# 5DIV review from The-digital-picture.com



## Eldar (Sep 16, 2016)

My favourite reviewer, Bryan at TDP, has released his 5DIV review. It is a review in the making, so it is not complete yet.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV.aspx


----------



## Click (Sep 16, 2016)

Excellent review.

Thanks for posting.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 16, 2016)

dilbert said:


> I don't know why people like TDP reviews.
> 
> This one, of the 5DIV, is an excellent example of a camera being reviewed without it actually being used. There are no sample shots on the page taken by the reviewer, nothing in it reads as though it is based on first hand experience. Which is to say that anyone here could have written that TDP story on the 5D4.
> 
> Which makes it less like a review and more like an extended press piece.



Interesting comment coming from someone who constantly praises Sony (and other non-Canon) cameras without actually using them and with no first-hand experience.

And apparently you didn't even have any first hand experience reading the review, which in the very first sentence mentions that the review is not done and will be updated.


----------



## Click (Sep 16, 2016)

+1 



Eldar said:


> It is a review in the making, so it is not complete yet.


----------



## bvukich (Sep 16, 2016)

dak723 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why people like TDP reviews.
> ...



Ok, but in this particular case, is he wrong? I would say no. 

This is a good overview/preview... but it is in no way a review, and for all the reasons dilbert stated.


----------



## Click (Sep 16, 2016)

Click said:


> Excellent review overview/preview.
> 
> Thanks for posting.



Dilbert, bvukich ... Feeling better now? :


----------



## raptor3x (Sep 16, 2016)

bvukich said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



He's wrong because if you go back and read all of the other reviews from TDP you'll see that they involve large numbers of test shots and pretty exhaustive first hand experience. This is clearly not the actual review but just an extended preview, the initial post even indicated that.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 16, 2016)

He does a good thorough job but follows a template that can make it seem a little dull at times.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Sep 16, 2016)

raptor3x said:


> bvukich said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



Dilbert, as usual, hasn't read the review. Bryan usually writes in the 3rd person but it is obvious to anyone who reads his other reviews that he has done several tests and measurements on the camera. He even writes at one point in the first person: "In this light flicker test, I shot at 1/500, 1/1000 (as shown) and 1/2000 seconds."

Dilbert is the archetypal example of someone who writes with zero knowledge and understanding and with complete disregard of evidence.


----------



## Ryananthony (Sep 16, 2016)

Gotta love this forum, people talk more shit about eachother then the housewives of NewYork.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 17, 2016)

Unlike most of the review websites, Brian buys all his equipment. That is a pretty rare thing on www.


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 17, 2016)

Eldar said:


> My favourite reviewer, Bryan at TDP, has released his 5DIV review. It is a review in the making, so it is not complete yet.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV.aspx



Thanks for sharing. He's my favourite DSLR camera and lens reviewer too. When it comes to reading reviews I really now only read TDP's website for Canon DSLRs and lenses, and Newsshooter for the camcorder/video side of things.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Dilbert, I usually leave your posts alone, but this time I´ll give you some help; Read the first sentence in the link I attached. It says: 
"The Canon EOS 5D Mark IV has been announced and is in my hands and this review is actively being updated. Check back frequently to follow the updates."
So even you, who claim to have read the first part of it, should have been able to comprehend that this is a review that is in the making. 

The good thing about TDP and Bryan is that he avoids all the incompetent and often irrelevant comparisons to all other brands out there. He does not claim to be an Nikon or Sony expert, so he compares to other Canon cameras, where he is an expert. He provides very solid measurements, with loads of opportunity to compare with other bodies or lenses and he provides real world shooting experiences. Go and have a look at some of the completed reviews and also check some of the links to the right of the initial image of the camera, you´ll find very thorough reviews. 

But of course, since they are thorough reviews, you need to read the whole thing and not just a single paragraph here and there ...

A last, but very good point; Every review is based on a product he procures through regular commercial channels, which secures his independence. That cannot be said about a number of other (half-qualified) reviewers.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



The-digital-picture is the go-to site for those who use Canon products. It carefully tabulates data, everything from the weights of bodies, the characteristics of their sensors, his own measurements on noise etc, the working weights of lenses, careful shots of standard charts for comparative purposes etc. He gives a balanced opinion on products. His standard technique when a new body is announced is to add the new data to the Tables and give a preview. He then updates the preview over the course of a week or two after he has bought the camera until it becomes a proper review.

