# DPreview First impression review 5D IV



## xps (Aug 25, 2016)

DPreview wrote their first impression review.
https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-first-impressions-review

It is mo Sony....

But it will be an well selling product


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 25, 2016)

Good to see the CR influence in the DPR hand on review: Rishi is now referring to Ai Servo ! ( but still says its not that good  )


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 25, 2016)

DPR's conclusions were preordained. The 5DIV is improved, and it's a very good camera. Well, good for a Canon...but the D810 is better, and oh boy, just wait for the D820. 

It's probably in their unofficial reviewers guide: 

For any given feature, Canon's performance is [insert choice from thesaurus search for 'good'], and Nikon's performance is [insert choice from thesaurus search for 'superlative']. 
In a Canon review, mention Nikon (or sometimes Sony) at every opportunity, in a Nikon review, mostly ignore Canon. Thus, Nikon features which Canon lacks should be discussed in reviews of both brands, whereas Canon features that Nikon lacks should be omitted from Nikon reviews. 
In the unlikely case that you find a Nikon feature not worthy of high praise, downplay the importance of that feature for the target market, in the typical case of presenting Canon deficits, stress that those features are critical for all users. 
In every Canon review, find one feature (preferably a minor one) to highlight, so Rishi can claim to be unbiased (used to be called the 'look, I have a ______ friend' approach).


----------



## Viggo (Aug 25, 2016)

;D ;D


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Good to see the CR influence in the DPR hand on review: Rishi is now referring to Ai Servo ! ( but still says its not that good  )



CR hasn't had any influence on DPReview. It's our policy to only mention brand-specific names once per-page, subsequently referring to them as 'Single' or 'Continuous' AF thereafter.

If I used it more than once in my writing, it's probably because I'm just too used to Canon terminology, having shot Canon for 15+ years. I'll go back and fix it if I get a chance, so thank you for pointing this out.

-Rishi


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2016)

Hey Rishi, for the full 5DIV review, be sure DPR highlights that terrible flaw reported in the 1D X II's AF system, where the automatic AF point selection just focuses on the nearest subject. 

[quote author=DPReview]
I started off the day shooting with the 70-200mm with the camera set to Auto Point Selection, which utilizes iTR. By default it is set to auto area select, in which the camera automatically tries to identify the subject. Unfortunately, I quickly found the camera was easily confused and very much like to focus on nearest patch of dirt in the foreground of my shots.
[/quote]

As with the 1D X II, don't bother to point out that the camera is _performing exactly as the manual says it's supposed to_ (regarding auto point selection the manual states, "This mode tends to focus the nearest subject."). Describing the camera as 'easily confused' sounds so much better than 'performs as designed despite our ignorance regarding Canon AF systems even though one of us claims to have shot Canon for 15+ years and our not bothering to RTFM'. 

Keep up that good, unbiased work!


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> DPR's conclusions were preordained. The 5DIV is improved, and it's a very good camera. Well, good for a Canon...but the D810 is better, and oh boy, just wait for the D820.
> 
> It's probably in their unofficial reviewers guide:
> 
> ...



For clarification: are you suggesting that Dual Pixel AF, which we feel is one of the greatest technologies introduced in recent times when it comes to cameras, is a "minor" token feature we simply chose to highlight to appear unbiased?

I'm sorry you feel that our merely pointing out shortcomings constitutes bias against an entire brand. But if you read our other reviews, you'll see us equally doing so for every camera/brand. My Nikon D810 review pointed out its shortcomings with respect to low light AF and mirror-induced shock in combination with VR, and I literally pointed out Canon DSLRs _in general_ (and the 5DS/R in particular) are significantly better in these regards. And drew comparisons to Sony's a7R II as well, literally writing: "Admittedly, these focus accuracy and vibration issues do make me reach for a Sony a7R II more these days".

We write about the benefits _and_ the shortcomings, to educate our audience.

Given this, I'd suggest your suggested 'unofficial reviewers guide' needs some revision.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hey Rishi, for the full 5DIV review, be sure DPR highlights that terrible flaw reported in the 1D X II's AF system, where the automatic AF point selection just focuses on the nearest subject.



That's not at all what it states for the mode we tested. You're ignoring the effect of enabling iTR. Perhaps you should revisit the manual yourself, particularly page 127: "The AF point is automatically selected based *not only on AF information* [distance], but also the human face *and the subject’s color information*." And that's for the iTR mode that is _not_ Face priority.



neuroanatomist said:


> [quote author=DPReview]
> I started off the day shooting with the 70-200mm with the camera set to Auto Point Selection, which utilizes iTR. By default it is set to auto area select, in which the camera automatically tries to identify the subject. Unfortunately, I quickly found the camera was easily confused and very much like to focus on nearest patch of dirt in the foreground of my shots.



As with the 1D X II, don't bother to point out that the camera is _performing exactly as the manual says it's supposed to_ (regarding auto point selection the manual states, "This mode tends to focus the nearest subject."). Describing the camera as 'easily confused' sounds so much better than 'performs as designed despite our ignorance regarding Canon AF systems even though one of us claims to have shot Canon for 15+ years and our not bothering to RTFM'. 

Keep up that good, unbiased work!
[/quote]

Yes, I've seen you repeatedly state this all over these forums, so I suppose I should address it a little more in-depth. For one, you're conflating someone else's words with me for the convenience of your argument and for the sake of overall character assassination, but let's set that aside for the moment.

The authors of the piece you refer to, both of whom handed off the cameras to one another to reaffirm their own assessments, generally found that the same 'auto' modes - which again use color/pattern information in addition to distance information to pick the subject - yielded better results with the D5. Don't get me wrong - the D5 will also sometimes focus on the wrong subject in auto mode, but their results were that the D5 automatically picked up the right subject more often than the 1D X II. 

Perhaps that was because it prioritized the moving subject, or perhaps it simply utilizes its metering sensor better (our many tests suggest Canon continues to rely on distance information more than color/pattern recognition _generally_ for subject tracking, so this wouldn't be surprising). I don't know. But that isn't the point. The point is that the result is the result and that's what they relayed in that piece.

It doesn't matter what the manual states or didn't state: one worked better than the other. 

Furthermore, if we _are_ to treat the manual as bible, then, ironically, it appears that perhaps it is _you_ who hasn't read the manual, as Canon's own manual and ? tab in-camera state that *the subject's color information is used to automatically pick it* when iTR is enabled, not '*just focuses on the nearest subject*'.

I hope that clarifies things, and thanks for so passionately raising your concern.

-Rishi


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 26, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> For clarification: are you suggesting that Dual Pixel AF, which we feel is one of the greatest technologies introduced in recent times when it comes to cameras, is a "minor" token feature we simply chose to highlight to appear unbiased?
> 
> I'm sorry you feel that our merely pointing out shortcomings constitutes bias against an entire brand. But if you read our other reviews, you'll see us equally doing so for every camera/brand. My Nikon D810 review pointed out its shortcomings with respect to low light AF and mirror-induced shock in combination with VR, and I literally pointed out Canon DSLRs _in general_ (and the 5DS/R in particular) are significantly better in these regards. And drew comparisons to Sony's a7R II as well, literally writing: "Admittedly, these focus accuracy and vibration issues do make me reach for a Sony a7R II more these days".
> 
> ...



Not having read any of your reviews, and having read many of Neuroanatomist's posts, I was initially inclined to believe he was being a just a bit snarky and hyperbolic. However, your responses to his posts are not helping your credibility.

For example, this is unprofessional, unscientific rhetoric. 



> I'm sorry you feel that our merely pointing out shortcomings constitutes bias against an entire brand



As a trained scientist, you should know that you can't defend yourself against ad-hominem and broadside attacks; instead, you must carefully defend individual points as they arise. Responding with rhetoric doesn't help anyone, least of all you.


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 26, 2016)

Ah! I see this thread has gone well... :


----------



## tpatana (Aug 26, 2016)

Rishi, I'm curious how long time ago you got the sample? If you can tell...


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2016)

I knew I shouldn't have gone and looked.

What utter bullshit is page 7 First Impressions? All the images are from a 5D MkIII and the example of lack of DR, give me freakin break learn to expose correctly dufus, isn't even clearly labeled, so it deliberately gives the false impression it is from the new camera.

I utterly hate the bias that is so ingrained in Rishi's writing he can't even see it, either that or he is so dishonest he tries to rationalize it to people he obviously has nothing but contempt for.

Disgustingly dishonest and decieptful DPReview diatribe.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> Not having read any of your reviews, and having read many of Neuroanatomist's posts, I was initially inclined to believe he was being a just a bit snarky and hyperbolic. However, your responses to his posts are not helping your credibility.
> 
> *For example, this is unprofessional, unscientific rhetoric. *
> 
> ...



Does 'I'm sorry' mean something different here on CR? I'm genuinely confused.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> I knew I shouldn't have gone and looked.
> 
> What utter bullS___ is page 7 First Impressions? All the images are from a 5D MkIII and the example of lack of DR, give me freakin break learn to expose correctly dufus, isn't even clearly labeled, so it deliberately gives the false impression it is from the new camera.
> 
> ...



The amount of irrational anger and hatred here is, admittedly, astounding. Let's forget for a moment that our overall impression is incredibly *positive *and *ecstatic *about the *innovations *the 5D IV brings (as opposed to the '*utter bullS___*' you suggest we've written). 

We're not allowed to publish any photos from the 5D Mark IV, and that example is clearly stated as an example that shows the *benefit *5D IV users will appreciate. Because I clearly state in the text that 5D Mark IV users will *benefit *from improvements here.

The DR example has been used repeatedly in our content; how is it not clear that that's not from the 5D Mark III when it's stated in the very text, and when every image in that preview is from the 5D Mark III (and labeled as such)? To help matters, I've added '_*5D Mark III*_' in bold italics to each caption of that image. Does that help?

The shot is then followed by the statement: "*5D Mark IV shooters can expect far more flexibility* in adjusting exposure of Raw files, thanks to the same move to on-sensor ADC that has *made recent Canon DSLRs more competitive relative to Sony*, Nikon, and Pentax offerings."

How is *praising the new iteration* construed as "*Disgustingly dishonest* and *decieptful DPReview diatribe*."? Is there some utter failure of the English language here? Or is your point that we can't expect readers to actually read our text, in which case I'd suggest perhaps it's time for you to blame lack of reading skills/attention spans, not us?

'Learn to expose correctly dufus' --> *Name-calling aside*, did you read the actual text? In fast paced situations, especially with a camera that continues to refuse to link spot-metering to AF point, *your very own Canon camera will do the same thing mine did*. 

Underexposure with backlight: that's what the camera does. In the heat of the action, without an EVF, you won't know until the moment is over. Which is why either an EVF, or exposure latitude, helps you address such issues. If you're going to tell me that pros can instantly judge exposure as soon as they move from one situation to another, without checking their shot, then I'm going to present you with tens or hundreds of images* delivered to actual clients* from *internationally award winning wedding photographers* that suggest otherwise.

I don't know if you're actually a professional placed under such demands but, if you are, you'd know _exactly _what I'm talking about.

I don't have contempt for anyone. I'm trying to actually explain the areas in which the *5D Mark IV brings improvements to 5D-series owners*.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2016)

If you HAVE to have either an EVF or exposure latitude to get a proper exposed shot that means lack of technical skill. I know a few "pro" photographers that are EXCELLENT in composing an idea into a beautiful photo, but actually understanding the technical part of their camera they are surprisingly lacking.

I can immediately ballpark an exposure with 0.5 stops. I use a flash outside and never use a external light meter or ettl, and, big surprise, I never miss by 2-3-4-5 or 6 stops, ever.

If one can't expose correctly and have to rely on software push that tells me something is not being done the correct way, and is a fault of the photographer not the gear. Did people even discuss this before Sony increased dr in their sensors?


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

Viggo said:


> If you HAVE to have either an EVF or exposure latitude to get a proper exposed shot that means lack of technical skill. I know a few "pro" photographers that are EXCELLENT in composing an idea into a beautiful photo, but actually understanding the technical part of their camera they are surprisingly lacking.
> 
> I can immediately ballpark an exposure with 0.5 stops. I use a flash outside and never use a external light meter or ettl, and, big surprise, I never miss by 2-3-4-5 or 6 stops, ever.
> 
> If one can't expose correctly and have to rely on software push that tells me something is not being done the correct way, and is a fault of the photographer not the gear. Did people even discuss this before Sony increased dr in their sensors?



"I can immediately ballpark an exposure with 0.5 stops."

You can in a fraction of a second tell me what aperture, shutter speed, and ISO is needed for any particular scene, even if it's changing in fractions of a second, and even when the definition of 'ISO' and 'proper exposure' is up for grabs (because it depends on what in the scene you're trying to expose correctly)? Well, then, you're really wasting your time on these forums - you should be a world class, award-winning photographer.

For the rest of us down here on earth...

No, it doesn't mean lack of technical skill. The camera's own computer can miscalculate exposure in quickly varying, changing scenarios - are you suggesting that every photographer should be better than a camera meter at every instant of time? In fast changing situations, you _cannot _predict that your camera's going to over-react to your backlight and underexpose too much.

And if you're going to suggest you immediately know exactly how much to change your exposure moving in a fraction of a second from an outdoor ceremony to an indoor tent, then you're lying. Can you expose correctly if given the time to think things through? Sure. In 0.1s as the bride/groom walk under this obstruction and you want to nail the moment? No. If you have enough time to think about the exposure then, you're probably not worrying about exposure, or focus, or lighting, or the moment.

One thing people constantly miss in these arguments is this: I can get exposure just fine. But when pressed for time down to the milliseconds, you simply cannot argue that a system that gives you more latitude gives you some benefit for when you have to make split-second decisions where you'd rather preserve that split second for concentrating on your composition, or lighting, or anything but whether or not you nailed your exposure just right to overcome the shortcomings of your own equipment.

Funny thing is - back in the day of neg film, you actually had a lot of latitude, and relaxed standards because of lack of pixel peeping.

Today, you'd benefit from systems with more exposure latitude.

If you're suggesting that in _every _similar situation moving in fractions of seconds from changing lighting scenarios that you can just predict the exact change in exposure needed to *nail* your exposure (and this doesn't even address the benefit to being able to underexpose in case you wish to preserve highlights), then you're simply making stuff up.

And, again, I can provide you literally _multitudes_ of shots from internationally award winning wedding photographers (are you one?) that prove otherwise - that they'd have benefited from changes in exposure they (nor the camera) didn't make.

And if you're going to then fall back to 'well they're not good enough', then I'd ask: isn't that exactly our point, that cameras that don't require such stringent requirements are beneficial to the photographer?

They're certainly 'good enough' to win more awards than most people on this forum... sorry to say.



> Did people even discuss this before Sony increased dr in their sensors?



Ah we're falling back to that argument then? OK, so a camera that doesn't even have AF is good enough, right? Because people manually focused just fine back in the day. And why should a site dedicated to differentiating camera equipment actually, well, differentiate camera equipment based on their ability if a *good photographer can take a good photograph with anything*?


----------



## smorgo (Aug 26, 2016)

For what it's worth, I thought that the review was positive, but well balanced. It's a first impression, so I don't expect warts-and-all.

Maybe I'm just a positive kind of guy?


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2016)

Wow, really?

I'm not lying, I have just used my cameras and tried against grey cards and experience to KNOW when my camera will over or underexpose, it's really not that difficult. Ridiculous claim.

The 5d mk2 I had at a constant 2 1/3 stop over, my 1dx is at +4/8 offset 0 ev. I always ETTR, so how can I ever drop 5 stops under? 

And you do know the back wheel is used for EC right? Guess what it's for...


And if you weren't so defensive you would see I wasn't complaining about Sony at all, I just said that no one even cared about exposure latitude before Sony made it possible, suddenly it's the end all.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

smorgo said:


> For what it's worth, I thought that the review was positive, but well balanced. It's a first impression, so I don't expect warts-and-all.
> 
> Maybe I'm just a positive kind of guy?



That's just the thing - I was really excited by this camera when writing this preview. Yet some will take any negative comment, which is actually simply a reflection of my acceptance of shortcomings of the system, and spin it into some grand elaborate commentary on insidious deep-rooted bias against Canon.

It's frankly irrational at best and just a sad commentary on internet behavior and human nature at worst. The 5D Mark IV is a really really nice camera with some fantastic features (live on Creative Live today I, unfathomably I'm sure to some here, said that 'the 5D Mark IV in live view works like the camera I wish the Sony a7R II were...'). And it has some really annoying, potentially show-stopping shortcomings as well. That's the simple reality, and it's our job to make our readers aware of both the positives and negatives so they can make informed decisions.

-Rishi


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

Viggo said:


> Wow, really?
> 
> I'm not lying, I have just used my cameras and tried against grey cards and experience to KNOW when my camera will over or underexpose, it's really not that difficult. Ridiculous claim.
> 
> ...



You're once again misunderstanding my entire point. I've loved and used the back wheel many-a-time. But when you can't predict the exact exposure needed in a fraction of a second, you simply can't predict it. Neither can a _computer _that works far faster than your brain, as exemplified by the hundreds of exposures where the camera's metering system *got it wrong*. Without the immediate feedback of an EVF, you're telling me you can always overcome your own camera's metering system's shortcomings, predicting exactly the EV your camera will underexpose due to a backlight (especially since spot-metering isn't linked to AF point?), at that moment, on the spot, in a fraction of a second, without even checking your shot?

If you're going to say 'yes' to that, then, yes, I challenge you and claim you're lying, if you're claiming you can do that _all the time_, on the spot, in the moment. And if you're going to then tell me 'well maybe I'll miss a few shots but I'll eventually catch up', then I'll say: 'but you've missed the moment you wouldn't have missed if your camera hadn't gotten in the way'. And isn't that the entire point - to choose the best tool for the job? I'm literally pointing out the upgrade will _help you in this manner_. What is your chief complaint? *That the old one was always just fine for everyone and that progress isn't actually progress?*

Or even if spot-metering were linked to AF point, you're telling me you can get the exact exposure needed to balance the highlights from blowing while keeping the exposure good enough for the faces you're exposing? Even if the difference between those two (the dark faces and the bright backlight) approaches near the dynamic range of your camera?

This makes me wonder - have you even shot fast-paced weddings/events?

It's not a matter of being defensive - I'm beginning to feel you just haven't used these cameras under the stressful situations I have, yet are comfortable commenting on how 'because it's fine for me, it's good enough for everyone'.

When did that ever help those who are actually running up against the limitations of their cameras and working around them - which I know for a fact many, many photographers do (focus and recompose, anyone? Don't tell me you use it because it's literally the best way you could ever think of using AF on a camera...)?


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

Viggo said:


> And if you weren't so defensive you would see I wasn't complaining about Sony at all, I just said that no one even cared about exposure latitude before Sony made it possible, suddenly it's the end all.



You're kidding, right? Ever heard of negative (print) film? No wonder no one ever cared about exposure latitude...

Ever shot Velvia/chrome? I'm pretty sure if you did, you'd really, really care about exposure latitude. Or at least be aware of what it's like to not have it...

Also, I thought that of late subject tracking and predictive AF that doesn't front-focus on *nothing in your image* in AF-C was the 'end all'...

