# Review of the Worst Review of the 80D on the Internet



## LSXPhotog (Jun 4, 2016)

As a Canon shooter that's stuck with a camera in my hands nearly every day of the week, I tend to giggle at reviews of Canon gear online. Reviews of cameras to me are always a mixed bag because you are reading the opinion of someone that isn't you and only but the best reviewers come to an unbiased conclusion. You're also reading the opinions of someone that usually thinks they know what they're talking about - such is the case here. Not to detract from this author's credibility, but he just seems unapologetically biased and lacking real work credibility in terms of field experience.

First of all, I don't review camera equipment professionally. However, I used to review actual cars and car parts professionally as an automotive journalist when I was on staff at one of North America's largest publishing companies for over 5 years and then as a freelance writer years after....so I know a thing or two about HOW you review something - this is not it.

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2016/06/04/review-canon-80d/

I would have stopped reading but I read these two "Cons" the author found and was suckered in:


_Phase detection AF through the viewfinder is crap in low lit conditions though significantly better in Live View
[*]Image Quality starts to fall apart easily with just a bit of editing
_
_ 

Canon claims -3EV, so we'll just assume it's -2EV. That's still admirable from any camera and the author is quick to point out that the camera couldn't nail focus in low light even with the AF assist light used and then says "Nikon DSLRs would’ve handled this with ease." OK.......so he's the first person to claim the camera couldn't focus in low light and then doesn't tell us which lens he was using for this, but tells us at the beginning he only used the kit lens, Sigma 35mm Art and 85 for the review. These Sigma lenses aren't exactly known for their stellar AF performance - especially in low light - as I have experienced first hand their horrible inconsistencies on my own 5D3, 6D, and 7D2 when the light drops.(I own a 50A that I don't trust in many low light situations.) No statement that 'I tried other lenses to see if there was another reason this was happening' just a 'it doesn't work and Nikon is better...' Judging from the images in that particular sequence, that field of view looks like the 35 Art would on a crop sensor and the background fall off looks like f/1.4-1.8. But yeah, I guess the camera sucks and has nothing to do with the lenses that the whole camera world knows have AF problems.

Then, when it comes to discussing the file quality from the sensor, I don't think the author has anything positive to say. He kept this section very vanilla. He claims the files fall apart at 1600 ISO or whenever you start to edit them?! What on earth is he talking about? What camera is he normally using? He keeps referencing Fuji which are known to have some of the best APS-C sensors out there and they're not even THAT radically far apart from the 80D in any area!? I'm pretty certain the performance of the 80D sensor bests my 7D2 and I use it for professional work each month. The 7D2 RAW files don't fall apart when I edit and I comfortably shoot and deliver up to ISO 3200 for clients without batting an eye.

This is where I scratch my head at Canon detractors because I just have to wonder what the hell they do with a file when they're editing? Canon files haven't held me back from my 10+ year professional publishing career, images for professional sports teams, the occasional stingy bride and groom, etc. I'm beginning to just think that people forgot how to take images and rely on leaning on their RAW files to save them too much. Anytime I see these dramatic file recoveries I always ask "who the hell would even take that image to begin with?!?"

If I were a new user, I'd step away from that review with my browser open looking for alternatives to the 80D...because the author dances around his opinion that he finds the camera to be junk. Perhaps that was their goal. They didn't like the camera or Canon to begin with and was then assigned to review it.

It's certainly "hip" to bash and hate on Canon these days. I really don't understand why either. Perhaps hipsters and wannabe photographers are just jumping on the bandwagon and forgetting that there's much more to a camera system than pixelpeeping on files with absurd shadow recovery at 100 ISO. When I got into this game 10+ years ago, Canon was hands down the best. I've spent that time collecting the tools I need and want to complete my job, as have countless others photographers. In using other cameras on the market I've found plenty to like, love, and hate about them all. It's disappointing that this idea Canon suddenly began to suck has enveloped the better part of the photography community. DPReview practically salivates at an opportunity to write a carefully-worded review on new Canon products about dynamic range that is seemingly horrid in a 5DSR, but when a $6500 Nikon D5 can't match it, 'this step back in dynamic range is nothing to worry about' and 'pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!'

This review went on much longer than I was originally anticipating as a simple sharing of the link on Canon Rumors. But it's Saturday and I'm in an airport with nothing to do but think. Hopefully some of you enjoyed and find my stance at least moderately amusing.

- Kevin DiOssi_


----------



## dak723 (Jun 4, 2016)

I haven't read that review, but I think you sum up things very well as to how people are influenced by the internet. What most people tend not to get is:

That the reviews are the opinion of one or maybe a very few people. They are fun to read and that's about as seriously as they should be taken. 