He also goes back and tests previously tested lenses on new bodies - he has a sufficient stock of his own lenses to do this on popular lenses - so you can see the results from 1DSIII, 60D, 7DII and 5DS R. 

You don't use Canon cameras and lenses but just criticise them through second-hand information so you would not appreciate why us Canon users like the-digital-picture as the major source of readily accessible information on present and past Canon products.


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



When you consider that by Bryan's own admission the review is not yet finished, and despite that already contains more useful info than most other "reviews" on the net then you will perhaps begin to understand just how in-depth and useful his reviews are. I have never seen any better Canon DSLR and Canon Lens review on the internet - which is hardly surprising considering the amount of work which goes into each and every one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2016)

For dilbert, the step from unknowledgeable criticism of Canon products to unknowledgeable criticism of reviews of Canon products was a short and easy one. Ill-informed baby steps are common in dilbertland.


----------



## pwp (Sep 17, 2016)

Dilbert, stop giving them oxygen 

-pw


----------



## Eldar (Sep 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


Yes, that line has been updated. The previous version told us that he had not yet received the camera, so all information and analysis at that stage was based on the specification. Now he has got the camera and his review process has started, from which he shares his initial findings and tells us that there is more to come. Which any person, regardless of IQ, should appreciate.

And yes, TDP is also getting revenue from folks buying stuff through the provided links. Just lik Art Morris, Dustin Abbott, Tony Northrup, DPR .... and all the rest of them. But he is the only one who buys every single item he reviews through commercial channels, which gives him more credibility than others.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2016)

Eldar said:


> But he is the only one who buys every single item he reviews through commercial channels, which gives him more credibility than others.



To be fair, not _every_ single item. But he mentions up-front items provided rather than purchased, I can count the number of such items on one hand, and they're things like camera bags or small accessories.


----------



## romanr74 (Sep 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



For Canon Gear TDP to me is the best buying guide out there, compellingly summarizing and comparing Canon gear to each other and pointing to Canon alternatives. Yes, he tries to do that for a living, thus linking to commercial sites; yet he is also very open about that. He is no bullshit whatsoever. If someone has a problem with what he is doing, the the problem is surely not Bryan.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2016)

dilbert said:


> If a review isn't finished then it shouldn't be marketed as a review, irrespective of how good or bad it eventually is.



Yes, DPR's practice of having multiple articles, including a preview, a few articles advertainment pieces, and eventually a review which doesn't aggregate everything, all on the same camera...that makes much more sense, and makes it easy to find their information. 

You should publish your own 5DIV preview, you could call it, "Some musings on why any Sony camera is better than the 5DIV plus lots of incorrect facts and misinformation about stuff." :


----------



## AlanF (Sep 17, 2016)

Dilbert's signature on each post is: "Let me introduce you to your new PHB - Canon"

So, I looked up PHB to find out what it stands for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointy-haired_Boss

"The pointy-haired boss (often abbreviated to just PHB or "The Boss") is Dilbert's boss in the Dilbert comic strip. He is notable for his micromanagement, gross incompetence, obliviousness to his surroundings, and unhelpful buzzword usage; yet somehow retains power in the workplace."

That shows where CR-Dilbert is coming from.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 17, 2016)

Help. I seem to once again have a Dilbert virus on my computer. 

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Sep 17, 2016)

That might seem strange to you, but the Dilbert comic strip is not known (or maybe just little known) in my part of the world. What struck me was that the description of Dilbert's boss should really have been the description of Dilbert himself. But, I have never seen the comic strip so I am just deducing that.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 17, 2016)

At well over 2000 posts, AlanF can hardly be ignorant of Dilbert's basic bias against canon.. I dare say this was either for newcomers, or just a case of stating the obvious. 
Dilbert is trying to demonstrate that nothing he says in regards to canon can be trustworthy due to the opinion he had to start with.
Either that or he may be trying to state by his name that he works in an office with no sense of pride or desire for accomplishment, trying to do the least possible for the most money possible. I doubt it.

My personal belief about Dilbert is that he's hired by Canon, to ignite fanboy-ism among Canon users by means of reverse-psychological arguments towards the contrary. The more a person argues against what is opposed to Canon, the more sold on Canon he or she is likely to become, even if the anti-canon sentiment is flagrantly idiotic to begin with. This ensures a fidelity of canon users and future income for Canon. It's pretty clever, really.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 17, 2016)

AlanF said:


> That might seem strange to you, but the Dilbert comic strip is not known (or maybe just little known) in my part of the world. What struck me was that the description of Dilbert's boss should really have been the description of Dilbert himself. But, I have never seen the comic strip so I am just deducing that.