Or could it be that we just feel that '_technologies that get the camera out of the way so you can focus on the photography_' are the end all?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 26, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Or even if spot-metering were linked to AF point, you're telling me you can get the exact exposure needed to balance the highlights from blowing while keeping the exposure good enough for the faces you're exposing? Even if the difference between those two (the dark faces and the bright backlight) approaches near the dynamic range of your camera?
> 
> This makes me wonder - have you even shot fast-paced weddings/events?



Linking exposure to an AF spot reading would likely be a way of crippling your useable exposure latitude. In the situation you describe I'd have been using fill at around minus one and two thirds, and maybe bracketing at two thirds as well.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > Or even if spot-metering were linked to AF point, you're telling me you can get the exact exposure needed to balance the highlights from blowing while keeping the exposure good enough for the faces you're exposing? Even if the difference between those two (the dark faces and the bright backlight) approaches near the dynamic range of your camera?
> ...



Exactly. Exactly where the Mark IV will help you. So you don't have to spot-meter and choose between blown highlights or properly-exposed faces.

Using fill and bracketing? In the moment as you skirt down the aisle to capture the newly-wed couple? Sure, if you have the luxury. But if you don't, you benefit from the Mark IV, or any camera without extra read noise.

Which was my entire point. Why is that such a difficult concept to swallow? Do we have mostly studio photographers here or something? In which case, by all means, feel free to ignore all the points we make about DR and AF... when you have all the time in the world to set up your shot, heck shoot medium format or large format film or something.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2016)

I somewhat stumped that someone seriously thinks correct exposure is so difficult. In fast pace action I use auto iso and I always limit my shutterspeed to never go below for example 1/2000s. That is one of the things that really helps with the 1dx compared to lower end models. And that makes it the right tool for my type of photography. But those critical missed shots that would have been saved by 5 stops latitude, no, can't say I have ever experienced that.... And if I'm shooting some fast portraits in a backlit situation I wouldn't care about clipping a highlight l, but make the face correctly exposed, see the difference I wouldn't compose my shot with strong backlight without a lamp in front. If I only have natural light I move so it's from the side. Again, I just can't agree with you on this latitude being the absolute way to shoot fast in difficult light, I really don't get why it's so difficult to learn what is going to fool the meter either way.

Well, I'm going out and shot with the worthless 1dx, done and done.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 26, 2016)

Viggo, please tell me you also never miss focus.

I know a lot here waiting to use DPRAW to fix their focus. 
Would love for you to teach them newbies how it's done.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

Viggo said:


> I somewhat stumped that someone seriously thinks correct exposure is so difficult. In fast pace action I use auto iso and I always limit my shutterspeed to never go below for example 1/2000s. That is one of the things that really helps with the 1dx compared to lower end models. And that makes it the right tool for my type of photography. But those critical missed shots that would have been saved by 5 stops latitude, no, can't say I have ever experienced that.... And if I'm shooting some fast portraits in a backlit situation I wouldn't care about clipping a highlight l, but make the face correctly exposed, see the difference I wouldn't compose my shot with strong backlight without a lamp in front. If I only have natural light I move so it's from the side. Again, I just can't agree with you on this latitude being the absolute way to shoot fast in difficult light, I really don't get why it's so difficult to learn what is going to fool the meter either way.



It's not about 5 stops. That was 2-3 stops, in that example -- exactly how much the *camera* decided to underexpose, not me.

You use Auto ISO and don't let the shutter speed drop below 1/2000s? That's exactly one of the point I emphasize over and over again on DPR - that cameras need to allow for adjustable min shutter speed thresholds (Sony now offers one button access to this - I know, heresy for me to mention here).

That's *exactly* how I shoot. But that doesn't stop the camera, especially Canons, from underexposing 2-3 stops in backlit scenarios.

I know you couldn't care about clipping a highlight in those backlit scenarios... my point is you WOULDN'T have clipped the highlights because your CAMERA would've underexposed in that backlit scenario. And with a camera with low read noise/high low ISO DR, _that wouldn't matter_. But for the 5D Mark III, it unfortunately _would_.

It's not that latitude is the 'absolute way to shoot fast in difficult light' - it's that it *allows* you to cope with fast-paced shooting scenarios.

I really don't get how you and I can be wanting the same thing and yet literally talking past one another, all the while potentially benefiting from *exactly the same camera technologies* that allows us to *focus on the photography, not the camera's limitations.*


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 26, 2016)

Do people think that DPRAW will save many shots, looking at the amount of correction I don't think it will, maybe 5mm or so at max, some of the vids it looks even less, maybe 1-2mm! (also I note the vids are all close subject matter, how will it work long end of 500-1000mm?) When I miss focus its normally way more than what I have seen with DPRAW's correction, not so much with portrait or static subjects but anything moving, people, bikes, cars, if the focus was missed by me I seem to miss it enough just to bin the shot, my macro work may be improved/saved a little by DPRAW but other forms of photography like birds etc.. I am not so sure but can't wait to give it a go, only thing that will do my nut in is saving files that are twice the size, given say I may save 1 in 10 shots or maybe even 1 in 100 shots thats a lot of extra MB's for a small percentage of images.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2016)

Wesley said:


> Viggo, please tell me you also never miss focus.
> 
> I know a lot here waiting to use DPRAW to fix their focus.
> Would love for you to teach them newbies how it's done.



AF is the reason I bought the 1dx and 35 L II and the 200 f2. I feel nothing is good enough when it comes to nailing AF always. But exposure I can guesstimate and compensate for, AF you can't, you have to trust the camera.

That is also the reason I have been really frustrated and picky. I sent my 1dx in 5 times for AF inconsistency issues, they finally got it right. I "always" shoot wide open and kids playing and it's not very easy and of course a few misses that can't really be explained other than sometimes AF misses. I'm okay with that. But it's down to an absolute minimum.

Here's a shot from a couple of days ago just after receiving the 200 L, small faces with no contrast with corner points and everything happens fast when your waving the huge heavy lens around and no dof. I just trust the camera and it seems to work.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Aug 26, 2016)

Oh nice shot, I love my 200/2!


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

Wesley said:


> Viggo, please tell me you also never miss focus.
> 
> I know a lot here waiting to use DPRAW to fix their focus.
> Would love for you to teach them newbies how it's done.



Sadly, as excited as we were in the office about Dual Pixel Raw, the re-focusability is miniscule. I wouldn't be surprised if it equates to something like -1 to +1 on the AF Microadjustment scale. So, practically unusable. mm? No, probably even less.

I, admittedly, had high hopes for this, given my love of fast prime photography, and my frustration at Canon's predictive Servo algorithms completely misfocusing on erratic subjects (kids), particularly if you gave the system the freedom of extra AF points to choose from (iTR). I even wrote hopefully about this in the preview (sort of unfathomable given my anti-Canon bias, no?). But the reality is, well... I better not hurt anyone's feelings here any further...

Note that telephoto shots of kids far away poses an entirely different set of AF requirements compared to accurate candid portraits up close at 35/1.4. Canon generally does well with telephoto lenses, like the 200/2. Shoot a 35/1.4 of a kid up close using AI Servo, and Dual Pixel AF starts to show its advantages.

And all this talk of focus inaccuracy is precisely why we've been so excited by Dual Pixel AF - particularly its (finally) Servo (AF-C) implementation in the 5D IV...


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2016)

iTR only works in 61 point auto. First thing I do is remove the "all points" and Zone AF from my camera. I use spot, single, 4 with slow pace, and 8-point Case 6 with chaotic movement.

I have my AF-on set up to for example Case 1 or 4 and the *-button to case 6 with 8 point. I also have one of the front buttons set, as well as on the 200 lens itself, to switch between Servo and One Shot. That makes it split second fast to use completely different setups for AF.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 26, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo, please tell me you also never miss focus.
> ...



Bad news for the eyelash to pupil focus shift people?

Wouldn't taking stills with live view have more vibration because of the mirror?

How would you compare eyeAF AF-C with DPAF servo?


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2016)

95% of my shots are close with the 35 at 1.4 8) the L II's AF and the ability to place exact focus is why I say it's absolutely worth it over the for example the Sigma.

Perhaps this thread went a bit OT here.... Sorry about that...

Not sure why the image is flipped, but uploaded from my phone.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

Viggo said:


> iTR only works in 61 point auto. First thing I do is remove the "all points" and Zone AF from my camera. I use spot, single, 4 with slow pace, and 8-point Case 6 with chaotic movement.
> 
> I have my AF-on set up to for example Case 1 or 4 and the *-button to case 6 with 8 point. I also have one of the front buttons set, as well as on the 200 lens itself, to switch between Servo and One Shot. That makes it split second fast to use completely different setups for AF.



No, iTR also works in Zone and Large Zone AF, as well as 61 point Auto. Again, I think it's ironic that folks here are telling DPR that it is we that need to read the manual.

?

Yes, one of the powerful features of Canon DSLRs is the customization that allows you to switch cases and AF area modes. Which also doesn't detract from the point that with certain competitors, we don't even need to change from AF-C to AF-S for a portrait, because AF-C simply isn't as jumpy as AI Servo is on a Canon, nor does AF-C on said peers result in horridly front-focused photos (where nothing is in focus) because the predictive algorithm front-focused due to expecting continued movement toward the camera despite the subject stopping.

These are realities that many Canon shooters have found ways of working around. Focus-and-recompose AF-S is pretty much what most Canon shooters I meet have their camera set up to, or AF-C single point for sports shooters, who simply don't trust iTR. And, oddly enough, most 5D Mark III shooters I know don't shoot Auto ISO. Why? Because Auto ISO wasn't programmable enough until the 7D Mark II. 

Funny how that works - when something isn't good enough, people don't use it. And if they haven't used different systems, they don't even know there's something better... that's not meant as an insult to said people, but a simple reality.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

Viggo said:


> 95% of my shots are close with the 35 at 1.4 8) the L II's AF and the ability to place exact focus is why I say it's absolutely worth it over the for example the Sigma.
> 
> Perhaps this thread went a bit OT here.... Sorry about that...
> 
> Not sure why the image is flipped, but uploaded from my phone.



Without getting into too many specifics, Canon's 35mm F1.4L II is quite possibly the best lens ever made, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 26, 2016)

I'm a single point AF-C, back button focus user. Sometimes 3D tracking.

Seems like I should stick with Nikon for continuous AF.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

Wesley said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



Yes, bad news for shallow DOF photographers who find their current system limiting (I would fall under this category).

Which is why I'm so excited by DPAF. Not so excited at using a DSLR at arm's length, though.

Vibration because of mirror? No, because Canon uses electronic first curtain by default in Live View. No vibrations whatsoever. Just tack sharp images!

Sony Eye AF-C is great, yes. But, it's big problem is that it's simply not sticky enough, which we cover in our video here:

https://youtu.be/OhkH7wIPOu8?t=1m32s

So, I find it frustrating to use Eye AF-C for actual wedding, candidate portraiture, event work. It's a real problem, and I find myself reverting to just using focus-and-recompose with the Sony, as I'd use a Canon DSLR in viewfinder mode.

DPAF on the 5D IV is completely different. It nails faces at F1.4 even if they're moving, thanks to AF-C. Better than viewfinder AF-C, ironically and heretically, which tends to be jumpy and erratic with erratic movement.

Hence, in a nutshell, I'd consider DPAF overall to be *more* usable than Sony's AF-C generally speaking.

The bigger problem Canon faces right now is usability of DPAF. Its 'Face Detect+Tracking', 'FlexiZone-Multi', and 'FlexiZone-Single' modes aren't idea, and too confusing, with too much overlapping similarity between modes. Furthermore, there isn't any mode that doesn't require you to tap the screen to specify your subject, which is a shame (FaceDetect+Tracking should still have a mode where it tracks whatever was under your initial AF point). Finally, the AF point isn't recorded, so when you magnify in Image Review, it doesn't zoom into your focus point - which makes it cumbersome to check focus.

But overall, it's amazing, and makes me wish Canon had a hybrid OVF/EVF, or full-frame mirrorless camera.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2016)

Never ever have I said Servo is jumpy, and it isn't .... I use One Shot very seldom, usually just release the AF-on button. One shot is for very small adjustments or to recompose to the extreme corners as I never crop in post. I just don't use the buttons on the 200 or that front button for anything else, so it's nice to have. Same with exposure lock. It's there but hardly use it.

I said I also removed the zone AF, I would never let my camera decide which focusing point to use, even if it worked great. 

You keep taking what people say and then turn them into some crazy assumption. A temporary four second switch between Servo and One Shot in a specific setting for a specific effect or composition isn't to say the tracking can't be used for exact focus placement. 

What needs to be understood is that when a lens is only "about correctly" calibrated it makes the AF unstable, if it's the right value of afma, it's like glue. This would be very well known for anyone who care to do things the right way. 

Ps. I read through the manual when buying the camera and setting it up, along with the AF guide, but without actually using it you can't really fine tune settings to where it's not almost perfect, but works properly.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

Viggo said:


> Never ever have I said Servo is jumpy, and it isn't .... I use One Shot very seldom, usually just release the AF-on button. One shot is for very small adjustments or to recompose to the extreme corners as I never crop in post. I just don't use the buttons on the 200 or that front button for anything else, so it's nice to have. Same with exposure lock. It's there but hardly use it.
> 
> I said I also removed the zone AF, I would never let my camera decide which focusing point to use, even if it worked great.
> 
> You keep taking what people say and then turn them into some crazy assumption. A temporary four second switch between Servo and One Shot in a specific setting for a specific effect or composition isn't to say the tracking can't be used for exact focus placement.



You misunderstand. That's what I'm saying *we* (as in everyone in the office who's used this system extensively against others) say.

Also, AFMA is extremely complicated in how, and when, it works properly, and it's too much to get into here.

Please answer me this simple question: have you shot weddings?


----------



## d (Aug 26, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> The bigger problem Canon faces right now is usability of DPAF. Its 'Face Detect+Tracking', 'FlexiZone-Multi', and 'FlexiZone-Single' modes aren't idea, and too confusing, with too much overlapping similarity between modes. Furthermore, there isn't any mode that doesn't require you to tap the screen to specify your subject, which is a shame (FaceDetect+Tracking should still have a mode where it tracks whatever was under your initial AF point). Finally, the AF point isn't recorded, so when you magnify in Image Review, it doesn't zoom into your focus point - which makes it cumbersome to check focus.
> 
> But overall, it's amazing, and makes me wish Canon had a hybrid OVF/EVF, or full-frame mirrorless camera.



Thanks for this - helpful to know.

Appreciate you taking the time on here to answer people's queries and criticisms thoroughly and patiently. I don't understand why people are getting so snarky about things - I thought your preview of the 5D4 was unbiased and helpful.


Cheers,
d.


----------



## Bennymiata (Aug 26, 2016)

I thought Rishi's review was pretty good and well balanced, but I thought he gushed a bit too much about DPAF.
I switched expensive video cameras to use at weddings and events to a 70d after trying DPAF, so I can't really blame you Rishi.

If you have used lots of different cameras, you will realise that Canons aren't the best at everything. Having used other brands over the years and pp'd many photos from Nikons and Sonys, I choose to use my 5d3 and 70d, even though Sonys have better dr and Nikons better servo focussing, because the photos on Canons look gorgeous and Canons just keep working and working.
I think the majority of pros would agree with me.

There is no product made anywhere in the world that is demonstrably better than all of its competitors in every area of operation, so get over genuine critisms and just accept that even the new 5d4 is not 100% perfect.
Having said that, I will be buying 1 or 2 of them.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2016)

Yes I have shot weddings. 

I don't like it. 

And afma is not that complicated if you use the right tools btw. And that it only works at a certain distance is also wrong. For Sigma it's true though, lol.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2016)

Wesley said:


> I'm a single point AF-C, back button focus user. Sometimes 3D tracking.
> 
> Seems like I should stick with Nikon for continuous AF.



Definitely, because if you believe DPR, Nikon's AF-C has the uncanny ability to find and lock onto a subject and never ever let go even if the subject is moving at warp speed, and you can underexpose by 5 stops for a faster shutter speed and push the images in post with no penalty*, whereas Canon has AI Servo tracking and sometimes you might get lucky if you're using the right kind of lens. 

*Does not apply to Nikon's flagship D5, but that's okay because using fast shutter speeds isn't really important to that camera's user base, so shhhhhh, don't mention the banding!


----------



## Eldar (Aug 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wesley said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a single point AF-C, back button focus user. Sometimes 3D tracking.
> ...


 Eehhh ... I must be doing something wrong ... Because on both the 5DSR and 1DX-II, the tracking seems to be working quite well ... Maybe I should check if some calibration thing is off :


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 26, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> It's not about 5 stops. That was 2-3 stops, in that example -- exactly how much the *camera* decided to underexpose, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> That's *exactly* how I shoot. But that doesn't stop the camera, especially Canons, from underexposing 2-3 stops in backlit scenarios.



Err.....so if you know that and you are an experienced Canon shooter why don't you dial in the appropriate EC ? I think that is rather Viggo's point; except judging by your statement above you _do_ know where you sit in EV, you just choose to do nothing about it and say "it's what the camera set". I have never heard_ any_ professional photographer ( and as you shoot all these weddings I presume you are pro) say "it's all f*****d up but it's what the camera set". 

In your reviews I have never once read how much you can "over expose" with the Canon, especially now ACR can recover, or should I say read that highlight headroom. True the histograms and 'blinkies' don't help in this regard even if you set your jpeg ( to get a representative LCD display) 'picture style' setting to a very subdued 'natural', but you have to know how much that histogram is kidding you regarding off-the-right-side data. 

But I agree in the wedding shot of the bride and groom walking into the marquee there is no time to be chimping, but in this situation I would have bracketed if, as you stated, I was particularly wanting the 'brokeh of the trees outside', so you knew this shot was coming. 

However I also agree that accessing AEB is too slow. I'd like to see this feature added to the M-Fn or SET button, so you could quickly set the camera to a pre set AEB setting, and then change back out of it when you don't want it any more. Perhaps you'd like to point this out to Canon on our behalf


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 26, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Not having read any of your reviews, and having read many of Neuroanatomist's posts, I was initially inclined to believe he was being a just a bit snarky and hyperbolic. However, your responses to his posts are not helping your credibility.
> ...



You're making the false assumption that all criticism here is fanboi whining; while some clearly is, there's also some that clearly is not. I'm trying to help you understand that, and you don't seem to care.

Your quote above came across as sarcastic, not as sincere. You start with a straw-man argument, "you feel our merely pointing out shortcomings constitutes bias..." and then add a sarcastic "I'm sorry." Again, I haven't read your reviews, so they may be gems for all I know. I'm merely telling you that you're not defending them very well.

The point Neuroanatomist has made (the truth of which I can't currently judge), is that you're not "merely pointing out shortcomings," as if you had done so in a purely objective way, or as if it could be done in a purely objective way. All reviews and tests have unintentional bias, we get that. As I read the criticism, they are accusing you of two major errors: (1) failing to learn the Canon product well enough to use it as described in the manual; i.e. trying to apply Nikon-centric principles to the Canon product, instead of learning it for what it is; (2) choosing which features and qualities should be emphasized based on which brand wins that particular battle. You need to engage with these complaints professionally, not emotionally. When you lash out emotionally at critique, whether that critique is valid or not, it makes me wonder if your other work is also emotionally tainted or biased.

