICC cricket World Cup last year and at least 50% (if not more)of stills guys were shooting Nikon.


----------



## Diltiazem (Feb 11, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> So a conspiracy theory!? And without proof! Oh boy, look out.
> 
> Jack



:'(


----------



## Diltiazem (Feb 11, 2016)

Local Hero said:


> 10 years ago, before Canon dropped the ball on this, there would have been 99% Canon shooters there.
> 
> 70%, whilst still impressive, is a declining market share for Canon.
> 
> ...



It was mid 90s. There was a Nikon ad in many magazines. It read something like this: More than 40% of the pictures in this magazine were taken with Nikon. More than 40% was considered huge. In photojournalism (and many other areas) Nikon was the king. So, 70% is probably the emperor. I think that is huge. Kudos to Canon, they have dethroned the King. And that is given the fact that competition is not school children.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 11, 2016)

Here's a gigapixel panorama to scroll around and count for yourself:
https://gigapixel.panoramas.com/superbowl/50/?view.fov=15.72&view.vlookat=-16.10&view.hlookat=127.16&post_card=20160209155805.jpg

From my first quick look around it seems that Canon might not have 
counted all of those Uncle Bobs and MWCs.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Feb 11, 2016)

Jopa said:


> Did you check prices for the "white" Sony lenses? For the price of the outdated Sony 500 f/4 you can buy the 5dm3 + the Canon 500 f/4L II.
> 
> Edit: 2x 5dm3 + the 500 f/4L II.



Some years ago a German photozine tested the current 500's, and Sony's 500 f/4 was the most expensive but worst lens in the line.

I suggest that Kai W. from digital rev tv should coach Sony about new fancy lens coloring, a vibrating pink e.g. would be alright.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 11, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Also to those who laugh at the thermal properties of white, shoot a baseball game in 100deg temps and touch a black lens and touch a white lens....
> ...



No doubt it's not the only reason - or even the main reason - some Canon lenses are off-white. But my big white lens is definitely cool to the touch when direct sunlight has made the black camera body warm. Even painted white, I find the focus starts to go a bit wonky if the lens gets too hot (but only after several hours in warm conditions), whether that's the lens of the body I don't know.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 11, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



If they did it primarily to address heat, why aren't all of their metallic lenses off-white?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 11, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Because it is only the lenses with very large elements, and flourite elements that are adversely impacted by the differential heat charachteristics, I only know of one flourite element lens Canon made that isn't white, though I might be wrong, and that was the first one they made, a 300 f2.8 with a green (not DO) ring. If there are black flourite lenses then the elements are smaller.

As to why all lenses are not white, well they don't need to be, and whilst it might have turned into a marketing gimmick it started out for very real reasons, besides, have you seen how easily the white paint chips? If all lenses were like that they would be pretty ugly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 11, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Because it is only the lenses with very large elements, and flourite elements that are adversely impacted by the differential heat charachteristics, I only know of one flourite element lens Canon made that isn't white...



Yes, but Nikon's new 400/2.8 and 800/5.6 have very large fluorite elements (the first two elements behind the protective meniscus lens)...and those lenses are painted black.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 11, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Because it is only the lenses with very large elements, and flourite elements that are adversely impacted by the differential heat charachteristics, I only know of one flourite element lens Canon made that isn't white...
> ...



But that is because they score higher at DXO 

As I said, it may well have become a marketing 'thing' but it didn't start out like that, I remember that first 300 f2.8 Flourite in the '70's and remember it did have focus issues when hot, which has always been the reason given for Canon super teles being able to focus well past infinity, it allows for thermal 'breathing'. Who knows?

There is no doubt that nowadays it is very much a symbol that is more a marketing sledgehammer than the more subtle red ring, who remembers the white non L's that didn't have the ring? I remember the 600 f4.5, and the 800 f5.6 which came in two versions, one L with the ring and one non L without it!

I doubt if anybody could give an honest reason for the 700-200 f4 being white other than marketing.


----------



## gggplaya (Feb 11, 2016)

GoldWing said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > <strong>MELVILLE, N.Y.</strong> – On February 7<sup>th</sup>, the top sports photographers from across the country gathered in the San Francisco Bay Area to cover the Big Game between the teams from Carolina and Denver. With more than 70 percent* of the photographers in the San Francisco stadium using Canon EOS DSLR cameras and EF lenses, Canon’s iconic white lenses filled the sidelines from the opening kickoff to the final whistle.</p>
> ...