Alan, you could easily be forgiven for getting it wrong.

Dilbert, the cartoon strip, normally makes a great point, is accurate and does those with more than a little humor and self deprecation, so is just about as diametrically opposed to CR's Dilbert as possible.

I find people who identify with something else they would like to be normally fall far short of that persona, managing to fall short of a cartoon is as much as we could expect from CR's Dilbert. 

if you applied that logic to my avatar then I aspire to be a fat lazy cat with an attitude problem, on the whole I think most would agree I hit that low bar often enough


----------



## TeT (Sep 17, 2016)

bvukich said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



The ppl who put it out there (Bryan) do not say it is a reveiw.... So Dilbert is wrong in his criticism in this case.... Later after the review is completed Dilbert will come back and say that the review is a puff piece by a Canon Fanboy... He will still be wrong, but at least that will be an opinion that can be debated...


----------



## tpatana (Sep 17, 2016)

Waiting for full review...


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> I don't know why people like TDP reviews.



Tonnes of reasons. One of the big reasons in my reckoning is that Bryan only reviews canon gear. While this may seems fanboy-ish, it's not- it's down to earth practical for several reasons:
1. Most of us have a lens or two, and have yet to see a compelling reason to switch to another brand. That means to switch will be expensive with hardly any gain. So we're only interested in Canon reviews anyways.
2. We have no reason to worry about a directional bias with TDP's reviews- we know there is a Canon bias. That's not a problem because he's open and honest about it, and because he only reviews Canon anyways. (If he adamantly insisted he was unbiased and reviewed Nikon gear negatively he would deserve the good ol' woodshed.) That means he has nothing to sell, and nothing to gain by writing the review one way or another. He'll compare different canon products to each other. The worst bias he could have is liking one body over another, so even if Canon is paying him for his review, it's just a question of selling one canon product vs a different canon product.
3. His reviews are realistic and very thorough. He actually uses the camera for his work, and reviews it afterwords, not just a few snaps in the Seattle city park for a couple of hours. (This by the way is why it takes a while for him to complete a review. Only someone ignorant of TDP could think the review is final the moment it's published-Bryan has always had incremental reviews.)
4. Bryan is always fairly positive in his reviews. That's not just blind love for new products- remember, canon only. He is able to point out flaws, and does so. Also, since he's comparing canons to canons, of course the reviews will be positive. The 70D is actually better than the 60D in almost every way. So goes for the 7D mark II and the 7D, the 1DX mark II and the 1DX, etc etc. We (I) would rather read a review that has an overarching positive attitude to it while pointing out negative aspects when necessary, than a review that harps on minor quibbles and Barely mentions a cameras few saving graces.

Example, If I'm looking at an 80D, the D7100 has a (slightly) better sensor, the K3 II has the (slight) advantage of IBIS, the Sony A6300 has (slightly) faster frame rate, the Fuji goodnessknowswhatmodel is cheaper, and on and on. These things are what most reviewers seem to love talking about. The quandary is that I'm only interested in the Canon 80D vs the 7D mark II. Buying Any other of those cameras is not likely for me, and buying all of them (which I'd have to do to get all the best) is never happening. I'm interested in a review for practical reasons, not merely to engage in some esoteric academic exercise analysing best technology of all cameras in the world.

Yes, I know, he reviews Sigma and Tamron and Tokina, etc stuff. We're talking about a camer *body* on this thread. Also in regards to 3rd party lenses, he does tend to be a little more harsh. We're aware of that. I already mentioned his Canon bias. On the other hand, it's very difficult to find anything wrong at all with Canon's latest releases, while 3Rd party lenses actually do tend to be a little less pristine.


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 18, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> My personal belief about Dilbert is that he's hired by Canon, to ignite fanboy-ism among Canon users by means of reverse-psychological arguments towards the contrary. The more a person argues against what is opposed to Canon, the more sold on Canon he or she is likely to become, even if the anti-canon sentiment is flagrantly idiotic to begin with. This ensures a fidelity of canon users and future income for Canon. It's pretty clever, really.



Not Canon, I doubt that very much. But forums are known to use such techniques to help make them look more busy and create discussion of any kind, as it all increases page views and links which makes more page views etc.