To reiterate once again: I'm criticizing your defense of your reviews, not the reviews themselves,which I have not read.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> Err.....so if you know that and you are an experienced Canon shooter why don't you dial in the appropriate EC ? I think that is rather Viggo's point; except judging by your statement above you _do_ know where you sit in EV, you just choose to do nothing about it and say "it's what the camera set". I have never heard_ any_ professional photographer ( and as you shoot all these weddings I presume you are pro) say "it's all f*****d up but it's what the camera set".



Wait...what? You mean, if you bend a nail it's _not_ the hammer's fault? WTF?!?




Sporgon said:


> However I also agree that accessing AEB is too slow. I'd like to see this feature added to the M-Fn or SET button, so you could quickly set the camera to a pre set AEB setting, and then change back out of it when you don't want it any more. Perhaps you'd like to point this out to Canon on our behalf



You can set up a C mode with your preferred AEB settings, then it's simply a turn of the mode dial to turn AEB on/off.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > However I also agree that accessing AEB is too slow. I'd like to see this feature added to the M-Fn or SET button, so you could quickly set the camera to a pre set AEB setting, and then change back out of it when you don't want it any more. Perhaps you'd like to point this out to Canon on our behalf
> ...



Yes good point, then it's very quick. The issue I've had with that though is that the C setting switches everything to what was registered, so say I have prepared it at f/5.6 on zero EC, but I'm shooting at f/2.8 with + 1 stop EC, when I switch there's some fiddling to do. But with a bit of forethought in setting the C option for the specific day, I agree, it's a fast enough work around.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> The point Neuroanatomist has made (the truth of which I can't currently judge), is that you're not "merely pointing out shortcomings," as if you had done so in a purely objective way, or as if it could be done in a purely objective way. All reviews and tests have unintentional bias, we get that. As I read the criticism, they are accusing you of two major errors: (1) failing to learn the Canon product well enough to use it as described in the manual; i.e. trying to apply Nikon-centric principles to the Canon product, instead of learning it for what it is; (2) choosing which features and qualities should be emphasized based on which brand wins that particular battle. You need to engage with these complaints professionally, not emotionally. When you lash out emotionally at critique, whether that critique is valid or not, it makes me wonder if your other work is also emotionally tainted or biased.



Exactly. Consider DPR's title choices...pre/reviews of the 1D X II: "Canon Catching Up?" and "Rock Solid"; DPR's review of the D5: "Setting New Standards". Canon is consistenly damned with faint praise. 

Dynamic range and exposure latitude (the ability to underexpose by 5 stops then push in post) were critically important features for all photographers, and ISO invariance was a huge advantage...and in those areas, Canon fell far behind the competition. Then the D5 came out, and suddenly DR and extreme shadow lifting weren't really all that important for the target users. I mean...those things _were_ important for the target users of the 7DII, which was not very good for DR and shadow pushing (well, it was good for a Canon camera, but the 'advantages of the aging Nikon D7000 were quite clear'). So according to DPR, it makes sense to criticize the 7DII for poor DR and exposure latitude while excusing the same things in the D5. Presumably because a fast-action high fps camera like the 7DII has a far different target user base than a fast-action high fps camera like the D5. 

Also of note was that in the 7DII review of DR and exposure latitude, they added the Canon 5DIII "as a comparison against full-frame, which should have an advantage," (but of course the aging D7000 beat the 5DIII, too). However, in the Nikon D5 review for some reason they don't mention that for low ISO DR the APS-C sensor in the Canon 80D outperforms the FF sensor in the D5. 

For the DR/shadow pushing section, DPR's D5 review states, "_This content was originally published before we had access to Canon's EOS-1D X Mark II. We are currently working on an updated comparison._" They've had access to a 1D X II for quite some time now – the full review of it was published over 2 months ago (and certainly they had it for some time before that), and their full review of the 1D X II states that it outperforms the D5 in those areas. But they haven't updated the D5 review to compare it to the 1D X II. I wonder why?


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > It's not about 5 stops. That was 2-3 stops, in that example -- exactly how much the *camera* decided to underexpose, not me.
> ...



Thank you! That was exactly what I meant. If you know the camera and know 2-3 stops here or there with the EC will correct it, why don't you?

i don't blame the camera for anything I can fix when using it.


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 26, 2016)

Viggo said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > rishi_sanyal said:
> ...



This isn't exactly fair: if the camera's meter is smart enough to nail exposure in all circumstances without EC that's great. The problem is that the camera doesn't know what my intentions are -- I may have wanted a silhouette, and I get a bright face and blown-out background instead. What's important is that there is a variety of metering options and that they are consistent so I can get the exposure I want. Otherwise, a reviewer will give higher ratings to those cameras which work best with his particular style of shooting. On a pro camera, so long as metering is predictable and consistent, it's good...at least until the AI-Psy feature is perfected.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2016)

I think we agree. I know when the camera will do something that's different from what I want, I then compensate or correct it to my liking.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 26, 2016)

I find page 7 incredibly misleading. 

What other first impressions review goes on and whines about the prior camera. 

Reading it quickly or looking at the photo examples you'd think it was the mark iv


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2016)

[quote author=Canon DLC]
Because of the pixel density on the 5D Mark IV’s 30.4MP sensor, which results in a smaller pixel, its 4K ‘crop factor’ is equivalent to that of a lens with approximately *1.74X* the indicated focal length. 
[/quote]

[quote author=Rishi et al. @ DPR]
The 5D Mark IV uses a native crop of the sensor for 4K capture, using a 4096 x 2160 pixel region of the sensor. This works out to a *1.64x* crop relative to full frame...
[/quote]

[quote author=Rishi @ DPR]
But if you've been reading us for some time, you might know that we don't just read other sites and regurgitate claims. *We're make really, really darn sure we're right about something before we say it,* and that's usually after exhaustive vetting and testing ourselves.
[/quote]

Hey Rishi - well done with your usual great job of making really, really darn sure you're right about something before saying it!!

Here's a hint: the aspect ratio of Canon's 4K video crop is not the same as the aspect ratio of the entire sensor, so you can't just take the long-side measure of the 6720 x 4480 FF image and divide it by the long-side measure of the 4096 x 2160 4K video output to come up with the crop factor. I suggest that you do the math properly...or if that's too exhausting, you can read what Canon – and the rest of the Internet – say about the 5DIV's 4K crop factor and simply regurgitate that.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 26, 2016)

Fwiw I didn't think the first impressions review was particularly bad, though I skimmed it. I do think, if Rishi is still listening, that posting pictures taken with the 5D3 is a bit odd. It's clearly stated underneath - but of what relevance are they? Especially the backlit one at sunset that's caused such consternation. If there are no shots taken with the new camera, don't include any shots (putting some in to show the shortcomings of the previous model *is* a little dodgy, in my view).

Second, I think the reaction to criticism - some valid, some invalid - has been surprisingly vehement. The internet is a tough place, and people can spout nonsense, and be rude. And that's bad - although I don't think CR is any worse than anywhere else. Having thin skin is no way to respond though. If you think that claims made here are outrageous or utterly ridiculous, just ignore them. Don't get angry and lash out at a whole community. Everyone needs to calm down and get some perspective.

On the subject of correct exposure, I am not a role model, but what's wrong with a bit of chimping? I've read the manual but never really got to grips with all the features, but shooting in manual mode I tend to do okay because I check the shots every so often, especially if the subject or light changes (I appreciate the images displayed on the LCD are not the raw data, but I know how far I can blow highlights in the preview and get them back later, just from practice). The only times I get caught out and under/overexpose massively is when I go from one situation to a radically different one, and forget to change my settings, which is my fault. Nobody is opposed to having more leeway to rescue failed shots (more shadow lifting capability being one way), but it's become a weird obsession of some people (Dpreview aren't as bad as some on the forums in that regard). It doesn't seem particularly hard to get things right enough most of the time... Of course learning all the twiddly bits to make things even better is a good idea. I must try that sometime ;D


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Err.....so if you know that and you are an experienced Canon shooter why don't you dial in the appropriate EC ? I think that is rather Viggo's point; except judging by your statement above you _do_ know where you sit in EV, you just choose to do nothing about it and say "it's what the camera set". I have never heard_ any_ professional photographer ( and as you shoot all these weddings I presume you are pro) say "it's all f*****d up but it's what the camera set".
> ...




I wonder in everyone at DPReview also uses speedlites in Full Auto E-TTL all the time and then complains "The flash F'ed up the shot" too?


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 26, 2016)

Eldar said:


> Eehhh ... I must be doing something wrong ... Because on both the 5DSR and 1DX-II, the tracking seems to be working quite well ... Maybe I should check if some calibration thing is off :



Thank God... I was afraid I was the only one! If you manage to fix yours and get the tracking to constantly fail, let me know how you do it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 26, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Eehhh ... I must be doing something wrong ... Because on both the 5DSR and 1DX-II, the tracking seems to be working quite well ... Maybe I should check if some calibration thing is off :
> ...



No, no. You guys are totally misunderstanding what Rishi is saying. It's not that Canon AF tracking _always_ fails or is _consistently_ easily confused. In fact, Eldar's statement is aligned with Rishi's, sort of – Canon tracking works quite well. Sometimes. With long lenses. On Wednesdays. 

But guys, you just have to go and shoot Nikon. Then you'll know. Nikon's class-leading, uncanny, spooky AF system can easily lock onto the 3rd median secondary covert feather of a raven's wing and track it unerringly as the raven flies around you in an unlit coal mine. It's just that good. So, while the Canon AF system is okay, the Nikon system is sheer, utter, never-miss-a-shot perfection.


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 26, 2016)

i start to really dislike the climate/tone in this forum...


----------



## davidhfe (Aug 26, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> i start to really dislike the climate/tone in this forum...



Especially since rishi's been pretty patient the last few posts. Chalk it up to just there being a higher s:n than normal bleeding over.


----------



## Wesley (Aug 26, 2016)

romanr74 said:


> i start to really dislike the climate/tone in this forum...



Neuroanatomist has been staring at the computer screen too long (check out that post count!) and it put a toll on mental health. Quality of posts must be spread thin or only existent in the beginning.


----------



## Mario (Aug 26, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> ...Which also doesn't detract from the point that with certain competitors, we don't even need to change from AF-C to AF-S for a portrait, because AF-C simply isn't as jumpy as AI Servo is on a Canon...



You must be doing something wrong, because I kept my 5DIII and 1DX, and keep my 1DXII constant in AI Servo, also for portraits. Nothing jumpy happening AF-wise. 

Mario


----------



## unfocused (Aug 26, 2016)

davidhfe said:


> romanr74 said:
> 
> 
> > i start to really dislike the climate/tone in this forum...
> ...



I honestly don't know why he feeds the trolls. And yes, the responses that any mildly critical statement from DPReview generates among otherwise rational people on this site is trolling. 

Reviewers are *supposed* to offer their opinions based on their impressions and experience. I don't understand what is so hard for people to understand about that. Nor, do I understand why anyone who likes and uses Canon products would object to criticisms that might actually lead to better products.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 26, 2016)

Mario said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > ...Which also doesn't detract from the point that with certain competitors, we don't even need to change from AF-C to AF-S for a portrait, because AF-C simply isn't as jumpy as AI Servo is on a Canon...
> ...


I agree. I only swap to one shot when I have to keep something far out in the periphery in focus. I have programmed the back focus button to swap between Servo and One shot. For everything else, I keep Servo. Very often I also have all focus points active, but always keep track of the initial focusing point. However, if you´re using the wrong AF mode, you can run into trouble. So to learn which mode works for what is time well spent.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> You're once again misunderstanding my entire point. I've loved and used the back wheel many-a-time. But when you can't predict the exact exposure needed in a fraction of a second, you simply can't predict it. Neither can a _computer _that works far faster than your brain, as exemplified by the hundreds of exposures where the camera's metering system *got it wrong*. Without the immediate feedback of an EVF, you're telling me you can always overcome your own camera's metering system's shortcomings, predicting exactly the EV your camera will underexpose due to a backlight (especially since spot-metering isn't linked to AF point?), at that moment, on the spot, in a fraction of a second, without even checking your shot?
> 
> If you're going to say 'yes' to that, then, yes, I challenge you and claim you're lying, if you're claiming you can do that _all the time_, on the spot, in the moment. And if you're going to then tell me 'well maybe I'll miss a few shots but I'll eventually catch up', then I'll say: 'but you've missed the moment you wouldn't have missed if your camera hadn't gotten in the way'. And isn't that the entire point - to choose the best tool for the job? I'm literally pointing out the upgrade will _help you in this manner_. What is your chief complaint? *That the old one was always just fine for everyone and that progress isn't actually progress?*
> 
> ...



Yes, I have shot weddings... and the bride in her white dress and the groom in his dark suit come walking up the aisle past the row of windows where the sun is streaming in and we flash from dark shade to bright sun to dark shade to bright sun. I doubt that there is a photographer alive who can handle that in full manual mode..... and even if we had the exposure properly coupled to the focus point, do I choose the light bride or the dark groom? There are ALWAYS going to be cases where you are going to have to step in and set it yourself because no automatic mode can cover all possibilities and read your mind.

I will go on record as saying that I love Av and Tv, that I twirl the exposure compensation wheel, and when sufficiently confused (or panicked due to no time) that I have even used the dreaded "green box" mode. When time is a bit more relaxed, I shoot manual. I don't think it matters if I shoot Canon, Nikon, Sony, or whatever.... once you get to a particular level it is the nut holding the camera that is far more important than the camera. Yes, a better camera is a better tool, but only if the person holding it is capable of using that capacity!

As far as AF systems go, I don't believe anything said about them until the person has had a couple of months to play with them.... it takes a long time to get proficient with such a complex system. Of course, in a case where the user is familiar with (for example) the 1DX AF system and they put it into another model, then the learning curve is a lot shorter, but it still takes time.... but this much I am confident to state: Canon did not spend a lot of time and money to make the AF system worse..... of course it is better! Yet somehow, we have people on this forum who have never seen or touched the camera, and are experts on it!

Overall, I thought the review was good. It could have been better in a few places, but it also could have been considerably worse. Given that the title of the review was "first impressions", something which many of the readers here seem to have missed, I expect that at some time in the future you will come out with a far more comprehensive article. In the meantime, please remember that internet criticism is worth the paper it is written on.......


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> [quote author=Canon DLC]
> Because of the pixel density on the 5D Mark IV’s 30.4MP sensor, which results in a smaller pixel, its 4K ‘crop factor’ is equivalent to that of a lens with approximately *1.74X* the indicated focal length.



[quote author=Rishi et al. @ DPR]
The 5D Mark IV uses a native crop of the sensor for 4K capture, using a 4096 x 2160 pixel region of the sensor. This works out to a *1.64x* crop relative to full frame...
[/quote]

[quote author=Rishi @ DPR]
But if you've been reading us for some time, you might know that we don't just read other sites and regurgitate claims. *We're make really, really darn sure we're right about something before we say it,* and that's usually after exhaustive vetting and testing ourselves.
[/quote]

Hey Rishi - well done with your usual great job of making really, really darn sure you're right about something before saying it!!

Here's a hint: the aspect ratio of Canon's 4K video crop is not the same as the aspect ratio of the entire sensor, so you can't just take the long-side measure of the 6720 x 4480 FF image and divide it by the long-side measure of the 4096 x 2160 4K video output to come up with the crop factor. I suggest that you do the math properly...or if that's too exhausting, you can read what Canon – and the rest of the Internet – say about the 5DIV's 4K crop factor and simply regurgitate that.
[/quote]

You conveniently left out the response of the author (of that section), attached below. This is how we've consistently evaluated video crops in our reviews, so we stuck with it for consistency. If there are enough complaints against it, we'll consider re-evaluating our methodology. As far as I know, no one's complained about this method before, but I'll keep an eye out for it.

Furthermore, saying 'we try very hard to be right' is not the same as saying 'infallible'. We've certainly been wrong before - and transparently stated so in the form of Editor's Notes when we are. It'd be silly to suggest one is never wrong. I see you continue to put words in my mouth and misconstrue what I'm saying to feed your agenda - and that it's simply the nature of some to do so - but I do feel the need to call out what you're doing for what it is.

By the way, I see you've gone silent on your claims that it was us who hadn't 'RTFM' when it came to Auto Area AF with iTR. Since it appears you misunderstood how this mode actually worked, I just wanted to make sure you had a better understanding now, so that you don't continue to erroneously claim that our claims were unfounded and misguided.

-Rishi


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > You're once again misunderstanding my entire point. I've loved and used the back wheel many-a-time. But when you can't predict the exact exposure needed in a fraction of a second, you simply can't predict it. Neither can a _computer _that works far faster than your brain, as exemplified by the hundreds of exposures where the camera's metering system *got it wrong*. Without the immediate feedback of an EVF, you're telling me you can always overcome your own camera's metering system's shortcomings, predicting exactly the EV your camera will underexpose due to a backlight (especially since spot-metering isn't linked to AF point?), at that moment, on the spot, in a fraction of a second, without even checking your shot?
> ...



Yes, exactly. But when you don't have the luxury of chimping, and you don't have a live preview, many will not react, or even know to react, fast enough - and even if he/she did, the question goes back to 'what do you then optimize for - the backlight, or the couple?' And the whole 'but just bracket' argument has been beaten to death, so I won't repeat it here but to simply state that bracketing doesn't come without its costs, especially for fast-paced shooting.

A camera that gives you latitude to not have to worry about this is a better tool _in that regard_ than a camera that doesn't. The 5D IV is a better camera in this regard. Period. 

Remember Canon's own market research said Dynamic Range was the #1 request of 5D-series owners. I think that says something over all this forum chatter claiming it doesn't matter... and as I said, as a client I've received files from multiple internationally-recognized wedding photographers that would've benefited from increased exposure latitude. Any technology that ups your keeper rate is progress that allows you to focus on photography, not technical limitations.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> I find page 7 incredibly misleading.
> 
> What other first impressions review goes on and whines about the prior camera.
> 
> Reading it quickly or looking at the photo examples you'd think it was the mark iv



Really? Even though the captions of those very photos state things like 'the Mark IV will make this comically easy'.

And if people thought those photo examples were of the Mark IV - how would that be a bad thing? Considering they're photos a number of commentators have indicated they like, and most of them are used to state some _positive _aspect of the Canon system - like flash, out-of-box colors, and excellent L glass?

There's an embargo on images shot with the Mark IV we're not willing to break. And 26 consecutive paragraphs of text with no images is - in our opinion - not how you write engaging content.

-Rishi


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



(1) It was neuroanatomist that failed to comprehend the manual. See my earlier post.
(2) 'trying to apply Nikon-centric principles to the Canon product' --> the piece he referred to was explicitly titled "Shooting motocross with the Nikon D5 and Canon 1D X II". It was a shootout between the two. We didn't apply any camera's principles to another. The piece concluded that the Canon had a noticeably higher burst rate and better tracking than previous cameras, but that the Nikon had noticeably better subject tracking, as well as a more practically useful Auto Area mode.