I'm not sure about the Dynamic Range on the 1DxMKII used here, but when i shoot at higher ISO like you would at the super bowl, i'd prefer my Canon 6D versus my Sony A7II. I get 1 more full stop of dynamic range at iso 1600 than my sony A7ii gets. 

Dynamic range numbers are quoted at ISO 100, but you have to realize that changes when you increase ISO. My 6D just happens to perform much better at higher ISO than the sony.

At the superbowl, i don't think the sony sensors used in the Nikons have any advantage over Canon's sensors because i doubt they can get any shots below ISO 800 considering the shutterspeeds they need to maintain.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 11, 2016)

And that's the irony here at CR. Specs have their place of course but when there are inconsistencies in how they are derived, they become absolutely meaningless. Reminds me of the early days of engine horsepower specs.

Generally, I see three groups of folk on CR. Those that are satisfied, those who are not and those who only enjoy life if they are knocking someone/something. To a large extent the ones who are not satisfied, place too much emphasis on specs.

It is clear from the massive praise that the 1DX has garnered over its life that it is an amazing piece of tech. Along comes the update that appears to be a pretty solid upgrade and what do we hear from certain quarters, endless griping. Well those of us that have half a clue know better. Let those who choose to be ignorant bask in their ignorance; that's my perspective.

I will continue to be thoroughly satisfied with my 6D until I can swing the 1DX II, then I'll be ecstatic!

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> And that's the irony here at CR. Specs have their place of course but when there are inconsistencies in how they are derived, they become absolutely meaningless. Reminds me of the early days of engine horsepower specs.
> 
> Generally, I see three groups of folk on CR. Those that are satisfied, those who are not and those who only enjoy life if they are knocking someone/something. To a large extent the ones who are not satisfied, place too much emphasis on specs.
> 
> ...


Personally, I am VERY satisfied with my 7D2..... and If I were a Nikon shooter I would be VERY satisfied with a D500..... and I would avoid the Sony's like a plague because they do not fit my hands and I find them awkward to use. Likewise, I love the Oly offerings for specs, but my hands don't fit. 

The differences is specs between them is really quite minimal and they all are very nice cameras. If you can't get a decent picture, the problem is with you, not your gear.... Of course better gear helps, but better Nikon or better Canon or better Sony is all about the same... each system has it's strengths and weaknesses and depending on the use required, may or may not be a good choice..... there are very very few absolute answers.

That said, one of the absolute answers is that testing of cameras and lenses is only valid for the conditions that they are tested under. This is why many of us despise DXO testing.... they choose a highly unrealistic scenario and use that as the basis of their testing. The resulting Biased Scores (BS) does not help anyone make a decent decision, and it does not matter if they shoot Sony, Canon, Nikon, or whatever... under their test conditions the most important feature is lighted buttons so you can see what the camera settings are in the dark....


----------



## dcm (Feb 11, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> And that's the irony here at CR. Specs have their place of course but when there are inconsistencies in how they are derived, they become absolutely meaningless. Reminds me of the early days of engine horsepower specs.
> 
> Generally, I see three groups of folk on CR. Those that are satisfied, those who are not and those who only enjoy life if they are knocking someone/something. To a large extent the ones who are not satisfied, place too much emphasis on specs.
> 
> ...



Agreed. I'm an engineer in high-tech so specs have their place, but I've seen enough specsmanship in my life that it no longer fazes me. In my experience, products are far more than the sum of their specs and specs are no substitute for actual use. I'll listen to pros that have used something extensively, but I ignore the rest of it as noise. 

So far the 1DX II is looking like a very nice upgrade for my 6D - that was my original plan 4 years ago (although I thought it would be 3 years). I could swing it now, but I'm not in a hurry. I can wait for the initial rush to subside and order mine when they begin to show up in stock and discounts begin to appear. I am sure I won't be disappointed.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Feb 12, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



A'ha. I'd never really thought about it before, so I was going off the "touch a black lens" and assuming it was a human factors type of thing. Makes sense.

Canon could have a new jingle: "I see a big lens and I want to paint it white."