Sometimes numerous members can be the same person, even having discussions and arguments with themselves under different member names. Same person, though to the outside world they seem to be different people.

It's much more common than most realise.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


TDP is the most consistent and thorough reviewer of Canon equipment and since I know the Canon equipment he refers to, those comparisons are very important and valuable to me and others. I do not have a clue about the details of a Nikon or Sony (I was so turned off by the EVF and the ergonomics that I cancelled my order for a A7RII), so those comparisons has limited value, unless you are spending your days on the internet, dreaming of all this equipment, instead of actually using them for what they were meant for.

FYI, we do read other reviews. I even read reviews of Nikon, Sony, Hasselblad and PhaseOne gear. I may even pop into a Tony Northrup video, read DPR´s (unbiased) reviews and even have fun reading Ken Rockwell. But I would never trust them for advise on what to buy or not to buy. 

Your claims on everything you need and how Canon has let you down has never been substantiated with a single image, good or bad. So Dilbert, If you want anyone to take you seriously, stop being an internet freak, get serious and show us!


----------



## expatinasia (Sep 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Not Canon, I doubt that very much. But forums are known to use such techniques to help make them look more busy and create discussion of any kind, as it all increases page views and links which makes more page views etc.
> ...



Anything is possible, but frankly I do not care.

I am going to stop posting in this thread. Frankly I do not know why you even bother going on as much as you do, unless there is some truth in what I said and you are just trying to improve page views, create conversation and as such increase membership etc. It is a common tactic used by forums much busier even than this one.

Over and out.


----------



## d (Sep 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > At well over 2000 posts, AlanF can hardly be ignorant of Dilbert's basic bias against canon.. I dare say this was either for newcomers, or just a case of stating the obvious.
> ...



Could you name for me a single camera manufactured in the past five years with a 1" or larger sensor, that could be regarded as "rubbish", as understood in the general sense of it's meaning? I mean a camera that's so unfit for purpose, so useless, so unable to capture a usable image, that it's simply....rubbish?

The 5DIII was (and still is) a runaway success. I managed a commercial studio for a time that relied on 8 or 9 of them, and we never had any issues with them apart from the odd damaged USB socket when a photographer tripped over the tether lead (later rectified with Jerk Stopper camera supports). I'd guess every second commercial shooter I know personally owns a 5DIII (sometimes multiple bodies) - the 5DIII is *exactly* what the 5DIII was supposed to be - rubbish, it ain't.

d.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Neither of you analogies are valid. 
It's not as if I have to buy all new trailers in order to switch from Ford to Ram, for example. If I had to replace 3 trucks and 6 trailers in order to replace just one for a different brand, then I'd just stick with whatever brand I started with. Unless, that is there was a _spectacularly_ good reason to do so. In a world where that was the case with trucks, I wouldn't be interested in another brand reviews either.
In regards to Top Gear, 99.9% of us are never going to buy a Ferrari, Lamborghini or any equivalent car. That's an entertainment piece for people who are not in the market for either. The entire show is entirely for entertainment value, not for someone actually considering buying one. (Edit: just realized those last two sentences apply to certain camera review sites too.) I doubt anyone went to TopGear to decide what car to buy. Plus, my first point holds here too.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 18, 2016)

expatinasia said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > My personal belief about Dilbert is that he's hired by Canon, to ignite fanboy-ism among Canon users by means of reverse-psychological arguments towards the contrary. The more a person argues against what is opposed to Canon, the more sold on Canon he or she is likely to become, even if the anti-canon sentiment is flagrantly idiotic to begin with. This ensures a fidelity of canon users and future income for Canon. It's pretty clever, really.
> ...



So Dilbert, Ahsanford, Jrista, AvTvM, Neuro, are only some of Craig's avatar's? ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> I'm not biased against Canon...



You're biased against correct facts, logic, and admitting your constant mistakes.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



"a formal assessment or examination of something with the possibility or intention of instituting change if necessary."

If one requires the second half, then no camera blog posts reviews as none have the possibility of instituting change. If one does not require the second half, TDP's post is a review. 

What a strange fight to pick. It's like Donald Trump and that judge.



dilbert said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



er, not really. If you want to make an analogy to car mags, it should be "someone who owns things which work almost exclusively with ford motor vehicles only reading reviews of Fords."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Yes, it is an entertainment piece BUT it is also considered to deliver factual information.