The piece simply stated findings, it didn't 'choose which features should be emphasized'. The conclusion literally stated the advantages of _each_.

As for 'lashing out emotionally at critique', I fail to see how 'I'm sorry you feel this way but... we level criticisms at all cameras... for example here's what we said about the D810... etc.' is constituted as '*unprofessional unscientific rhetoric*' that is '*emotionally tainted and biased*'. 

Perhaps you're misconstruing tone over written internet responses (I believe there's some precedent for this), or I could do a better job in my wording, or some combination thereof?

-Rishi


----------



## Ph0t0 (Aug 26, 2016)

Hi Rishi,
Can you make any comments on higher ISO(1600-6400) noise levels compared to 6D and 1DX?
Thanks


----------



## xps (Aug 26, 2016)

Interesting postings. Sometimes the "sound" of the postings is a little bit rude.

In my opinion every magazine and author is biased and has its favourite product. Favourite, because he thinks the product is really good, or his company earns money for writing positive reviews.
If I read DPreview reviews, they are sometimes not Canon friendly. And that for, they are critizised here in this forum - as it is a Canon fan-forum.
And sometimes, such reviews miss some details that are the reason for someone to buy it. (e.g.: I personally will use an Canon 80D or 5DIV, because I like to use the f8-AF with my 600mm & 2x extender. But where in most reviews is this mentioned?) 
Other suboptimal things are not reported or not underrated. Like AF at sports in sony A7 or the heat problem, also the crowded menu. Or the extraordinary price of the battery grip or the 5DIV body. 
So, you are forced to read other reviews too and look for the succus of the given information.

However, you have to credit that Mr. Sanyal writes in this formum, despite all this critizm.

Maybe all canon fanboys and scientists in this forum show him our/your - I hope objective - view of things and pro´s of the product. So Mr. Sanyal gets better insight and is able to review the Canon product more "properly" in his next article.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 26, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Yes, exactly. But when you don't have the luxury of chimping, and you don't have a live preview, many will not react, or even know to react, fast enough - and even if he/she did, the question goes back to 'what do you then optimize for - the backlight, or the couple?' And the whole 'but just bracket' argument has been beaten to death, so I won't repeat it here but to simply state that bracketing doesn't come without its costs, especially for fast-paced shooting.
> 
> A camera that gives you latitude to not have to worry about this is a better tool _in that regard_ than a camera that doesn't. The 5D IV is a better camera in this regard. Period.
> 
> Remember Canon's own market research said Dynamic Range was the #1 request of 5D-series owners. I think that says something over all this forum chatter claiming it doesn't matter... and as I said, as a client I've received files from multiple internationally-recognized wedding photographers that would've benefited from increased exposure latitude. Any technology that ups your keeper rate is progress that allows you to focus on photography, not technical limitations.


My first DSLR had about 8 stops of DR and that was all the DR that anyone would ever need  . Then my new Oly improved to 10 stops and there was no going back..... Then 11 stops with canon.... and now I am at 12 stops with Canon.... my next one will probably by 13 stops, but the more the merrier!

For a while, there were a number of people on this forum jumping up and down and screaming DR DR DR as if it were the only feature that mattered and that made the subject a rather sore point here. Many of us saw it as only one of the factors that were important. I doubt that there was anyone who would not appreciate more DR, but to reiterate the point, it is only one factor!

That said, I'd love to see the 6D2 come out with 14+ stops of DR...... I'd be on that one like a fat boy on a wedding cake!


----------



## Otara (Aug 26, 2016)

I never worry about one reviewer at this level. What I like is that I can come here and see counter arguments to whatever is argued on DR. I could critique every style here but overall, the debate is what helps me to get a sense of what really matters and what doesnt because bias turns up in a variety of ways.


----------



## sebasan (Aug 26, 2016)

You have to understand that rishi boy. When he saw that most of the Rio 2016 phtographers were with white lenses, he suffered a lot because they weren't getting good pictures due to the horrible AF system in Canon Cameras.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 26, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I find page 7 incredibly misleading.
> ...



But you have added to the captions, why did you feel the need to do that if you were comfortable with the way you presented your piece previously.

As for your issues with metering; composition and exposure are the two key aspects of any image. Stand two photographers next to each other and their images look different because of the composition and exposure. Anybody using any camera with selective exposure control should understand how and what a meter is doing and how it will represent a scene in front of them. And lets be honest, all digital cameras will meter practically the same in any situation. 

It is your skill as a photographer to interpret that reading and make the adjustments you need to get the image to look how you envision, but you know that. I think the general public would assume that people testing any gear for review, especially on the more popular review sites, would not only fully understand all that but be able to use any one of a number of techniques to correctly expose their subjects in any situation they might run into with any regularity. The logical extension of your argument is the low DR slide film was unusable, yet clearly it wasn't.

I am all in favor of simplifying our lives, but for exposure we are talking about iso shutter speed and aperture, nothing more. There are ever more complex ways of prioritizing and automating our exposure which can enable faster selection in some situations given enough practice and skill. But we are still only dealing with three variables and any camera meter is only ever going to register 12.7%, half stop below mid tone. I don't know about you but I rarely want my subject to be 1/2 stop below mid tone so use EC or M mode almost all the time. 

You do not have to be some godlike speed demon super hero to use EC, you just need to use cameras regularly and *be deliberate about what tonal values you actually want*. It takes time, familiarity, application and a certain amount of skill to get your exposures where you want them. It seems to me your argument is _'I don't need skill with other cameras so why should I need that with this one, which isn't the camera we are actually talking about which we think might be a bit better anyway.'_

I have no doubt that a lot of what goes on with regards dissecting the tech from all these various manufacturers takes a skill set and understanding not common amongst working photographers, but to get realistic and unbiased user experiences you have to put them in the hands of those working photographers and let them use them in the kinds of situations we will encounter.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 26, 2016)

xps said:


> Interesting postings. Sometimes the "sound" of the postings is a little bit rude.
> 
> In my opinion every magazine and author is biased and has its favourite product. Favourite, because he thinks the product is really good, or his company earns money for writing positive reviews.
> If I read DPreview reviews, they are sometimes not Canon friendly. And that for, they are critizised here in this forum - as it is a Canon fan-forum.
> And sometimes, such reviews miss some details that are the reason for someone to buy it. (e.g.: I personally will use an Canon 80D or 5DIV, because I like to use the f8-AF with my 600mm & 2x extender. But where in most reviews is this mentioned?)


First paragraph of my 'AF' section in my First Impressions:

"The 24% greater vertical frame coverage of the peripheral points will benefit non-central compositions, and *F8 autofocus at all points* — with the right lens/teleconverter combinations — *will be an asset to birding and wildlife photographers.*"



xps said:


> Other suboptimal things are not reported or not underrated. Like AF at sports in sony A7 or the heat problem, also the crowded menu.



Our a7R II review and dedicated piece on shooting football with the a7R II essentially said that sports shooters should simply ignore this camera. I don't think it gets more damning than that.

The overheating was listed as a con until it was addressed, at which point we removed it. Re the menu and ergonomics, here's what I wrote directly in the cons of our a7R II review:


Buttons and dials are either too small, recessed, or mushy
Inane interactions between menu items lead to poor experience and too many greyed out items
Buffer is sluggish to clear, making quick image review and focus check difficult

Some more text of what I wrote about Sony menus, again in our full review:

"Sony's full menu system, accessed by pressing the 'Menu' button on the back of the camera, is* frankly a disorganized mess*. For example, 22 AF options are split across 11 different submenu pages under 2 different main menu headers. *The lack of organization is inexplicable*, but what makes it even worse is the lack of a customizable 'My Menu', which would at least have allowed user to collate all frequently used menu options under customizable tabs.* It's silly* that I have to go to the second line of the fifth page of the sixth tab simply to format my memory card, something you might (and should) often do."

I believe that addresses all your points? 

-Rishi


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> It is your skill as a photographer to interpret that reading and make the adjustments you need to get the image to look how you envision, but you know that. I think the general public would assume that people testing any gear for review, especially on the more popular review sites, would not only fully understand all that but be able to use any one of a number of techniques to correctly expose their subjects in any situation they might run into with any regularity.  The logical extension of your argument is the low DR slide film was unusable, yet clearly it wasn't.



It is funny how timing works..... I am scanning some old Kodachrome slides from the early 1950's..... slide film was usable....... but the greatly improved DR on new cameras makes things way better....

To reiterate earlier comments, yes, DR is just ONE factor out of many..... Yes, I want more!..... and yes, I want all the other factors to improve as well......


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> But you have added to the captions, why did you feel the need to do that if you were comfortable with the way you presented your piece previously.



No, I only added 'Canon 5D Mark III' to one rollover, an oversight due to the fact that that rollover was copied from another article on read noise where we purposefully left brands/cameras out of the discussion. After someone pointed it out here (in a very rude manner, no less), I agreed it best to clarify right in the caption (since I guess some weren't reading the text around it that clearly indicated the 5D IV's improvements _addressed _such issues).

No other captions were changed. I am very comfortable with the way the piece was originally presented, which is pretty much the same way it's presented now.



privatebydesign said:


> As for your issues with metering; composition and exposure are the two key aspects of any image. Stand two photographers next to each other and their images look different because of the composition and exposure. Anybody using any camera with selective exposure control should understand how and what a meter is doing and how it will represent a scene in front of them. And lets be honest, all digital cameras will meter practically the same in any situation.


Well, except for ones that won't spot meter off the chosen AF point.

Also, this was kind of my point: that you have to work around the fact that camera meters aren't perfect always for your creative intent, so technologies like EC and latitude _both_ help you, with the latter particularly helping you when you don't have the time to chimp.


privatebydesign said:


> It is your skill as a photographer to interpret that reading and make the adjustments you need to get the image to look how you envision, but you know that.



Yes, agreed. But what you're arguing is, if I may, bit of snobbery: that a 'real photographer' will adjust exposure on the spot, while a (poser?) will try and adjust the exposure after-the-fact. The latter is to be looked down upon, even when the former may not be possible because of the speed of the shooting scenario?



privatebydesign said:


> I think the general public would assume that people testing any gear for review, especially on the more popular review sites, would not only fully understand all that but be able to use any one of a number of techniques to correctly expose their subjects in any situation they might run into with any regularity. The logical extension of your argument is the low DR slide film was unusable, yet clearly it wasn't.



The logical extension of your counterargument is that the low DR of slide film was good enough, which I suppose is why most wedding photographers shot negative film that had far more latitude? 

I'm sure you see my point: most event photographers shot/shoot neg, landscape shooters that had all the time in the world shot slides (I did, anyway). This is precisely why at DPR I keep stating that, if anything, dynamic range is possibly more important for fast-paced shooting scenarios than landscapes; at least you have the time for bracketing and good technique with the latter.



privatebydesign said:


> You do not have to be some godlike speed demon super hero to use EC, you just need to use cameras regularly and *be deliberate about what tonal values you actually want*. It takes time, familiarity, application and a certain amount of skill to get your exposures where you want them. It seems to me your argument is _'I don't need skill with other cameras so why should I need that with this one, which isn't the camera we are actually talking about which we think might be a bit better anyway.'_



I use EC all the time. You've misunderstood me. 'It takes *time*... and a certain amount of *skill *to get your exposures where you want them' --> exactly. And what I'm saying is this:

... that even some of the best photographers in the world don't have the *skill *to _always _predict exactly how much EC would be needed without chimping, and some scenarios don't allow *time* for chimping (encountered in weddings all the time as a moment is happening). In those scenarios, latitude is beneficial.

Or, times where you actually *want* to dial in negative EC or allow for underexposure to retain highlights. In which case a camera that has more latitude _allows _you to do so with less of a noise cost.

Is that so very unreasonable?

-Rishi


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 27, 2016)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Wesley said:
> ...



I think Eldar makes a very strong point here. I just dont care about DPR opinions anymore, as I dont agree with what they emphasize as important, and not. A major problem, is that they criticize features that work perfectly well in the hands of those who knows their camera. If the "old fashion" AF system delivers the results you want, why should the photographer care if other camera manufacturers has alternative AF-solutions that work better than the similar one, but that you dont use in the Canon camera? It is the results that the photographer can produce that matter. 

I have no issues with pointing out that Nikon 3D-tracking is superior to Canon iTR tracking, but the importance of this feature seems very overrated, as the none iTR-tracking works very well for a large crowd of happy 5DIII/1DX users.

Further, I really think DPR fail in order to grasp, and bring out the essence of Canon; their DSLRs does everything very well without much compromise, is very user friendly, and reliable. Canons dont have silly issues such as overheating, hang ups and other bugs. When I read DPR reviews of Sony, they point out many weak points, which Rishi can refer to when claiming his unbiasedness. In my opinion, many of the weak points would be deal breakers, but not for DPR; despite those issues, they still end up praising it like the lord himself, and rate the cameras accordingly. It seems like the Sonys in particular, are rated for what they do better than Canon, but are not punished in the overall score for the MANY things they do worse.

With regards to the summary of the 5DIV, I think it is absurd to illustrate shadow noise in a pushed 5DIII file. It brings an unfair negative angle to the summary, that probably has nothing to do with the 5DIV. I just dont see the point in it.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

Larsskv said:


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



To address this very problem, we are trying to build personalized scoring. 

Furthermore, I'd point out that the 1D X II's failed predictive algorithms and worse subject tracking for a camera that revolves around AF could've cost it a lot of points, and yet it ended up scoring exactly the same as the D5. So you may be exaggerating exactly how much weight we do place on (certain aspects of) AF overall, since it seems that that's your chief complaint. Canons do *not* do everything well as you suggest. No camera does. 

We also don't have a made-up scoring system. It's rigid. You just may not agree with its weightings, and you may also not agree with what aspects of AF are important. I suppose you think AF is 'good enough' the way you use it, but we can't use the same standard, because our audience is not just Canon users. Meanwhile, three ISPWP wedding photographers I interviewed recently that shoot Canon said their top complaint, shooting 5D Mark IIIs, is AF, and that many of their fellow wedding photographers have been switching to Nikon. Would they switch to Nikon though? No, too much inertia, and Canon colors are gorgeous (I agree).

We have to capture all that. It's not easy, but at some point we have to make a choice, and 'good enough for those who aren't aware of other methods that _could _aid their photography' happens to not be our standard.

The same debates happened for years (and still continue) around DR. It's the same exact thing with AF. Except at least here, a predictive algorithm tripping up and front-focusing on nothing is at least universally considered bad...

Just try and remember that your perspective isn't always the only perspective (and I know you know this). We try our best to synthesize multiple perspective across multiple brands in our assessment, and I'm aware of the philosophical differences here, but please try and understand why we choose our philosophy.



Larsskv said:


> With regards to the summary of the 5DIV, I think it is absurd to illustrate shadow noise in a pushed 5DIII file. It brings an unfair negative angle to the summary, that probably has nothing to do with the 5DIV. I just dont see the point in it.



Nothing to do with the 5D IV? It has _everything _to do with the 5D IV, because the 5D IV addresses the issue head on. Remember, it was Canon that stated it was one of their top concerns because it was the #1 request of 5D-series owners. Meanwhile, I remember very well the sentiment here on CR of 'if Canon actually thought DR were a limitation, they'd have done something about it, but they haven't, so clearly they don't think it's a problem.'

Why are we just trying to tuck that one under the rug?

Also - negative angle? It brings a _positive _angle to the discussion about the _5D IV_.

-Rishi


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> By the way, I see you've gone silent on your claims that it was us who hadn't 'RTFM' when it came to Auto Area AF with iTR. Since it appears you misunderstood how this mode actually worked, I just wanted to make sure you had a better understanding now, so that you don't continue to erroneously claim that our claims were unfounded and misguided.





rishi_sanyal said:



> (1) It was neuroanatomist that failed to comprehend the manual. See my earlier post.




Well, I had decided to let that pass...but since it seems you'd prefer to double down on your lack of comprehension...

Initial acquisition of a subject and tracking of that subject as it moves are different processes, and Canon's iTR system participates only in the latter. Admittedly, the manual section to which you referred is a bit vague, but one might think you'd have gotten a clue from Canon's choice for the feature's name: iTR – intelligent Tracking and Recognition, not iRT – intelligent Recognition and Tracking. In other words, the tracking part comes first, and the metering data assists with keeping an AF point on the subject, _after_ that subject has been identified. 

That's how it's phrased in the 1D X II brochure, for example:
[quote author=Canon USA]
This additional exposure and subject information [from the metering sensor] also helps the EOS-1D X Mark II's iTR (Intelligent Tracking and Recognition) AF system *maintain focus* on a moving subject with a greater level of consistency.
[/quote]

If a more thorough and verbose explanation would help alleviate your failure to comprehend how iTR works, Canon tech-rep Rudy Winston explains:
[quote author=Canon DLC]
One of the key new innovations is using color information to assist the AF system when it’s in Automatic AF point selection mode. Focus upon a subject with all the AF points active and *the AF system initially focuses upon it*. But behind the scenes, the RGB metering system registers the color, size and shape of the subject being initially focused upon. Armed with this info, the metering system knows not only where the subject is, but its color characteristics — in essence, what it looks like. The Intelligent Subject Analysis system has taken the first step for the photographer.

And as a subject moves around the viewfinder, the metering system continues to update its position, using color and shape to follow the subject. As it moves, the metering system “tells” the AF system where the subject is. Now, the Automatic AF point selection system can continuously change active AF points to keep the initial subject in focus as it moves around the finder. This is the genesis of Canon’s Intelligent Tracking and Recognition (iTR) feature.
[/quote]

To reiterate...with iTR, Canon uses the data from the metering sensor to maintain AI Servo tracking for a moving subject, but not for initial acquisition of that subject. Rather, initial automatic AF point selection is performed by the AF system, according to the parameters which I previously described, namely 'tends to focus on the closest subject' as stated in the manual. Only then, after that initial focus acquisition, do the data from the RGB metering sensor come into play. 

So in fact, it was you who misunderstood the way in which iTR functions. The more detailed explanation provided by Canon should clarify your erroneous, misguided comprehension. Perhaps you'll even consider updating the motocross article to correct the misapprehension that DPR is promulgating by suggesting that the 1D X II is 'confused', rather than performing as designed (as I previously pointed out). But...that may be too much to hope for in this case.


----------



## JoeDavid (Aug 27, 2016)

Maybe DPReview (Amazon) has a backlog of Sony crap to sell... Canon DSLRs sale themselves.


----------



## davidhfe (Aug 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> So in fact, it was you who misunderstood the way in which iTR functions. The more detailed explanation provided by Canon should clarify your erroneous, misguided comprehension. Perhaps you'll even consider updating the motocross article to correct the misapprehension that DPR is promulgating by suggesting that the 1D X II is 'confused', rather than performing as designed (as I previously pointed out). But...that may be too much to hope for in this case.



Honest question from a 60D owner whose camera does none of this—isn't acquisition supposed to be aided by iSA? In other words, isn't iSA + iTR supposed to handle both acquisition and tracking (a la Nikon's 3D Tracking)?