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 12, 2016)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Yeah, at the end of the day it's often better these days to look to marketing than science, so when this is that way and that is not and you wonder why? There might not be a good why at this point.

Anyway, shooting in baking sun it seemed the Sigma and Nijon lenses were nastier to touch than the big whites, so whatever reason they do it for now, I'm not complaining.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 12, 2016)

Also until super recently, Canon was the only major brand to make essentially pure fluorite crystal elements. The Nikon and other stuff had just been glass laced with a bit of fluorite, at best.

It was possibly a bigger problem when the housing had tons of metal and less composites holding it all together.


----------



## tpatana (Feb 12, 2016)

dilbert said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Re-writing the physics now?

Heat emission depends on many other characteristics, but visible light color is not one of them. Heat emission happens in infrared, so you need to see what color the object looks like in there. Without knowing the material/paint details, good guess is that both colors cool at same rate.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2016)

tpatana said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Well, physics works quite differently in dilbertland. 

Plus, we've had this discussion before. The black lens/car will cool at a slightly faster _rate_, but since it starts from a much higher equilibrated temperature in the sun, the white one will reach a cooler temperature sooner when removed from the sun.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 12, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Maybe dilbert's studied politics ? No wait ! Maybe.... you don't think he's the alter-internet-ego of that guy of yours whose making all the news at the moment ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 12, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Maybe dilbert's studied politics ? No wait ! Maybe.... you don't think he's the alter-internet-ego of that guy of yours whose making all the news at the moment ?



Always happy to call out dilbert's ample foolishness, but that's just going too far...


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 17, 2016)

Where is that Rishi Noink guy from DPR who posted photographic evidence (1 photo!) on a Canon article comment thread that Nikon cameras were being used more by pros... LOLZ. Just goes to show how "unbiased" that site has become. Where is the YouTube video demonstrating the awesome Nikon AF tracking of the eyes of a stuffed toy sitting on a table while the camera is being waved around using automatic all AF-points selection???


----------



## zim (Feb 17, 2016)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Where is that Rishi Noink guy from DPR who posted photographic evidence (1 photo!) on a Canon article comment thread that Nikon cameras were being used more by pros... LOLZ. Just goes to show how "unbiased" that site has become. Where is the YouTube video demonstrating the awesome Nikon AF tracking of the eyes of a stuffed toy sitting on a table while the camera is being waved around using automatic all AF-points selection???




Leave him alone, he's busy updating the Nikon D5 review to include examples of where the 1DX2 has the advantage....




rishi_sanyal said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > In the 1DX MkII "examined-in-depth" piece (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0676551873/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii-first-impressions-review?slide=16) at least three times you say things like _"not as versatile as Nikon's class-leading 3D tracking"_ and _"given the pinpoint precision Nikon 3D tracking is capable of "_, yet in your Nikon D5 examined piece (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9189851572/hands-on-with-nikon-d5?slide=11) you say nothing about Canon, not even where specs of already available Canon cameras vastly out strip it.
> ...


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Feb 19, 2016)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Where is that Rishi Noink guy from DPR who posted photographic evidence (1 photo!) on a Canon article comment thread that Nikon cameras were being used more by pros... LOLZ. Just goes to show how "unbiased" that site has become. Where is the YouTube video demonstrating the awesome Nikon AF tracking of the eyes of a stuffed toy sitting on a table while the camera is being waved around using automatic all AF-points selection???



Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ4rEvbCNuw

Sorry it's not a stuffed toy, and apologies if you have trouble extrapolating how this sort of tracking may help moving subjects as opposed to a moving camera.

-Rishi


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Feb 19, 2016)

zim said:


> Mark D5 TEAM II said:
> 
> 
> > Where is that Rishi Noink guy from DPR who posted photographic evidence (1 photo!) on a Canon article comment thread that Nikon cameras were being used more by pros... LOLZ. Just goes to show how "unbiased" that site has become. Where is the YouTube video demonstrating the awesome Nikon AF tracking of the eyes of a stuffed toy sitting on a table while the camera is being waved around using automatic all AF-points selection???
> ...