Unlike you, who manages to be occasionally mildly entertaining but rarely factual. 




dilbert said:


> Ah, you're referring to the accessory part. That's complementary to but not in disagreement with what I said. The point being that the reviewer never owns, drives or reviews a (say) GM car.



So, Bryan has taken hundreds of shots with a broad range of Nikon lenses for the image quality comparisons, but he's never used a brand other than Canon. Well, that's typical of what passes for 'factual' in dilbertland. :


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



I never said Top Gear doesn't contain facts. Duh. I said no one refers to it as a review helpful to car selection.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



No, I'm referring to the post you quoted which states "we're only interested in Canon reviews." That speaks to the reader, your analogy speaks to the writer.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 22, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



I disagree, but even if it did, the analogy is flawed because it suggests that the writer only uses, owns, or reviews canon products, which is demonstrably false.


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 22, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> For dilbert, the step from unknowledgeable criticism of Canon products to unknowledgeable criticism of reviews of Canon products was a short and easy one. Ill-informed baby steps are common in dilbertland.



Finally...a comment that made me laugh! And makes me laugh! And brings a smile to my face! And... And...


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 22, 2016)

How about we all start over? I appreciate, rather much, TDP's (Bryan C's.) reviews and site very much. His and the sites credibility are second to none - for Canon cameras, lenses, and 3rd-party lenses for Canon. His reviews are well thought-out, and very, very thorough. He is also very willing and able to reply to comments you leave for him at the bottom of any of his postings where commenting is available (I try to always be positive...it's just a personality flaw with me I suppose, and one I can blame on my mother).

And the link the original OPer shared is taking us to Bryan's REVIEW page for the Canon 5D Mk IV. Now, whilst it may not have originally contained much review material, does not mean that it was not useful for review purposes by any reader with half a brain and some kind of heart-beat. 

All I have to say about dilbert is a question: Dilbert, who peed in your cornflakes when you were a little boy? (For those unfamiliar with Cornflakes it is a breakfast cereal made by food giant, Kellogg's.)


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 22, 2016)

d said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > IglooEater said:
> ...



An excellent comment. 
I might add, that I've gotten stellar photographs with, wait for it....a CANON 40D. And a 7D. And still do get great, and even stellar photos with both cameras. Mounted with a 70-200mm 2.8L IS (version I (egads!)) and at times with a 24-85mm 4.0-5.6 EOS USM (yes, a few of these are still out there (from my Elan IIe film days...). And I've rented (from LensRentals) the Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 ART (a fantastic lens and which I had very, very few autofocus issues on my 40D).

Many of you may be wondering, dilbert in particular, how in the world I could get good-to-great photos with such atrocious and antiquated equipment...because, just like most of the other posters here, I know how to use it (well, at least most of the time...). And just so you all know I'm not blowing smoke, I'll share a couple shots.


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 22, 2016)

FramerMCB said:


> d said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



And one more...


----------



## LordofTackle (Sep 22, 2016)

FramerMCB said:


> FramerMCB said:
> 
> 
> > An excellent comment.
> ...



Very nice picture 
After reading CR for well over 4 years I am still wondering A LOT why dilbert hasn't just bought one of the Sony cameras he likes so much and goes out taking pictures with it, instead of whining about those unbearable, useless canon cameras!


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 22, 2016)

Very nice picture 
After reading CR for well over 4 years I am still wondering A LOT why dilbert hasn't just bought one of the Sony cameras he likes so much and goes out taking pictures with it, instead of whining about those unbearable, useless canon cameras! 
[/quote]


Thank you! I appreciate the kind words. As to your last statement, I too wonder why he (or she) doesn't.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 22, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> Very nice picture
> After reading CR for well over 4 years I am still wondering A LOT why dilbert hasn't just bought one of the Sony cameras he likes so much and goes out taking pictures with it, instead of whining about those unbearable, useless canon cameras!



Wait. We don't actually know that Dilbert even has a camera- or that he takes pictures. Ever. Why would he bother to buy a Sony he wouldn't ever use? What a waste. No, in Dilbertland taking pictures is irrelevant, it's only the theoretical specifications of a camera that are important, not the actual use.


----------



## d (Sep 23, 2016)

dilbert said:


> You do realise that I have posted my own pictures to CR, don't you?
> 
> Or are you just trying to jump on the band wagon and look cool with that little bit of diatribe?



It's true - I found this penguin:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5334.0


----------