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, I see you've gone silent on your claims that it was us who hadn't 'RTFM' when it came to Auto Area AF with iTR. Since it appears you misunderstood how this mode actually worked, I just wanted to make sure you had a better understanding now, so that you don't continue to erroneously claim that our claims were unfounded and misguided.
> ...


So because of the order of the words, tracking must come before recognition? That is some convoluted logic predicated upon a lot of assumptions.

I suppose then that since Nikon's '3D Tracking' doesn't even have the word 'recognition' in it - must mean it doesn't do any recognition at all? And yet ends up being precise enough to target the eye of a face...

How long does the recognition part wait before the camera's 'tracked' enough, since you say it comes after tracking?



neuroanatomist said:


> To reiterate...with iTR, Canon uses the data from the metering sensor to maintain AI Servo tracking for a moving subject, but not for initial acquisition of that subject. Rather, initial automatic AF point selection is performed by the AF system, according to the parameters which I previously described, namely 'tends to focus on the closest subject' as stated in the manual. Only then, after that initial focus acquisition, do the data from the RGB metering sensor come into play.
> 
> So in fact, it was you who misunderstood the way in which iTR functions. The more detailed explanation provided by Canon should clarify your erroneous, misguided comprehension. Perhaps you'll even consider updating the motocross article to correct the misapprehension that DPR is promulgating by suggesting that the 1D X II is 'confused', rather than performing as designed (as I previously pointed out). But...that may be too much to hope for in this case.



So the PDAF sensor, which only knows subject distance, can recognize faces? How does it do that?

Also, how does any of this impact upon my more important point: that in the shootout, one worked for the photographer better than the other. So, again, I ask: what did we say that was actually _factually wrong_ or _misleading_?

-Rishi


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

davidhfe said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > So in fact, it was you who misunderstood the way in which iTR functions. The more detailed explanation provided by Canon should clarify your erroneous, misguided comprehension. Perhaps you'll even consider updating the motocross article to correct the misapprehension that DPR is promulgating by suggesting that the 1D X II is 'confused', rather than performing as designed (as I previously pointed out). But...that may be too much to hope for in this case.
> ...



Yes, of course. How else would these newer cameras detect faces in viewfinder shooting? Some sort of sentience built into the PDAF module that can find faces off of just distance information? That'd be some cool magic...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> davidhfe said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


There is some interesting software out there in cameras..... I have a P/S camera with "dog" mode and "cat" mode.....when in dog mode it will not track the cat, but in cat mode, it will. Not only does this mean that you can track an animal, but the software is smart enough to know the difference between a dog and a cat! 

As far as faces are concerned, I can associate a particular person with an image and it has the smarts to do facial recognition and tag that person in photos!

Of course, this is a mirrorless camera and is reading the image sensor, far more info than a metering sensor..... but this is the type of thing I expect to see when Canon makes the leap to a "real" mirrorless camera..... Imagine a mirrorless 7D3 (same ergonomics) that can track the bird as it flies through the branches of a tree!.......


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 27, 2016)

Are there Zebras on the 5D4?


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 27, 2016)

Hi Rishi,
You skipped these forums when D5 review published. You are very critical of 7D2 DR and explained thoroughly importance of DR and ISO invariance. You declared 7D2 DR situation is dire. 
"Getting an optimal ETTR exposure is difficult and usually only best done via extensive bracketing. Given the difficulty of absolutely nailing an optimal exposure, the flexibility offered by a camera with greater dynamic range cannot be understated for situations such as these: they prove more tolerant of any 'mis-exposure' which, in fact, may not be a 'mis-exposure' at all when you're using the in-camera exposure indicators to judge your exposure with higher dynamic range scenes such as this one."

"Note that the dynamic range advantages of cameras with high base ISO dynamic range can extend to higher ISOs as well, where the 'ISO-invariance' of cameras like the D7000 allows you to purposefully underexpose the image by lowering the levels of ISO amplification. This gives you extra highlight headroom in accordance with the amount of reduction in ISO amplification. The 7D Mark II is not amenable to this type of shooting."

Then down played similar DR situation for D5:

"Either way, in our opinion, we'd try not to over-stress the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important."

"In real world shooting, the D5's dynamic range hasn't been a huge problem. Sure, you'll need to watch your exposure in high contrast scenes more than you would on, say, a D750 or D810 - pushed low ISO Raw files out of the D5 exhibit a lot more shadow noise than those other cameras. But that's taken care of by either sacrificing some highlight detail during your exposure, or with a little bit of luminance noise reduction in post. And if you shoot JPEG and nail your exposure, or routinely in low light, there's even more to like." 

Don't you think, you are kinda unintentionally playing to strengths of Nikon in your review by downplaying DR. 
Barney justified this by saying, 7d2 is a general purpose camera and D5 is a specialized expensive tool which is fine for target users. When pointed out about how 7D2 is compared with 1dx in your review and your recommendation for Canon users to take a look at 7D2 instead of 1DX, he didn't respond.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Are there Zebras on the 5D4?



No, unfortunately. Video support tools are limited. Actually, I use zebras for stills as well with mirrorless cameras, which then reminds me of how unfortunate it is that no one but Phase One links exposure warnings to Raw and instead bases them off of contrasty JPEG conversions. But that's another matter entirely.

A couple of people were asking about ISO and DR performance. Rather than commenting here, I'll just say that we should have some content for you on Monday.

And to your point - indeed, mirrorless cameras have an advantage with respect to subject tracking. But I feel some of them (like Sony) may have access to too much information, and therefore trip up/slow down. They should be able to get around this by pixel binning to lower resolutions, but I'm not convinced they all do so cleverly enough. Sony's 'Lock-on AF' for example is less reliable than Nikon's 3D tracking even with a 91,000-pixel RGB metering sensor, so a lot of it has to do with the efficiency of your algorithms. Subject tracking with Canon's DPAF, while a bit slow, is far more reliable - I'd pick it any day over Sony's object tracking.

But object tracking will continue to improve as processing power increases.

Cheers,
Rishi


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2016)

Viggo said:


> The 5d mk2 I had at a constant 2 1/3 stop over, my 1dx is at +4/8 offset 0 ev.



The most interesting part of his thread is the use of 4/8. Outside music, I've never seen anyone say 4/8. Most of us say "half."


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Are there Zebras on the 5D4?
> ...


Do you guys have the 16-35mm L III yet? I'm keen to see some rooftops


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > The 5d mk2 I had at a constant 2 1/3 stop over, my 1dx is at +4/8 offset 0 ev.
> ...



When Viggo referred to the 5DII, he was talking about leaving EC constantly set to +2.33 stops. His reference to the 1D X is not talking about EC, but rather autoexposure microadjustment (AEMA), which is essentially an exposure version of AFMA. The AEMA can be set up to ±1 stop in 1/8-stop increments, which is why Viggo phrased it as a +4/8 offset.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> So because of the order of the words, tracking must come before recognition? That is some convoluted logic predicated upon a lot of assumptions.



No, I stated that the order of the words was a _clue_. Do you understand what that is? No, I suppose not, since you apparently don't have one.

I then went on to quote from Rudy Winston's Canon DLC article describing in specific detail how the iTR system works, which states definitively that the AF system itself first selects the focus point, and then _after that_ the metering data are used. 

Would you care to address the statement by a Canon technical mouthpiece, which explicitly contradicts your viewpoint...or would you rather just continue to ignore the facts and change the subject?





rishi_sanyal said:


> So the PDAF sensor, which only knows subject distance, can recognize faces? How does it do that?





rishi_sanyal said:


> davidhfe said:
> 
> 
> > Honest question from a 60D owner whose camera does none of this—isn't acquisition supposed to be aided by iSA? In other words, isn't iSA + iTR supposed to handle both acquisition and tracking (a la Nikon's 3D Tracking)?
> ...



It's not magic, and of course the PDAF sensor doesn't detect faces. But the metering sensor doesn't simply evaluate the entire region of the field which it covers, and identify faces out of the blue (or red, or green). First, an AF point is selected, either manually or automatically depending on settings (and for automatic selection, there may be more than one point selected). The automatic selection of the focus point occurs exactly as I've already made clear – it 'tends to focus on the nearest subject'. After the focus point is selected, the AF system tells the metering sensor where to look for faces. Here's a quote from a different Rudy Winston article describing that process, which you'll probably ignore like you ignored the first one...



Canon DLC]
As with all previous EOS models said:


> Also, how does any of this impact upon my more important point: that in the shootout, one worked for the photographer better than the other. So, again, I ask: what did we say that was actually _factually wrong_ or _misleading_?



Downplaying your factual errors just like you downplayed the importance of DR for the Nikon D5, 'eh? Unsurprising. 

What is _factually wrong_ is your repeated insistence that the data from the metering sensor are used for the initial automatic selection of an AF point, in spite of statements by Canon which explicitly show that you are incorrect. 

What was _misleading_ was the statement in the DPR motocross comparison that the 1D X II was 'easily confused' when in fact, it was the person holding the camera who was confused...about how the manual states the camera should behave and about how to properly configure the camera for iTR tracking in AI Servo (i.e., the steps listed above).

So, can we expect an Editor's Note to be added to that motocross comparison article, indicating that the camera was performing as designed, but the reviewer failed to understand that fact? Somehow, I doubt it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


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



a'ha. Fair enough, I conflated the two statements.

Good to know, since I ordered a 1dx this morning and probably won't RTFM


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Good to know, since I ordered a 1dx this morning and probably won't RTFM



Touché. 

Enjoy the 1D X - it's a great camera!


----------



## Speedster (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Are there Zebras on the 5D4?
> ...




Thanks Rishi. I'll look forward to it.


----------



## K (Aug 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> DPR's conclusions were preordained. The 5DIV is improved, and it's a very good camera. Well, good for a Canon...but the D810 is better, and oh boy, just wait for the D820.
> 
> It's probably in their unofficial reviewers guide:
> 
> ...




A+


----------



## K (Aug 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > The point Neuroanatomist has made (the truth of which I can't currently judge), is that you're not "merely pointing out shortcomings," as if you had done so in a purely objective way, or as if it could be done in a purely objective way. All reviews and tests have unintentional bias, we get that. As I read the criticism, they are accusing you of two major errors: (1) failing to learn the Canon product well enough to use it as described in the manual; i.e. trying to apply Nikon-centric principles to the Canon product, instead of learning it for what it is; (2) choosing which features and qualities should be emphasized based on which brand wins that particular battle. You need to engage with these complaints professionally, not emotionally. When you lash out emotionally at critique, whether that critique is valid or not, it makes me wonder if your other work is also emotionally tainted or biased.
> ...



Well done.

Yet another world-class post that completely exposes the severe anti-Canon bias. This should be a prerequisite reading for anyone across the entire web that wants to engage in a Canon vs. Nikon debate when reading and shopping around for a camera.


It is sad that the level of bias and techniques of bias in photography reviews has reached a level comparable to political journalism.

The folks at DPReview could be making a whole lot more money working for main stream media....


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > But you have added to the captions, why did you feel the need to do that if you were comfortable with the way you presented your piece previously.
> ...



I complained about one caption.



privatebydesign said:


> ....... All the images are from a 5D MkIII and the example of lack of DR, ............ isn't even clearly labeled, so it deliberately gives the false impression it is from the new camera.



You changed it.

You then said "No", but then, to paraphrase,_ "I only *changed that one* you complained about and said wasn't clearly labeled. But only because we made a mistake and it wasn't clearly labeled"._

That is why people have such contempt and distrust for politicians and the media. Even when the answer is _'Yes I did change that one you said wasn't labeled'_ you still have too say_ 'No'._

Grow a pair, you made a mistake own it, you fuel the fire of distrust and lack of respect by not just saying, _"Yes, we missed that one, sorry"._ The coincidental fact that it is the most misleading and provocative image for you to _"unintentionally copy and paste"_ can only add to the quite lamentable feint praise with which you are so adept at.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > As for your issues with metering; composition and exposure are the two key aspects of any image. Stand two photographers next to each other and their images look different because of the composition and exposure. Anybody using any camera with selective exposure control should understand how and what a meter is doing and how it will represent a scene in front of them. And lets be honest, all digital cameras will meter practically the same in any situation.
> ...



Metering off the chosen AF point does what exactly? It still meters for 12.7% grey, if your subject is a 1/2 stop below mid tone and you want them to look 1/2 stop below mid tone then you are good with no EC, still a mental juggling act. But how often is that? Besides, are you talking 1% spot where you can be quite sure you have the area covered by your AF point, or the more common 2.5% which will still, more often than not, contain some of that "unworkable and impossible to control" background?

The point is camera meters are "perfect" in that they will give you consistent information. As photographers we have to decide the relevance of that information and how we can apply it to get our anticipated result.

Exposure latitude is the lazy way. It is the 'safety net', the 'it isn't my fault', 'it should be able to do it for me' mentality that kills all kinds of craftsmanship. I am not being elitist, I am not saying I won't take more DR when I get it, I am not saying it can't save your butt on occasions, I am saying when technology dumbs craftsmanship down to such a level that core aspects of understanding of that craft can be completely ignored from an artistic and creative endeavor then that is not actually helping that artistic and creative endeavor or those doing it.

Few testers can adequately test 200mph super cars as they are meant to be driven, few testers, it seems, can adequately test modern upper range camera systems as they are meant to be used.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


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



Nope. We made no mistake. The original caption was *absolutely correct*. 

We amended it to clarify that we referred to _previous _camera performance because Canon Rumors readers said that people apparently *couldn't read the text around the original image* that stated that the new camera addressed these issues.

But you know what - I've now removed my amendment, since you now interpret that as some admission of *wrong*. It's back to the original caption now. 

Which was correct to begin with, considering you actually *read what we wrote*.

Are you happy now?


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > So because of the order of the words, tracking must come before recognition? That is some convoluted logic predicated upon a lot of assumptions.
> ...



No, you cannot expect anything of the sort.

You continue to argue with yourself in circles. The metering sensor is absolutely used to initially detect faces, and yet you sit here trying to argue only the PDAF system is first used to detect and track the original subject. 

You have no clue how the actual system works, yet you try to convince unsuspecting bystanders here that you know what you're talking about.

Your own community labels you a troll.

Good luck, cheers, have fun. I see that I don't even need to refute you when your own community recognizes you for you who you are.

-Rishi


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


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



How could I be happy? How could you be?

So you, a journalist, freely admit 


rishi_sanyal said:


> an oversight due to the fact that that rollover was copied from another article


 now rescind that because you are in a temper and have decided that it wasn't an 'oversight'?

You are pathetic.

Oh, another Rishi made up bullshit straw man. When did I say _"YOU SAID YOU COULDN'T READ THE TEXT AROUND THE ORIGINAL IMAGE"?_ Never, you made that up.

You are pathetic.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> [You are pathetic.



We have to resort to name calling now guys? Seriously...! Grow-up all of you.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

K-amps said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > [You are pathetic.
> ...



So what would you call it when a mistake is pointed out to somebody, they halfheartedly admit it and make a correction, then in a fit of pique decide to reinstate that _"oversight"_? What if that person is a journalist? Was it an oversight or wasn't it? If it was the correction should stand, if it wasn't the lack of detail in the caption is deliberately misleading. What else can you call that kind of behavior?

What else can you call somebody who just throws up untruths and lies as straw man arguments? What if that person is a journalist?

Now I have no problem calling FOX "News" an entertainment channel, I have no issue with calling Ken Rockwell entertainment. But the likes of DXO and DPReview promote themselves as authoritative and unbiased, what do we call them when they prove they are not?

How about this? _"Rishi isn't pathetic nor a journalist, he is an entertainer."_


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


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



It was never an oversight *if you read what we wrote*. Out of kindness to your concerns, I accounted for the fact that there may be readers who have difficulty reading the text on a page.

But your _ad hominem_ attack that followed makes me re-consider my kindness, so I've now just reverted to the original text.

Which expects that people actually read our full-text, which isn't exactly an unreasonable request, now, is it? In fact, I've chosen to now revert to the original wording because I'm determined that if you actually want to engage in a fruitful conversation regarding our thoughts and findings, you should actually read what we wrote.

I'm hoping that isn't an unreasonable request.
-Rishi


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> It was never an oversight *if you read what we wrote*. Out of kindness to your concerns, I accounted for the fact that there may be readers who have difficulty reading the text on a page.
> 
> But your _ad hominem_ attack that followed makes me re-consider my kindness, so I've now just reverted to the original text.
> 
> ...



You are the one who said it was an oversight, not me. Now you say it wasn't an oversight.

So tell me, are you going to build a wall or not?

Now if your level of journalism has debased itself to where you are happy to reinstate a misleading caption then all power to you, you make for great entertainment but subsequently have lost any credibility as a journalist.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Here's the thing though: there was no mistake whatsoever to begin with.

The original caption was absolutely correct. The text stated that the *5D III *couldn't deal with such a scenario, while the* 5D IV would*.

So we were always correct. You wanted me to *add *text to the caption because you felt people might not read the actual text.

I tried to help you out, which you then construed as admission that we were always wrong to begin with.

Which makes me simply undo all our kindness and consideration.

Make sense? *You now want journalists to try and optimize for the use-case where their readers don't actually READ what they write?*

I can't help you there.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



The TEXT stated, not the CAPTION. As an ex journalist you should know the difference and the importance of them both.

I thought the caption was misleading, you agreed, now you don't. I have taken one position, you have taken two, you must be wrong on at least one level. 

But it is entertaining ;D


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > It was never an oversight *if you read what we wrote*. Out of kindness to your concerns, I accounted for the fact that there may be readers who have difficulty reading the text on a page.
> ...



That's correct, it *wasn't *an oversight if you *read *our actual text. Is that too much to expect? That people read what we wrote?

I tried to help you out by labeling the caption in case people didn't read the actual text in our actual page. I now realize that was a mistake on my part, because you use it as evidence that we were wrong to begin with.

You should take a hard look at *yourself*.

Unbelievable.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


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



And the caption was NEVER MISLEADING, was it? It was always correct to begin with, as it is now.

I never agreed; I tried to take your criticism on board and listen to your concerns and understand your side and try to perhaps cater to it. 

But your side is clearly trolling, which is why I'm undoing my listening to begin with, for the sake of our own journalistic integrity.

My apologies to the general public for even considering your trolling perspective for a moment's weakness.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


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



After I have I will FedEx you the mirror. 

I have taken one position, you have changed yours.

Now if, as an ex journalist, you don't think it is misleading to not include the camera model in an image CAPTION when that camera model is not the one being previewed then I understand how effortless your transition was from journalist to entertainer.

If you don't see the irony when every other image in the article had the camera model in the CAPTION, then well done, you will be a star, if not in entertainment consider politics.

Keep up the good work, the hits are racking up


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


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



If the CAPTION isn't misleading then why did every other image contain the camera and lens information? If that didn't impart anything why did you repeatedly include it?

Because basic rules of journalism dictate that you do. Obviously you are excused from such rigors now you have made your effortless transition to entertainer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> You continue to argue with yourself in circles. The metering sensor is absolutely used to initially detect faces, and yet you sit here trying to argue only the PDAF system is first used to detect and track the original subject.