I didn't have to update it, it was already there: http://www.dpreview.com/opinion/7352408758/nikons-new-d5-and-d500-push-the-boundaries-of-dslr?slide=14

If I may quote myself: _"And then there's autofocus in video, where Nikon DSLRs tend to fall well behind the competition. Lack of any form of on-sensor phase-detect AF, *even available in Canon's nearest D500 competitor the 7D Mark II*, means that AF in video is essentially *unusable*."_

-Rishi


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 19, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Mark D5 TEAM II said:
> ...



You toss out a quote in the context of discussing DPR's obvious bias, and _even_ your quote shows that bias. In fact, _even_ Canon's entry level dSLRs back to the old T4i have a form of on-sensor phase-detect AF, and Canon's nearest D500 competitor the 7D Mark II has the industry's most comprehensive form of on-sensor phase-detect AF using 16 million phase detect pixels. Elsewhere, you _even_ praise dual-pixel AF in typical DPR fashion, stating that Canon's noise and hype about it 'isn't without some merit.' 

Rishi, you could have just quit while you were behind, but it's amusing to watch you just keep digging yourself deeper. Well done!


----------



## J.R. (Feb 19, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



“For a long time I have not said what I believed nor do I ever believe what I say, and if indeed sometimes I do happen to tell the truth, I hide it among so many lies that it is hard to find.” ... Niccolò Machiavelli

Fits nicely with DPR


----------



## zim (Feb 19, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



and also completely missing the actual point of my post about hiding behind the NDA disclosure excuse BS


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Feb 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...



I'm sure it does appear to have bias to you. After all, you're the one who tried to pull up two of my quotes on metering side-by-side from a Nikon story vs. a Canon story to prove bias between them, but couldn't even convince canonrumors readership that said bias existed in those quotes. I think claims of bias are pretty suspect coming from someone who thinks there's a difference between 'highest resolution metering sensor we've ever seen... [which] should lead to accurate metering' (Canon) and 'a new... metering system... helping to achieve optimally balanced exposures and accurate white balance in even the most challenging light' (Nikon).

In fact, another member's response to you was: "If there is supposed to be some grand point you are trying to illustrate by juxtaposing these two quotes, it's a massive fail. Why don't we all take off the tinfoil hats, grow up and just accept that people may have different opinions and different perspectives without assuming some ulterior motive and parsing every word that a reviewer might write." 
(http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28968.390)

Nitpicking the word 'even' to prove pro-Nikon bias in my overtly negative statement about Nikon's video quality, especially compared to Canon, says far more about you than I (Oh, and remember you accusing me of not bringing up Canon positives in a Nikon story? So much for that?). For the record, 'even' was there because we don't expect on-sensor PDAF with most DSLRs (it's absolutely true to say the majority of DSLRs don't have it), and yet the 7D2/70D have it. You can criticize my not getting my point across, but bias? Really?



neuroanatomist said:


> In fact, _even_ Canon's entry level dSLRs back to the old T4i have a form of on-sensor phase-detect AF,


... which we've always praised, despite a fair number of mirrorless on-sensor PDAF implementations that perform significantly better.



neuroanatomist said:


> and Canon's nearest D500 competitor the 7D Mark II has the industry's most comprehensive form of on-sensor phase-detect AF using 16 million phase detect pixels. Elsewhere, you _even_ praise dual-pixel AF in typical DPR fashion, stating that Canon's noise and hype about it 'isn't without some merit.'



Certainly not my words. I've repeatedly stated on DPR that dual-pixel AF is one of the most exciting technical developments in cameras in recent history. But of course you will ignore all those statements to prove your silly hypothesis that you yourself admitted demands no reason or explanation whatsoever.

Admittedly, my enthusiasm's been tempered somewhat after seeing and testing the performance of on-sensor PDAF in latest Sony cameras, which also offer on-sensor _continuous_ PDAF, something Canon didn't offer an impressive implementation (very impressive, mind you) of until the 80D.



neuroanatomist said:


> Rishi, you could have just quit while you were behind, but it's amusing to watch you just keep digging yourself deeper. Well done!



I'm glad it amuses you. Whatever makes you feel better.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > and Canon's nearest D500 competitor the 7D Mark II has the industry's most comprehensive form of on-sensor phase-detect AF using 16 million phase detect pixels. Elsewhere, you _even_ praise dual-pixel AF in typical DPR fashion, stating that  Canon's noise and hype about it '*isn't without some merit*.'
> ...