In order to try and differentiate between cameras, they have to exaggerate the differences just as newspapers had to come up with catchy and exaggerated headlines to attract readers. The reality is that there is very little difference between cameras when it comes to IQ, but their websites would quickly lose their "hits" if that's what they said about every camera.

In order to find these differences between cameras, you have to pixel peep. The pixel peepers say silly things like "I need 28 MP, 24 MP will be a complete waste," when no one else would even see a difference between 24 and 28 MP. And they, of course, see noise everywhere, where none (or virtually none) is noticeable when printed or seen full size on a computer screen. 

There is a large (and probably growing) number of folks who have grown up with computers and especially smartphones, tablets, etc. To get folks to upgrade, these devices have to quickly evolve and add new gimmicks and features. They look at technological devices as "toys for grown-ups". And that's how they judge cameras and camera companies. Photographers don't look at cameras as toys and are more interested in their reliability, usability, and the entire system that they use to take photos.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 4, 2016)

I don't want to be mean, most people start out a little rough around the edges and if they work hard and keep trying they'll get better, but I don't think that statement applies here.

You get the impression that he grew up in one area of New York, and stayed there his whole life, and never went anywhere else.

The poor model is lying down in "grass" that's more like patches of dirt and weeds.
He uses industrial smoke stacks just behind the model's head, and there's a bag in the frame on the bridge.
The park is littered with garbage.
The food is underexposed or unevenly lit.
The picture of the lady giving her baby CPR is lit with on camera flash.
And the kicker, to top it all off, is a picture of wilted fowers.

Some of his portraits and street pictures look ok, but if you look through the rest of his content and you'll see a lot of bright backgrounds, the most consistent theme I can find is underexposed pictures.

And his Nikon D3300 is covered in dandruff, you need to do a good alcohol wipedown before taking pictures of anything made of black plastic.
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/04/04/review-nikon-d3300/


In summary:

http://www.thephoblographer.com/about-2/


> Chris is a former paparazzi, portrait photographer, wedding photographer, and photojournalist.



I think "former" is the key word here.


----------



## d (Jun 4, 2016)

9VIII said:


> And his Nikon D3300 is covered in dandruff, you need to do a good alcohol wipedown before taking pictures of anything made of black plastic.
> http://www.thephoblographer.com/2014/04/04/review-nikon-d3300/



You should check the byline - the D3300 article is written by someone else.


----------



## d (Jun 4, 2016)

LSXPhotog said:


> As a Canon shooter that's stuck with a camera in my hands nearly every day of the week, I tend to giggle at reviews of Canon gear online. Reviews of cameras to me are always a mixed bag because you are reading the opinion of someone that isn't you and only but the best reviewers come to an unbiased conclusion. You're also reading the opinions of someone that usually thinks they know what they're talking about - such is the case here. Not to detract from this author's credibility, but he just seems unapologetically biased and lacking real work credibility in terms of field experience.



Hey Kevin, I pretty much agree with everything you've written - I think it's a poorly written review, accompanied by below-average images.

Here's the first part of the opening sentence: "While the name can often confused when verbally addressed..." - notice something missing? A quick glance over the paragraphs reveals quite a few typos and writing errors. I don't know the background of the author (whether a native English speaker or not) but the review doesn't appear to have been proof read prior to publication - gotta post these things up quick to get the click-throughs!

The snapshots of the camera are poorly lit, the camera needed a wipe down or puff from a blower prior to being photographed, and I agree with 9VIII that many of the example images are poorly executed.

My "favourite" part is the series of dusk portraits used as the basis for criticising the AF system - these were shot with a 3rd party lens, so hardly a setup to fully test the capabilities of the AF system.

It's for these sorts of reasons that I pay little attention to most online reviews - they're often posted by people who evidently can't shoot or write well...why would I care about their opinion?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 5, 2016)

I like where he complains that focus recompose at f/1.4 resulted in missed focus, as though that's camera related.


----------



## monkey44 (Jun 5, 2016)

Just as an aside to the comment that people think they know everything about photography because they own a D-camera ... and then write about it as if they do know, and very often prove they don't - instantly.

The aside part: I edit journalism and fiction - and many people send stuff to me that looks like a high school student wrote it, but believe it's destined to become the next million seller, than wonder why a book sells "0", or maybe a few to friends and family. In order to discuss either one - professional photography or professional writing - you need to be that kind of professional, otherwise your words are simply a (mostly) uninformed opinion. That never helps others looking for advice or guidance. 

The first thing that pops out in this kind of event is that lack of training, and the inability to create accurate artistic monologue, let alone create artistic images that produce a pleasing visual.


----------



## Act444 (Jun 5, 2016)

Probably illustrates why it is best not to base a purchase decision on a single review - have to read several, plus (if possible) handle the camera yourself for a bit before deciding


----------