Well, I was going to suggest that you demand your money back from the two Ivy League schools that awarded you degrees in spite of an apparent lack of reading comprehension ability...but then I thought about what you wrote, and it's apparent that you comprehend quite well, but you are unable to admit that you're wrong.

It's actually quite clever, your first statement above is technically correct, but adroitly side-steps the main point under discussion, superficially appearing to respond to a specific point while actually being completely tangential. Seems you're a master of the red herring...not a skill one should be proud of, I think, unless you're the villain in one of Arthur Conan Doyle's novels. But then, your second statement blatantly misrepresents what I've said...again, almost certainly intentional on your part.

"_The metering sensor is absolutely used to initially detect faces_," yes that's true. Of course, I never claimed otherwise...that's you, dragging a red herring across the trail. At issue is not the initial detection of faces, but rather the *initial automatic selection of an AF point* when focusing is initiated. That function is performed by the PDAF system alone, and it generally selects the AF point covering the nearest subject. _After_ the AF point is selected by the PDAF system, that location is handed off to the metering system, which detects faces. So, while you're correct that the metering system initially detects faces, it does so only after the PDAF system alone selects an AF point to localize the face detection.

"_...yet you sit here trying to argue only the PDAF system is first used to detect and track the original subject,"_ no, that's not what I argued; 'detect' yes, but 'track' is you blatantly misrepresenting my statements. I stated that in automatic AF point selection, the PDAF system is first used to select the AF point – or if you prefer, to detect location of the subject. The metering system is not involved in that step. Once the AF point is selected, the metering system identifies faces/shapes/colors and performs tracking, guiding the AF system in which points to activate to track the moving subject.




rishi_sanyal said:


> You have no clue how the actual system works, yet you try to convince unsuspecting bystanders here that you know what you're talking about.



Rishi, where in all of this is _your_ evidence that you have any clue how the actual system works? Throughout my posts, I am quoting direct statements by Canon, which they published for the purpose of educating their users. You seem to be relying on your own (mis)understanding of how the iTR system works, whereas I am relying on public statements by the company which developed the system. Are you saying that Rudy Winston, a technical representative for Canon, is wrong about how iTR works? Why should anyone – me or 'unsuspecting bystanders' – believe that you know more than Canon about how iTR works? 




rishi_sanyal said:


> I see that I don't even need to refute you when your own community recognizes you for you who you are.



What is apparent is that you are unable to refute my arguments from a techincal standpoint, because they're not my arguments per se, but rather my restatement (and direct quotation) of information from Canon themselves on how the iTR system functions. 

So, because you cannot refute my arguments, and you are unable to simply admit your mistake, you're planning to take your marbles and go home.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I'm sorry, what is intrinsically wrong with calling somebody something entirely appropriate?

'Pathetic' is to be so weak as to elicit sympathy. _'Rishi's journalistic skills are so pathetic I feel sorry for him'_, why is it wrong for me to say that? Why do you take it as an insult?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



I wasn't claiming right or wrong from the outset. I said the caption was misleading and added weight to the suggestions of bias, he agreed and changed it stating that it had been an oversight. Now he decides to throw his toys out his pram and change it back, yet I am the one in the wrong?

Dilbert, I'm not surprised you take Rishi's side in this, you have both shown an extreme aversion to corrections or contradictory facts. You often paint yourself into a corner even when shown undeniable factual contradictions to your position, but then we have all considered you entertainment for a long time


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


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




It was an oversight because I copied it. Oh, no it wasn't an oversight they are both factually correct you should read my entire article. I included a fuller description in the text..........



dilbert said:


> Why is the latter wrong? Because name calling doesn't reflect well on the person that is doing the name calling as it doesn't provide any evidence of complex thought.


But if it is factually correct it isn''t "name calling" is it? His posts are so weak I feel sorry for him, ergo, he is pathetic. I have outlined various issues with his posts to provide evidence of complex thought, the very short quote you post is but a summary.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



You are holding us to the same standards, that is wrong for a start.

Rishi is supposed to be an unbiased journalist imparting fair and balanced information and as such is held to a standard, I am a nobody off the internet with a fake ID. I work for myself and only answer to my personal clients, he is employed as a journalist and is given amazing access to all kinds of stuff and given a wide reaching and broad audience who are supposed to be able to trust to his fairness. See the difference? 

Did Rishi thank me for pointing out his oversight? No.

Why should I thank him because he made a correction to a portion of his work that made him look bad?

He isn't accommodating me, I just pointed out he was misleading his readers. A situation he has decided to revert to. Yet you think I should thank him?

I didn't say he was wrong in the first place, I said the caption was misleading. He agreed. Now he doesn't. If he has taken both positions he must have been wrong about one of them.

Of course I don't like to be wrong, I hate the thought of giving people bad or incorrect information. But if you look through my posting history on the rare occasion I offer a factual position and it turns out to be wrong I am quick to acknowledge it. I used to have a set of links illustrating that willingness to apologize and correct my mistakes but it, and half the posts, seems to have been lost.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



I have explained my position and I have provided evidence of complex thought. That your sensibilities are upset by the word I used to describe my feelings isn't my fault. I believe it was a fair and accurate use of the word and is not overtly derogatory but an accurate descriptor in this case.

As for DPReview's opinion of Rishi, I wouldn't claim to have any knowledge of that whatsoever. However as DPReview are owned by_ "the worlds leading online retailer"_ I suspect entertainment that leads to sales would be prioritized over objective and honest journalism that doesn't. Read DPReview and you be the judge.


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


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


I messed up the quotes, but I´m quoting Rishi.

[/quote]
Canons do *not* do everything well as you suggest. No camera does. 
[/quote]

Please dont twist my words, I didn´t claim best or class leading. The point is, you can bring a Canon DSLR to almost every situation and get good results, in both stills or video, action or dim light, birds in flight with teleconverters, and so on. And that is even before talking about the broad lens collection. You cannot make that claim with many of its competitors.

[/quote]
We also don't have a made-up scoring system. It's rigid. You just may not agree with its weightings, and you may also not agree with what aspects of AF are important. 
[/quote]

To me, DPR scoring system is as mystical as DXO´s. Please tell me how heating up in intended use, or sudden 20 second hang ups when using a Sony camera affects the score...

[/quote]
We have to capture all that. It's not easy, but at some point we have to make a choice, and 'good enough for those who aren't aware of other methods that _could _aid their photography' happens to not be our standard.
[/quote]

So, what is the choice you make? You prefer mirrorless focusing and eye af, and trusting the camera to choose where to focus. I prefer manual control, so that I decide where to focus.

[/quote]
Just try and remember that your perspective isn't always the only perspective (and I know you know this). We try our best to synthesize multiple perspective across multiple brands in our assessment, and I'm aware of the philosophical differences here, but please try and understand why we choose our philosophy.
[/quote]

I believe that is the essence of what I said. Since I generally disagree with how DPR rates different features, I dont care about DPR opinions.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


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



Frankly I don't care who pays my paycheck. My first and foremost objective every morning I wake up is to provide meaningful and correct information to my audience. That is: to my fellow photographers.

Your posts are nothing but juvenile, rude, inhumane, uncalled for and unjustified ad hominem attacks with no actual justification. Therefore, I give up, and reserve the right to relinquish any and all bridges *I* (notably: not you) tried to build in the process.

I'm sorry (and I'm sorry that some will interpret 'I'm sorry' as some unprofessional emotional lashing out as well) a better resolution couldn't be reached.

Kind regards, 
Rishi


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, and incidentally I ran across another of Rudy's articles describing how to use iTR:
> 
> [quote author=Canon DLC]
> Using it is simple:
> ...



Tell me, was that the method that DPR's reviewer used when testing out the 1D X II for motocross? Let's see...

[quote author=Dan Bracaglia @ DPR]
I started off the day shooting with the 70-200mm with the camera set to Auto Point Selection, which utilizes iTR. By default it is set to auto area select, in which the camera automatically tries to identify the subject. Unfortunately, I quickly found the camera was easily confused and very much like to focus on nearest patch of dirt in the foreground of my shots.

Thankfully there is an option buried within the dedicated AF menu to switch the camera from auto to manual area select. Once I made the switch, I instantly had success locking and maintaining focus. 
[/quote]

Yes, he did...eventually. Amazingly, after that personal revelation where he figured out the proper way to use a camera with which he was manifestly unfamiliar, it magically worked well. Like you, he failed to understand one of the basic functional aspects of Canon's AF systems – as Canon states in their manuals regarding automatic AF point selection, "*This mode tends to focus on the nearest subject.*" Like I said...RTFM.

[/quote]

In my opinion, neuro brings up a very important aspect of how to use iTR tracking, which really wasnt addressed by Rishi in his response. 

I found iTR tracking to be a much more useful feature after realizing what neuroanatomist is referring to. This AF mode works much better, and much better to my liking, when you can enable a single af point in order decide where the camera should start its iTR tracking (instead of the nearest subject).

I haven´t ever had the impression that this is understood by DPR reviewers, apart from the above quote made from Dan Bracaglia.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



I disagree. If somebody points out an error of mine I am duty bound to thank them, they don't have to point out I am wrong, they are taking the time and trouble to help me correct my mistakes. Sure it might sting and my pride might take a tiny hit, but I need to see through that and take the enhanced knowledge forwards thanking that person that I am no longer misinforming or misleading anybody else.

Of course there is a need for them to make a change, it is misleading and they are supposed to be journalists! 
:CORRECTION: No there is no need for them to change it, they are entertainers.

You have no idea how many people read the article and thought the caption needed changing, I have no idea how many people read the article and mistakenly thought the image shown was from the camera being pre reviewed. I am fairly sure I wasn't the only one of the former and I am equally sure there are more than one of the later.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> Please dont twist my words, I didn´t claim best or class leading. The point is, you can bring a Canon DSLR to almost every situation and get good results, in both stills or video, action or dim light, birds in flight with teleconverters, and so on. And that is even before talking about the broad lens collection. You cannot make that claim with many of its competitors.



Wrong. Far more nuanced, as any actual seasoned Sony shooter knows (not you, and not me either, but I do need to understand both of you to do my job)



Larsskv said:


> To me, DPR scoring system is as mystical as DXO´s. Please tell me how heating up in intended use, or sudden 20 second hang ups when using a Sony camera affects the score...



Hyperbole. Doesn't happen on any even remotely consistent basis.



Larsskv said:


> So, what is the choice you make? You prefer mirrorless focusing and eye af, and trusting the camera to choose where to focus. I prefer manual control, so that I decide where to focus.



Absolutely incorrect. I can't stand auto area AF. I always specify what I want to focus on, a staple of candid portraiture and wedding photography. 

But please, feel free to misrepresent the position of your opponent to try and make yourself look better.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


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



Oh get over yourself, stop avoiding the facts that are presented to you as evidence of your bias and admit your first paragraph is bullshit, you are an entertainer working an agenda first and foremost, not some noble knight fighting for truth and justice for all photographers.

I have backed up everything I have written, I have not changed my position and those positions have not been shown to be false.

But anytime you want to post the RAW file from your 5DSR comedy skit to illustrate how severely underexposed the background truthfully is you might change my mind about becoming an entertainer, maybe, _"impossible-to-control background scene of high contrast"_ my arse.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and incidentally I ran across another of Rudy's articles describing how to use iTR:
> ...



Yes, he did...eventually. Amazingly, after that personal revelation where he figured out the proper way to use a camera with which he was manifestly unfamiliar, it magically worked well. Like you, he failed to understand one of the basic functional aspects of Canon's AF systems – as Canon states in their manuals regarding automatic AF point selection, "*This mode tends to focus on the nearest subject.*" Like I said...RTFM.

[/quote]

In my opinion, neuro brings up a very important aspect of how to use iTR tracking, which really wasnt addressed by Rishi in his response. 

I found iTR tracking to be a much more useful feature after realizing what neuroanatomist is referring to. This AF mode works much better, and much better to my liking, when you can enable a single af point in order decide where the camera should start its iTR tracking (instead of the nearest subject).

I haven´t ever had the impression that this is understood by DPR reviewers, apart from the above quote made from Dan Bracaglia.
[/quote]

And yet, that's exactly how we use iTR when comparing to 3D Tracking. With a manually selected AF point (save for when Dan tried 'auto' in the motocross piece).

Perhaps you should try reading the text in our reviews?

Maybe then PVD wouldn't think I am 'wrong' in not clarifying ALL my points in EVERY image caption, because naturally we're not supposed to assume people read the actual text of our reviews...


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > You continue to argue with yourself in circles. The metering sensor is absolutely used to initially detect faces, and yet you sit here trying to argue only the PDAF system is first used to detect and track the original subject.
> ...



Ah, so first an initial subject is chosen and focused on *and only then* is a face attempted to be detected and then WHOOPS OMG JUST KIDDING I SHOULD PROBABLY FOCUS ON THAT RIGHT?!

Makes perfect sense.

Keep digging.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Maybe then PVD wouldn't think I am 'wrong' in not clarifying ALL my points in EVERY image caption, because naturally we're not supposed to assume people read the actual text of our reviews...



Seriously? Including the camera and lens in the CAPTION, especially when they are not the camera being previewed, is onerous? It doesn't have any informational value? It doesn't prevent any misunderstanding? It doesn't give you unimpeachable claims to fairness and accuracy?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 27, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> But anytime you want to post the RAW file from your 5DSR comedy skit to illustrate how severely underexposed the background truthfully is you might change my mind about becoming an entertainer, maybe, _"impossible-to-control background scene of high contrast"_ my arse.



Aargh ! That picture again. It drives me nuts. If you're answer to every situation is to severely under expose for God's sake get a Nikon.


----------



## Larsskv (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



In my opinion, neuro brings up a very important aspect of how to use iTR tracking, which really wasnt addressed by Rishi in his response. 

I found iTR tracking to be a much more useful feature after realizing what neuroanatomist is referring to. This AF mode works much better, and much better to my liking, when you can enable a single af point in order decide where the camera should start its iTR tracking (instead of the nearest subject).

I haven´t ever had the impression that this is understood by DPR reviewers, apart from the above quote made from Dan Bracaglia.
[/quote]

And yet, that's exactly how we use iTR when comparing to 3D Tracking. With a manually selected AF point (save for when Dan tried 'auto' in the motocross piece).

Perhaps you should try reading the text in our reviews?

Maybe then PVD wouldn't think I am 'wrong' in not clarifying ALL my points in EVERY image caption, because naturally we're not supposed to assume people read the actual text of our reviews...
[/quote]

Excuse me, but I have read over and over again, that you find that Canons iTR focusing doesn't focus where you wish it would, but some foreground element, which proves that you dont use a selected AF-point to start the iTR focusing.


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 27, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > But anytime you want to post the RAW file from your 5DSR comedy skit to illustrate how severely underexposed the background truthfully is you might change my mind about becoming an entertainer, maybe, _"impossible-to-control background scene of high contrast"_ my arse.
> ...



The ironic thing is that even if you put a 5Ds image with banding beside a squeaky clean D810 image, most people would probably prefer the 5Ds, because it's totally unnatural to comb through dark patches looking for banding, and the 5Ds will capture the subject better.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



The highlights in neither the woman or the sky ? They are independent, the girl in filled with flash ??? 

I actually reconstructed this situation because I was intrigued as to how Rishi had made the 5Ds look so bad, and posted it on CR, but that was ages back, perhaps six months, and I'm not going looking for it now. I estimated (correctly as it turned out) that he had shot this half an hour after the sun had gone down, and I demonstrated that he had under exposed the highlights in the evening sky by about 1.5 stops. I also gave my e mail address and told Rishi that if I was wrong he could send me the raw file for me to analyse. He didn't. 

Also the girl clearly thinks its a huge joke that Rishi is attempting this shot with a Canon rather than a Sony 



9VIII said:


> The ironic thing is that even if you put a 5Ds image with banding beside a squeaky clean D810 image, most people would probably prefer the 5Ds, because it's totally unnatural to comb through dark patches looking for banding, and the 5Ds will capture the subject better.



I agree. I've tried various makes of camera using the Sony sensor, and I can honestly say I prefer the characteristics of the Canon. So do others, which is probably why on the latest Canons they are "still behind Sony and Nikon". But when I was using these other cameras I did find myself beginning to under expose in relation to how I shoot with Canon. I suppose it's just human nature; we get away with as little effort as we can when the opportunity presents.


----------



## Otara (Aug 27, 2016)

Well one thing this thread has encouraged me to do is try ITR again, after DPR put me off it in reviews.

So thanks for that, regardless of outcome, at least I have some new ideas on how to try using it.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



When I copied what Rishi had done the shadow noise in my shot was horrendous ! 

(But remember I copied: I was trying to see what he had done, not do it properly).


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Yes I agree. At the time I was just fixated on replicating what he had done to cripple the 5Ds for my own interest rather than do it properly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > rishi_sanyal said:
> ...



Ah, so you have no _evidence_ to suggest that you understand how iTR works, but you believe it works differently than Canon says it does...and you think that sarcastically shouting your incorrect belief will make it true. News flash: it doesn't. 

If you'd like to present some factual evidence to back up your claims that iTR functions differently than Canon describes, I'd be happy to listen and learn. In the meantime, continuing to demonstrate your lack of understanding merely makes you look foolish and petulant. 




rishi_sanyal said:


> My first and foremost objective every morning I wake up is to provide meaningful and correct information to my audience.



Fail.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2016)

Otara said:


> Well one thing this thread has encouraged me to do is try ITR again, after DPR put me off it in reviews.
> 
> So thanks for that, regardless of outcome, at least I have some new ideas on how to try using it.



I'm glad that some meaningful and correct information here on CR helped you out.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 27, 2016)

ok people, step back from the keyboard, go outside, take some pictures.....

It doesn't matter which camera it is, what mode it is in, or who is using it.... If the scene has too much DR for the camera, you can't capture it all in one shot. You can expose for highlights, expose for shadows, or somewhere in the middle, but whatever you choose something is either going to be noise or washed out... You have three options: wait for technology to give you more DR, shoot HDR and hope that it works, or you can admit the limitations of today's technology and deal with it.

As to AF usage: Everyone - Admit that Canon AF and Nikon AF work differently and that a test that is good for one system may be a poor test for the other system. Rishi - take some of the suggestions here and integrate them into a proper review of the 5D IV. Everyone else - It was "FIRST IMPRESSIONS", not a comprehensive review.... wait for the proper review..... modern AF systems are complex and it is going to take a reviewer (or a camera buyer) time to get used to the system and start to get decent results. Of course Rishi is not using it perfectly; but to be fair, none of us would pick up a new body and be instant experts either. <EDIT> except Neuro.... he knows too much and types too fast to be human...there is a distinct possibility that he is a cyborg sent back from the future with a secondary mission to kill Sarah Conners and a primary mission to annoy Dilbert </EDIT>


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> It was "FIRST IMPRESSIONS", not a comprehensive review.... wait for the proper review..... modern AF systems are complex and it is going to take a reviewer (or a camera buyer) time to get used to the system and start to get decent results. Of course Rishi is not using it perfectly; but to be fair, none of us would pick up a new body and be instant experts either.