Oh, yes...certainly not your words. : : :

Keep on digging...you want to add outright lies to bias, go right ahead... Or maybe you'll argue that since there are three authors on your review, they're not your words. Sophistry instead of outright lies. Dig dig dig.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Feb 20, 2016)

Does the concept of multiple authors elude you? I said they weren't *my* words. Do I need to define 'my'? I wasn't even the main author of that review. 

You're now effectively comparing the tone of one author in one piece vs a different author in a different piece written a year and a half ago. 

So very logical. Keep trolling.

And by the way, what do you have to say about all the threads started in Nikon forums claiming me to be an Anti-Nikon Canon fanboy (since 90% of my work has been shot on Canon) after I published that Canon deals far better with mirror-induced shock when using image stabilized lenses - across a number of lenses we tested - than Nikon in our 5DS/R review?

Did Nikon forget to pay us off for that 5DS/R review? Did Canon not pay enough? I suppose this is what happens when I don't have a proper accountant -I get so confused about which bias I'm supposed to insert where. And how much of it.

You do know there's one of you for every brand in our forums, right? I was branded anti-Sony after the a7 II review to the point of some reader trying to fire me for not ever being able to assess Sony cameras with any partiality or positive bias. I was labeled anti-Nikon after the Canon 5DS review (which, surprisingly, many Canon users thought was fair - and I was the main author on that one, funny), anti-Canon after the 7D2 review because we dared show - for the first time (I know of) in a properly controlled real-world way with proper ETTR technique - dynamic range differences between it and one of its nearest competitor. Planes that were just a little apart in the sky were used to concoct a conspiracy theory that we shot the Nikon 30 min later than the Canon which would've given it an advantage.

The irony there being: (1) if a moving plane stays in your scene for 30 min, it's not really moving, and our plane was moving quite a bit, meaning there were only mere seconds to minutes between shots; and (2) the most ironic bit was that had the Nikon been shot 30 min after the Canon, since the sun had already set, that would've given the scene more DR, which would've made the test unfair for the Nikon, not the Canon.

Frankly, at this point, the conspiracy theories are purely amusing. They require no rhyme, no reason, no logic, no self review and iteration of your reasoning based on new data, no evidence except for the slim evidence you choose to fit your hypothesis, while ignoring the rest... I believe there's actually a _term _for this...


----------



## unfocused (Feb 20, 2016)

Good lord Neuro, give it a rest. Your endless parsing of every line in every review to try to "prove" some point is an embarrassment. You are beginning to sound like AnkorWhat.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Or maybe you'll argue that since there are three authors on your review, they're not your words. Sophistry instead of outright lies.





rishi_sanyal said:


> Does the concept of multiple authors elude you? I said they weren't *my* words. Do I need to define 'my'? I wasn't even the main author of that review.



Exactly as predicted. Of course I'm familiar with multiple authorship. In scientific publishing, it's expected (and explicitly stated by most journals) that all co-authors have read and agree with the content of the entire paper. It's called taking responsibility. I apologize for applying too high a standard to DPR. 

Earlier, you were defending DPR as unbiased. When presented with yet another biased statement in a DPR review, you retreat to defending only yourself. Interesting. 




rishi_sanyal said:


> Did Nikon forget to pay us off for that 5DS/R review? Did Canon not pay enough? I suppose this is what happens when I don't have a proper accountant -I get so confused about which bias I'm supposed to insert where. And how much of it.
> 
> Frankly, at this point, the conspiracy theories are purely amusing. They require no rhyme, no reason, no logic, no self review and iteration of your reasoning based on new data, no evidence except for the slim evidence you choose to fit your hypothesis, while ignoring the rest... I believe there's actually a _term _for this...



Since pointing out who said what seems very important to you, let me remind you of my words concerning corruption and conspiracy:



neuroanatomist said:


> In fact, I was pointing out that DPR is biased, nothing more. Not conspiracy, not corruption.



Any more false accusations you'd like to levy? 

DPR's bias is not extreme, but is quite pervasive and evident. Praise vs. damning with faint praise. I summed it up previously: 'Nikon cameras deliver awesome performance and stellar images, and Canon cameras take decent pictures.'


----------