Fair point. But, if subsequent time and knowledge reveal that some of your 'first impressions' were incorrect, you have two options:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Acknowledge your mistake and correct the misinformation you previously posted
[*]Stubbornly defend the original, incorrect information you initially presented
[/list]

The first one is called "integrity," and I have seen DPR choose that approach on occasion. The second is called "dishonesty," and that's the approach Rishi is taking here.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=29255.msg582690#msg582690

It's important to remember that the subject is entirely illuminated by the flash so her exposure is irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 27, 2016)

Wow....this is both off the rails, somewhat entertaining, and somewhat informative all at the same time.

So...I stopped reading DPR years ago. I started out there when I bought my first digital camera in 2003, but somewhere around 2007-2009 I had simply found what I considered to better review websites. I cannot say I have used DPR to select gear or recommended DPR to anyone for several years. I still check it now and again, but definitely have not relied upon it. I do not say this to be intentionally hurtful, more of a statement of fact. If anything my intention is to get Rishi to take a step back and evaluate why a reader might go elsewhere.

Based on this thread, I just read the "First Impressions" article on the 5DIV. While I didn't find it awful or anything, I also did not find it overly informative compared to other articles I have read on the 5DIV. Of course some of the articles/videos I've seen are all "hype," so I do appreciate people that try to cut through and actually give impressions of the camera and what it can do, but as you will see below, my issue with what I read was too many "expectations" rather than actual "impressions," which is what I want. Of course, in line with the thread, I did find several "expectations" to be slanted negative. Which is really the entire "bias" argument.

Just to quote from Rishi's page 7:

"The 5D series of cameras were not without their faults though." You had not even really praised the 5D series, just called it your "trusted friend." I don't even find it necessary to mention faults as you are leading into what Canon tried to improve.

"The 5D Mark IV addresses a couple of the top complaints..." Not all? Seems like they addressed the entire list that had just been mentioned.

You then launch into 3 paragraphs on shadow recovery of the 5DIII, and then the fourth only kinda talking about the 5DIV. This is literally over half of the review at this point. As a reader, I only care about the 5DIV. All I want to hear is one or two sentences like "we expect better shadow recovery in the 5DIV" or, even better, "we are seeing better shadow recovery from the 5DIV, 5D users should rejoice!!!!" BTW, I think it is great that you got as good of a shot as you recovered as you did after "the camera" missed exposure. As for the fourth paragraph here, great examples of the faint praise and unnecessary comparisons to other brands. Such as "We do not expect ....caught up to Sony." This isn't even couched as an "impression" rather an "expectation." Save this for the review when you can compare sensor output. Plus, and perhaps a camera reviewer has a different perspective, but I don't care about Sony at this point. Maybe if actual tests show an otherworldly difference. I just care about the 5DIV. Way to premature for this comparative statement.

"Some photographers will also appreciate the enhanced ability of iTR ('Intelligent Tracking and Recognition') to track distant erratic subjects no matter where they move within the frame." Faint praise, this has been covered, but, again from a reader/5DIII user perspective, this is a new feature to the 5D series. It is all good news to me. Why did you not phrase it like that? Hey, "new feature to the 5D line! Its not perfect, but an improvement."

I really could keep going....things about not liking the new AF switch and Canon customization, "We expect significant, though not class-leading, improvements in dynamic range" again not being a real impression by an expectation that could still prove to be incorrect...

I do not want to list everything, as I want to head outside and have plans today, but the point is pretty simple. If someone where to go through and count negative statements vs positive, "impressions" vs "expectations", and align the two, my "expectation" is that the negative skew of the article, especially in "expectations" would be readily apparent. After reading it, I'd say well over half of page 7 was skewed negative in an "impression" article. Now, if the camera is obviously bad, I get it. But I doubt that is the case.

So, I am not looking for an argument. I barely care, you lost this reader a long time ago. But having already read several other "impression" articles/videos on the 5DIV, I really do find this to be unnecessarily negative and, worse, less informative than the others. There is good content (and some more negative "expectations" in pages 1-6), no doubt, but when you spend 4 of your first 7 paragraphs (the time when you want to pull readers in) talking about shadow recovery, what else do you expect?


----------



## Speedster (Aug 27, 2016)

Jeez, this thread has turned into a complete car crash. 

Unpleasant reading, frankly. And I'll not be the only one to think this.


----------



## d (Aug 27, 2016)

Speedster said:


> Jeez, this thread has turned into a complete car crash.
> 
> Unpleasant reading, frankly. And I'll not be the only one to think this.



+1


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 27, 2016)

So here I am, a Canon shooter. 

Each of my 7 lenses bare the Canon brand, as do both my bodies, namely the 7Dii and the 6D. I have stated before that I felt the 7Dii has fallen short of the promo material released by Canon. but as a photographer whose options are limited to the Canon Eco-system, the 7Dii was my one and only option for what I wanted to shoot. 

I absolutely adore my 6D with one caveat, the number and spread of the AF points. As such, the 5D IV is a body that has me interested as it will solve this problem and a few others (the button layout mirrors that of the 7Dii for instance).

What gets to me about DP Review articles in general, is that they normally argue the kit's performance in relation to gear in other eco systems. Why on Earth would the average user who is locked into a brand want to know that a feature from Sony, one from Nikon, Panasonic, Fuji outperforms the equivalent feature in the item being reviewed? The 5D IV isn't an entry level body and I will go out on a limb here and say that most who are starting their digital photography journey, may look at the entry level offerings. 

I would enjoy an article that focuses on how the body would fit into the system it was designed for, which will allow me to appreciate it for what it does. Perhaps a paragraph or two in the conclusion can be used to evaluate against offerings from other brands.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> Why on Earth would the average user who is locked into a brand...



Why on earth would any average user be locked into a brand? 

Users are free to choose what gear they buy. Owning every EF lens ever built doesn't prevent you from buying a Nikon camera and lens. Avoiding doing so is a reasonable choice, but it is a choice nonetheless. In your case, while the lion's share of your equipment works together, you did choose to purchase incompatible items (EF-S lens + 6D). Others (like myself) have chosen to buy myriad brands. 

I expect consumers like me and you are in the extreme minority. When most ILC users buy a camera, it comes with the only lens they'll ever mount to it (disclaimer: I believe this used to be true, but it may no longer be), and sites like DPR must cater to the vast majority, which invites brand comparisons.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Your own community labels you a troll.



Mate, you've come under some unfair fire on these forums, but you really aren't doing yourself any favours by responding so belligerently.

And while Neuro can be abrasive sometimes, the only people calling him a troll are the newbies who set up accounts here to make ridiculous claims about Sony DR or shout 'Canon is *******' and then run away when people reply. Oh, and one or two longstanding members whose own posts qualify much more comfortably as trolling (perhaps you should read a few thousand more posts to see what I mean).

I dunno why you're bothering to post here at all, really. You seem pretty confident in your position, fine. Ignore the things you consider ridiculous, and move on.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Aug 27, 2016)

I find it curious why some DPR staff are always attracted to negativity. I've posted positive comments, helpful feedback, praise for their web design, etc. I have never once had a comment back, like "Thanks!". IN fact, they have never once responded to anything nice I ever post in the comments. In the rare occasion that I do post something even slightly negative concerning a stance or content (no personal attacks ever), my post/comment is either deleted or given a snarky or angry response by DPR staff. The couple of staff there that I had excellent interactions with seem to now be gone these days. Their new editor Chris is really great though, I hope he stays that way and doesn't end up leaving or becoming negative. 

I actually am pretty impressed with Rishi's knowledge of cameras and camera tech. I am not one of the Canon Rumors bashers, yet it seems like my DPR account is chopped liver to them. They probably have some troll label they can see with their DPR accounts and have me labeled a troll because I disagreed with them at one point. Negating all the helpful feedback and instruction I have provided to users of the website. 

Edit: Correction. One of their past editors always responded to every positive comment I ever made. Really friendly and helpful person.


----------



## tron (Aug 27, 2016)

PhotographyFirst said:


> I find it curious why some DPR staff are always attracted to negativity. I've posted positive comments, helpful feedback, praise for their web design, etc. I have never once had a comment back, like "Thanks!". IN fact, they have never once responded to anything nice I ever post in the comments. In the rare occasion that I do post something even slightly negative concerning a stance or content (no personal attacks ever), my post/comment is either deleted or given a snarky or angry response by DPR staff. The couple of staff there that I had excellent interactions with seem to now be gone these days. Their new editor Chris is really great though, I hope he stays that way and doesn't end up leaving or becoming negative.
> 
> I actually am pretty impressed with Rishi's knowledge of cameras and camera tech. I am not one of the Canon Rumors bashers, yet it seems like my DPR account is chopped liver to them. They probably have some troll label they can see with their DPR accounts and have me labeled a troll because I disagreed with them at one point. Negating all the helpful feedback and instruction I have provided to users of the website.
> 
> Edit: Correction. One of their past editors always responded to every positive comment I ever made. Really friendly and helpful person.


There is really no reason to spend time on DPReview forums. The quality of many members is next to bottom and now you practically say something close to that about DPReview staff.


----------



## Pookie (Aug 27, 2016)

tron said:


> PhotographyFirst said:
> 
> 
> > I find it curious why some DPR staff are always attracted to negativity. I've posted positive comments, helpful feedback, praise for their web design, etc. I have never once had a comment back, like "Thanks!". IN fact, they have never once responded to anything nice I ever post in the comments. In the rare occasion that I do post something even slightly negative concerning a stance or content (no personal attacks ever), my post/comment is either deleted or given a snarky or angry response by DPR staff. The couple of staff there that I had excellent interactions with seem to now be gone these days. Their new editor Chris is really great though, I hope he stays that way and doesn't end up leaving or becoming negative.
> ...



By the same token you could say CR forum members are equal. Just take a look at 11 pages of total BS from hobbyist forum junkies. Disgusting display...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Why on Earth would the average user who is locked into a brand...
> ...



Both points have merit. Sabaki is correct that, in general, users of higher end gear are somewhat 'locked in', at least by gear type. If you have more than a minimal complement of dSLR lenses, it makes sense to buy a dSLR that's compatible with those lenses. Carrying two partial kits around isn't optimal, IMO. However, I suspect it's not uncommon for high-end users to have a different brand of another type of gear, e.g. a Sony _or_ Fuji MILC kit *and* a Canon _or_ Nikon dSLR kit, perhaps along with a high-end P&S from a different brand entirely. 

When you (3kramd5) state that the vast majority if users buy a body + kit lens and that's all, I agree...and I agree that brand comparisons help in that case. But although only a small minority of dSLR users buy a 5-series body, a much larger proportion of them are likely to own multiple lenses...and thus, for 5-series bodies (and higher), brand comparisons are far less relevant. Perhaps interesting, but it reduces the utility of a review for a FF dSLR when much of the commentary is devoted to brand comparisons.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2016)

Of course that is true, and is something I considered (I started mentioning the D5/1Dx2 articles to discuss rarified ownership), however it remains true that DPReview's bread and butter is mass audience, and it's perhaps expecting too much for them to depart from their typical practices for high-end models unlikely to generate many click-thru sales at the parent company.

It's not the right site for that kind of nuance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2016)

scyrene said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > Your own community labels you a troll.
> ...



Well, Rishi had to say something to excuse the fact that he was unable to respond to the substance of the discussion with fact-based technical information, right? So, he chose to go with shouting and name-calling.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Doesn't iTR have some rudimentary face detect ability when in auto-select for the starting point(s)? Not that I would expect that to work on bikers wearing helmets, since there's no faces, but I'm pretty certain it does have the ability to pick out a face instead of "nearest thing" 

Edit: Just went back and re-read the 7D2 manual. It actually makes it sound like it only does face detect in one-shot mode. 

"On: The AF Point is automatically selected based not only on AF information, but also faces and other details.
In AI Servo AF mode, the camera remembers the color at the position it focused on first, then continues to track and focus the subject by switching AF points to track that color. This makes it easier to keep track of the subject than when only AF information is available. In One-Shot AF mode, EOS iTR AF makes focusing on people easier, so you can prioritize composition."


----------



## scyrene (Aug 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > rishi_sanyal said:
> ...



No... that's what I don't get. He didn't have to say anything. While in principle having a Dpreview contributor here to answer criticisms seems a good idea, it's only massively inflamed things. Right or wrong, had he not replied, this thread would have gone off the boil within a couple of pages.


----------



## tron (Aug 27, 2016)

Pookie said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > PhotographyFirst said:
> ...


I think they describe DPR's BS...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2016)

tr573 said:


> Doesn't iTR have some rudimentary face detect ability when in auto-select for the starting point(s)? Not that I would expect that to work on bikers wearing helmets, since there's no faces, but I'm pretty certain it does have the ability to pick out a face instead of "nearest thing"



Perhaps it seems logical that it should, and that's certainly the case for face detection with the full imaging sensor (MILCs and dSLR Live View shooting). However, the information from Canon indicates that's not how iTR works (read the prior quotes from Rudy Winston). Given that, it seems quite reasonable to expect some technical information to substantiate being "pretty certain" that Canon is wrong about their own technology. Please, feel free to share any such information you have...


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 27, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Why on Earth would the average user who is locked into a brand...
> ...



Correct me if I'm wrong here but I imagine the bulk of 3rd party wares one generally finds introduced to a system is normally lenses and 3rd party peripherals. 
Those 3rd party products are generally engineered to function within a given brand's system. My contention is based on the premise that unlike lenses and peripherals, bodies are less frequently changed out for other brands. 

P.S. The 10-22 was my 2nd lens purchase when I started photography and I'll be upgrading to the 16-35 f/4.0 or possibly f/.28 mkiii in November


----------



## tr573 (Aug 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't iTR have some rudimentary face detect ability when in auto-select for the starting point(s)? Not that I would expect that to work on bikers wearing helmets, since there's no faces, but I'm pretty certain it does have the ability to pick out a face instead of "nearest thing"
> ...



I edited after - I rechecked the 7D2 manual and it seems to indicate it only does face detection in one shot mode, not AI servo.


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 27, 2016)

this discussion is a shame, quite a few members damaged their credibility


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2016)

scyrene said:


> No... that's what I don't get. He didn't have to say anything. While in principle having a Dpreview contributor here to answer criticisms seems a good idea, it's only massively inflamed things. Right or wrong, had he not replied, this thread would have gone off the boil within a couple of pages.



Well, perhaps this time he really will take his marbles and go home. Then again, he'll likely be back. Looking over his postings, it seems there's something of a pattern: he shows up for a few days at a time and posts quite a bit, engaging in several arguments with multiple members...then he disappears for a while. Mid-February, early-May, and this current bout. 

Hmmmm, showing up occasionally to start arguments...I know what sort of creature that sounds like. Of course, the timings are likely associated with previews/reviews being posted on DPR.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> P.S. The 10-22 was my 2nd lens purchase when I started photography and I'll be upgrading to the 16-35 f/4.0 or possibly f/.28 mkiii in November



Nice, that could be a good one! I'll have to compare it with my 16-35/4.

My only point was that, short of some weird corporate contract, no user is locked in. Brand loyalty is a choice, however reasonable it may be.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2016)

tr573 said:


> I edited after - I rechecked the 7D2 manual and it seems to indicate it only does face detection in one shot mode, not AI servo.



It does face detection in AI Servo, as well..._during tracking_. The manual defines iTR as: "intelligent Tracking and Recognition: The function that the metering sensor identifies the subject to make the AF points tracking it." 

The point that Rishi fails to grasp is that based on Canon's description of iTR, when in AI Servo AF while allowing the camera to automatically select the initial AF point(s), data from the metering sensor are not used.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 27, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > P.S. The 10-22 was my 2nd lens purchase when I started photography and I'll be upgrading to the 16-35 f/4.0 or possibly f/.28 mkiii in November
> ...



Thanks! I only recently got the 6D and have to save before making other purchases. 

You're 100% right about it being my choice. I do however thinks body or bodies generally form the heart of a system. Yes, there definitely was an increase in the number of photographers who bought a Sony with metabones adaptor and fitted Canon or Nikon lenses to it. I still feel this to be a lesser practice. 

So I still contend that with an advanced body like a 5D, keep the review based on how it performs relative to its own Eco-system. 

Afterall, Canon still dominate market share, walk away with arms full of awards annually. Not to mention that their lenses are responsible for those breathtaking images taken at SWC, RWC and Olympics. Does that alone not qualify their technology?

PS all the above is just be stating my opinion, not trying to be obnoxious or rude.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> tr573 said:
> 
> 
> > I edited after - I rechecked the 7D2 manual and it seems to indicate it only does face detection in one shot mode, not AI servo.
> ...



From the 1D X II manual, for the second time:

When iTR is ON in 61pt Auto Selection mode: "The AF point is *automatically selected* based *not only on AF information*, but also the human *face *and the *subject's color information*."

On the other hand, when iTR is OFF,* only then *are: "AF points automatically selected based *only on AF information* (The AF does not use facial information or the subject's color information.)"

Do you see the difference between the descriptions for iTR ON vs OFF? And yet you continue to claim that the behavior when it's ON is actually the behavior when it's OFF.

?

neuro continues to post misinformation that misleads the community, simply because he can't now backtrack and admit he was wrong in his all his numerous posts about how our *one motocross piece* was supposedly wrong (which it wasn't). Because that would indicate that _DPR was right_ - which it just _can't be_ in order to feed his continued character assassination and claims of bias and incompetence.

Furthermore, he continues his red herring argument, ignoring the fact that_ even if _the AF system were designed to work as he claims (it isn't, according to the *manual*), then our observation that the camera tends to focus on the nearest subject - while the other one felt a bit more intelligent in what it automatically selected - is still _valid and useful information_. 

Hence, not only is neuro's criticism fundamentally flawed because his own position is wrong according to Canon's own 1D X II manual, it's also flawed because the criticism itself - that 'DPR just described the system does what it's supposed to do!' - isn't criticism at all. Even if we were to describe the system does what it's designed to do - and that that behavior is not ideal - how is that grounds for disaccreditation? 

The principle behind '*auto*' selection is that the camera should intelligently, automatically find the appropriate subject (it's not called '*nearest *subject selection', is it?). One camera did it better than the other, we reported that - just as we pointed out where the Canon beat the Nikon.

And yet it's DPR that is biased, incompetent, arrogant... for those asking why I weighed in to begin with, it was to dismiss factually wrong accusations, like 'Rishi now uses AI Servo because of CR's influence' or 'DPR keeps testing iTR in auto mode against Nikon in 3D tracking, therefore all their results are flawed.' (We don't: we test Nikon's Auto against Canon's 61pt Auto w/ auto initial pt selection, and Nikon 3D vs Canon's 61pt Auto with manual initial pt selection). Certain people here keep coming up with false reasons to discredit us so as to forward the thesis that a bunch of camera reviewers - whose daily job is to understand all camera systems inside out - don't actually know what they're doing. Why do they do this? To not have to accept some criticism we leveled at their camera. Rather than check if the experience of a group of expert reviewers who handle these systems every day might have some perspective a more limited user of one system might not have, the gut reaction is to simply discredit us so as to not have to accept the result. Unknowing readers then read those posts and conclude, well they must be right and DPR must be wrong because the counterargument sounds reasonable and comes from an _actual user_ of the system.

That's when it behooves me to step in and make clear that: (1) no, the counterargument makes an assumption that we didn't consider your point already, which we probably (in most cases) did; and (2) we are users of said system as well. And (3), when we're wrong, and a user of a system does provide us with information we hadn't considered, we're all ears, we update our story, and admit it for full transparency (http://bit.ly/2bWKSje).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 27, 2016)

Sabaki said:


> So I still contend that with an advanced body like a 5D, keep the review based on how it performs relative to its own Eco-system.



That would certainly make the review more useful to current canon owners curious about upgrading, but at the same time it makes the piece less useful to generic buyers (not the mass appeal DPreview is after).

the-digital-picture.com is excellent




Sabaki said:


> PS all the above is just be stating my opinion, not trying to be obnoxious or rude.



Me too!


----------



## analoggrotto (Aug 27, 2016)

In the past I have seen such back and forth antics resulting in the discovery that the participants of an argument are all the same person. 

*rishi_sanyal and neuroanatomist* ... is there something you would like to admit to the rest of this forum? Its ok, you both seem to be having quite a good time there.  


Of course, this is my first post so I may be the same person as them too. :-[

cheers fellas,


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 27, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > tr573 said:
> ...


You both are on the same page regarding AF point selection during tracking. Difference is how system is behaving to select initial AF point. Neuro thinks system goes with nearest AF point with subject. You are saying it uses the same logic as used during tracking. Your text from 1DX2 manual is still not clear if it is applicable for initial AF point acquisition. It could be talking about AF point selection during tracking(dpr tests are showing this kind of behavior). I am not sure. May be you can check with Canon.


----------



## GaryJ (Aug 28, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> Ah! I see this thread has gone well... :


 Fasten your seat belts,we're in for a bumpy ride...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > tr573 said:
> ...



For the third (or fourth, or fifth) time, I have stated and agreed that automatic AF point selection *during tracking* is driven by the metering system. As stated, that's intellegent Tracking and Recognition, which is what the page in the manual to which you refer is describing. 

Do you see the difference between the _*initial*_ automatic selection of an AF point when focusing is initiated in Auto selection mode, vs. selection of an AF point during the tracking of a moving subject?




rishi_sanyal said:


> neuro Rishi continues to post misinformation that misleads the community, simply because he can't now backtrack and admit he was wrong in his all his numerous posts about how our *one motocross piece* was supposedly wrong right (which it wasn't).



There, now you're making a correct assertion.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 28, 2016)

I really, really wish someone (Canon preferred, but third party okay) would provide some decent tutorials on autofocus tracking in servo mode. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but I have to say I am not thrilled with any of the Canon autofocus tracking for sports photography.

I'd love to be able to focus on a single player and then have the autofocus continue to track that player as they move through the scene. Maybe there is a way to do that, but I sure can't find it in any of their manuals or online resources. 

If you use a single spot, it seems to do a very good job of finding the subject. But it won't track. If you use the expanded modes, it only tracks in the area that you first selected (won't track across the viewfinder) If you use the full autofocus points it focuses on the nearest subject.

Instead of all this arguing and trolling, I wish the people who have had so much success with the autofocus system would take the time to tell us how they get such supposedly perfect results. Honestly, of late I've pretty much reverted to single point autofocus and from what I've read even a lot of professional sports photographers do the same.

How about it guys. Let's stop the arguing and start the teaching.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> You both are on the same page regarding AF point selection during tracking. Difference is how system is behaving to select initial AF point. Neuro thinks system goes with nearest AF point with subject. You are saying it uses the same logic as used during tracking. Your text from 1DX2 manual is still not clear if it is applicable for initial AF point acquisition. It could be talking about AF point selection during tracking(dpr tests are showing this kind of behavior). I am not sure. May be you can check with Canon.



^^This^^

As stated above, the text that Rishi is quoting from the manual applies to AF point selection during iTR tracking, not to the initial automatic AF point selection. No need to check with Canon, since Canon has already explained the way initial auto AF point selection for the iTR system works. I've posted these statements from Canon earlier in the thread, but Rishi either doesn't understand them, or more likely is ignoring them becuase they contradict the misinformation which he continues to spread.

[quote author=Rudy Winston, Canon Technical Representative]
One of the key new innovations is using color information to assist the AF system when it’s in Automatic AF point selection mode. Focus upon a subject with all the AF points active and *the AF system initially focuses upon it*. But behind the scenes, the RGB metering system registers the color, size and shape of the subject being initially focused upon. Armed with this info, the metering system knows not only where the subject is, but its color characteristics — in essence, what it looks like. The Intelligent Subject Analysis system has taken the first step for the photographer.

And as a subject moves around the viewfinder, the metering system continues to update its position, using color and shape to follow the subject. As it moves, the metering system “tells” the AF system where the subject is. Now, the Automatic AF point selection system can continuously change active AF points to keep the initial subject in focus as it moves around the finder. This is the genesis of Canon’s Intelligent Tracking and Recognition (iTR) feature.[/quote]

[quote author=Rudy Winston, Canon Technical Representative]
As with all previous EOS models, the basic concept of Evaluative metering is to read exposure over the entire picture area, knowing what and where the primary subject likely is in the scene – the EOS-1D X's color metering and scene detection technologies obviously are a huge help here. *The AF system provides information to the metering system, identifying the active AF point(s)*, and thus pointing the Evaluative metering system to the probable location of the primary subject.
[/quote]

Clearly, Canon is stating that for initial automatic AF point selection in AI Servo, it's the AF system that selects the AF point, then transfers that information to the metering system, which then performs face/color/shape detection.

Rishi, still waiting for you to:

1) acknowledge that you've read and understood the way in which Canon describes the initial automatic AF point selection in AI Servo, and

2) provide *actual evidence* that Canon is wrong in the way they describe the function of iTR

Note that the following – all of which you've already tried, in some cases more than once – do _not_ constitute actual evidence: 

restating your opinion
shouting
sarcasm
name-calling
side-stepping the issue by again talking about how iTR behaves _during tracking_
ignoring the information provided by Canon
use excuses to justify not responding

As I previously stated, I'd welcome additional/new factual information that contradicts Canon's own statements...explicit statements which you ignored the first time, and which I re-posted above. But you seem unable to provide any such factual information. As the saying goes...put up or shut up.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2016)

analoggrotto said:


> In the past I have seen such back and forth antics resulting in the discovery that the participants of an argument are all the same person.
> 
> *rishi_sanyal and neuroanatomist* ... is there something you would like to admit to the rest of this forum? Its ok, you both seem to be having quite a good time there.
> 
> ...


Welcome to the zoo.... hope you brought some popcorn


----------



## unfocused (Aug 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> No need to check with Canon, since Canon has already explained the way initial auto AF point selection for the iTR system works...
> 
> [quote author=Rudy Winston, Canon Technical Representative]
> One of the key new innovations is using color information to assist the AF system when it’s in Automatic AF point selection mode. Focus upon a subject with all the AF points active and *the AF system initially focuses upon it*. But behind the scenes, the RGB metering system registers the color, size and shape of the subject being initially focused upon. Armed with this info, the metering system knows not only where the subject is, but its color characteristics — in essence, what it looks like. The Intelligent Subject Analysis system has taken the first step for the photographer.
> ...


[/quote]

And, how in the hell are you supposed to "focus upon a subject with all the AF points active" if that subject isn't the nearest object to the camera? I want to focus on the Volleyball, Soccer, Basketball, etc., player who has the ball and then follow that person, not the player closest to the camera. What am I missing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2016)

unfocused said:


> And, how in the hell are you supposed to "focus upon a subject with all the AF points active" if that subject isn't the nearest object to the camera? I want to focus on the Volleyball, Soccer, Basketball, etc., player who has the ball and then follow that person, not the player closest to the camera. What am I missing.



You select the initial AF point manually, of course. 

[quote author=Canon DLC]
Using it is simple:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Set the EOS-1D X to the AI Servo AF mode.
[*]Be sure the camera is set to Automatic AF point selection mode (in the viewfinder, you’ll see a thin border surrounding the AF point array).
[*]*Manually select* any single point as the starting point for focus tracking, whether centered or off-center.
[*]Activate AF using color information in the Menu: 4th AF menu > Auto AF pt. select criteria > EOS iTR AF
[/list]
That’s it! Now, you begin to initially track a subject at the AF point you dialed in as the starting point. Press whatever button you’re using to activate AF and the camera starts to focus-track your subject. If the subject moves away from that AF point, its shape, size and color are monitored by the RGB metering system and tells the AF system which points to continuously update to keep it in sharp focus.
[/quote]

Why would you want the camera to select your subject for you? It can't read your mind... (But Rishi may tell you that it could...if it was a Nikon, with all that uncanny, spooky, awesomerifically superlative 3D magic sauce AF mojo.  )

In your example where you want to follow the player with the ball and not the other players on the field, would you expect the camera to determine which player had the ball? No, you select an AF point and put it over the subject you want to track, then the camera uses the metering data to assist in tracking that subject. The reason you want all the AF points active (or a large subset like a zone) is so the camera can use those AF points to track the subject through the frame.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > And, how in the hell are you supposed to "focus upon a subject with all the AF points active" if that subject isn't the nearest object to the camera? I want to focus on the Volleyball, Soccer, Basketball, etc., player who has the ball and then follow that person, not the player closest to the camera. What am I missing.
> ...



Why would you want the camera to select your subject for you? It can't read your mind... (But Rishi may tell you that it could...if it was a Nikon, with all that uncanny, spooky, awesomerifically superlative 3D magic sauce AF mojo.  )

In your example where you want to follow the player with the ball and not the other players on the field, would you expect the camera to determine which player had the ball? No, you select an AF point and put it over the subject you want to track, then the camera uses the metering data to assist in tracking that subject. The reason you want all the AF points active (or a large subset like a zone) is so the camera can use those AF points to track the subject through the frame.
[/quote]

Sorry if you think I'm stupid, but how are you supposed to "manually" select an autofocus point in AF Servo. I press the AF On button and it picks the closest object to focus on. How do I move that point?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Sorry if you think I'm stupid, but how are you supposed to "manually" select an autofocus point in AF Servo. I press the AF On button and it picks the closest object to focus on. How do I move that point?



Oh, please...it's a good question and honestly, manually selecting a starting AF point for AI Servo should have been the default. I suspect it's just Canon's internal evolution of the feature - until recently (the 7D, IIRC), AI Servo tracking started from the center point, always. When Canon eliminated that restriction and allowed any AF initial AF point to be selected, they jumped straight to Auto selection (where it picks the closest subject). 

Sorry, too much information. Check out p.134 in the 1D X II manual. Or just go to AF menu 4 > Initial AF Point, AI Servo AF menu and change it from Auto to one of the other two options. The first one starts with the point that was last used in AI Servo (which you can then move around with the joystick), the second starts at the point you were using before you switched to Full 61-pt auto selection mode (but again, you can move it where you want).


----------



## unfocused (Aug 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry if you think I'm stupid, but how are you supposed to "manually" select an autofocus point in AF Servo. I press the AF On button and it picks the closest object to focus on. How do I move that point?
> ...



Thank you. I knew there was something I wasn't doing correctly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2016)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Glad to help. It's one of those settings you'll likely never visit again...at least, I haven't since I first got my 1D X, since I'm generally not a fan of letting my camera choose my subject for me.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 28, 2016)

unfocused said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Thanks again. I found I also had to enable Direct AF Point selection in custom controls. 

I know sometimes we disagree and I can be a bit thorny at times, but honestly, I really do appreciate your helpfulness. This forum would be a lot more ignorant without you. My criticisms are usually aimed at cases where I think comments are beneath you. However, I also understand the frustration because I don't suffer fools gladly either.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Thanks again. I found I also had to enable Direct AF Point selection in custom controls.



Yes, that's another set-and-forget. You can press the AF point selection button each time, but why? Another fav of mine is assigning 100% magnified view to the Set button to check critical focus after a shot.



unfocused said:


> I know sometimes we disagree and I can be a bit thorny at times, but honestly, I really do appreciate your helpfulness. This forum would be a lot more ignorant without you. My criticisms are usually aimed at cases where I think comments are beneath you. However, I also understand the frustration because I don't suffer fools gladly either.



I think I can be thornier, by volume if not sharpness...


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 28, 2016)

Just asking a question regarding the mk4. And I am 100% confident this has been covered elsewhere... but... what is the usable iso range for the 4 as opposed to the mkiii? I could tolerate 6400 in really dark conditions with my mkiii, but I rarely pushed the iso above 2500... So... if 2500 was my cap... would I find comparable results at 12000... wait... that would be way too much... at 8000... 6400... no clue... but I am curious, so if anyone has an answer... I'm listening.


----------



## tpatana (Aug 28, 2016)

Most likely ~1/2 stop improvement, or could be just 1/3. I don't expect to be using beyond 6400 if I can help it. That's same as for 5d3 though.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 28, 2016)

tpatana said:


> Most likely ~1/2 stop improvement, or could be just 1/3. I don't expect to be using beyond 6400 if I can help it. That's same as for 5d3 though.



Huh... I know I shouldn't be surprised... but I am a bit...


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 28, 2016)

unfocused said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Absolutely fascinating exchange.

neuro just spelled what *we at DPReview* suggested you do - switch the initial point in Auto 61 pt iTR tracking to be 'manually selected' - in the very piece by Dan that neuro is on a crusade to discredit. 

And yet it's DPR that doesn't know how to do anything right, and aren't testing the AF system 'perfectly' because we don't know what we're doing (right Don?). It's DPR that loves to use AF in 'auto' modes, despite praising Nikon's 3D tracking - a mode that *requires* you to manually select your initial subject. And it's DPR that's supposedly been testing Nikon in 3D Tracking vs. Canon in 'auto area' mode, because we don't know how to set Canon's 61pt Auto Area mode to have a 'manually selected' initial point - despite us telling readers in the motocross piece that we suggest you switch the default behavior to 'manually selected' initial point, a mode we *always switch Canons to before testing subject tracking* head-to-head against Nikon's 3D tracking.

But it's DPR that doesn't know camera settings, and it's actual camera users (like unfocused?) that know how to use a camera perfectly, except when he asks other camera users (like neuro) how to set up the camera to do something useful, which ends up being the way DPR actually already set up their cameras, and suggested you set up your camera as well.

But when we said it, it was a point to be made fun of by neuro ('when DPR set it up to behave more like 3D tracking, they had better success!' --> um, that was our point, that 'auto' didn't work as well as it did on the Nikon), but when a user on CR asks how to do it, they receive a calm response on how to do exactly what we advised you do in our article.

? 

Oh, and this might be a great time to mention - that it's us that have been pointing out that this switch between manual and auto is buried deep in the menu and is cumbersome, therefore not allowing you to quickly switch between manual selection and auto selection (to adapt to situations quickly).

We've expressed our desire for how this should be an easier to access feature (like an 'auto' area mode in addition to a manually selected tracking), so, you know, people like unfocused don't have to shoot for years in a sub-optimal manner before being told by a CR member (but not a DPR article, heaven forbid) how to do it right.

But meanwhile, we're accused of not even knowing how to operate these cameras.

Hey, Don - you expressed how apparently 'Rishi wasn't using the AF system perfectly' - and yet it turns out that I was using it exactly as unfocused here wanted it to be used, already knowing how to set the camera up for that and even telling readers how to do so (yet it falling on deaf ears, you know maybe because neuro here likes to forward his thesis that we don't know what we're doing all the time).

So, I ask you: what part of the AF system was I not setting up perfectly? Please be specific.

@unfocused: what neuro described to you is exactly what we've indicated on multiple occasions you set your Canon camera up to (and even then, it still won't perform as reliably as Nikon 3D tracking, especially for shorter focal lengths). Do you want to perhaps re-evaluate your position? You said:

"Instead of all this arguing and trolling, I wish the people who have had so much success with the autofocus system would take the time to tell us how they get such supposedly perfect results... How about it guys. Let's stop the arguing and start the teaching."

... and yet, we told you how to set up the camera to do exactly what you're asking for in the very motocross piece that neuro loves to ridicule as being an obnoxious piece for even suggesting you set up the camera for manual selection of the initial AF point.

??

This might be an appropriate time to mention that our testing of 'Auto Area AF' does not mean that that's all we love to shoot, which again neuro erroneously and maliciously attributes to us. Because we test something, doesn't mean that's what we use. In fact, no one in the DPR offices tends to use Auto Area AF, opting to manually select our starting point instead (3D Tracking, iTR with manual initial point).

And yet you have neuro now spreading false lies so that there are people here who now think that 'Auto area' AF selection is now a large part of our weighted score.

All because we decided to, in one editorial piece/test, point out that two editors had better luck with Auto Area AF on the Nikon than the Canon.

Am I the only one here who sees what's going on?

Does no one here see the blatant attack against DPR? neuro apparently 'helps' unfocused out by telling him exactly what our article suggested you do? A mode we found to still be nowhere near as reliable as Nikons, which then caused neuro to go into an all-out attack on our credibility, suggesting we now test and heavily weight all cameras in 'auto area' mode, spreading the myth that 'Rishi and DPR love to use cameras in complete auto mode' and even test Canon's in 'auto' vs Nikon's in 3D Tracking (with a manual initial point) --> all utterly 100% false.

I mean, seriously, @unfocused: how do you thank neuro for suggesting precisely what your article suggested you use?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 28, 2016)

I really don't like threads that take on a confrontational tone. I have participated and offered some, what I thought were, helpful comments directed at Rishi in the past and, provided he didn't feel unjustly attacked, I felt the exchanges were fair and reasonable. I believe he is doing all he is capable of in an effort to be unbiased and any residual bias that may still exist is really not worth relating to because he is doing the best he can and it is decent.

I really am not in favor of pit bull fights and believe there is a time to just say this is my final statement on the subject and let it be. I should be long since in bed but I have to say from skimming I think Rishi has a valid point. However, sometimes when we prove we are right we can still suffer some negatives regarding the approach and overall demeanor that is demonstrated. In that regard Rishi, I think you're better off not engaging like this in a CR thread. That's just an opinion of course.

Jack


----------



## tpatana (Aug 28, 2016)

jdramirez said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Most likely ~1/2 stop improvement, or could be just 1/3. I don't expect to be using beyond 6400 if I can help it. That's same as for 5d3 though.
> ...



None of the key feature improvements are aimed for high iso shooting, hence modest improvement on that.

I'm still bummed about (no) 1080p120. Should get (also) A6300 just to show Canon they are *******.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:



> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > You both are on the same page regarding AF point selection during tracking. Difference is how system is behaving to select initial AF point. Neuro thinks system goes with nearest AF point with subject. You are saying it uses the same logic as used during tracking. Your text from 1DX2 manual is still not clear if it is applicable for initial AF point acquisition. It could be talking about AF point selection during tracking(dpr tests are showing this kind of behavior). I am not sure. May be you can check with Canon.
> ...



Wrong again. Purposefully obfuscating to ensure you never have to admit you're wrong, or that, even worse, you were corrected by that Rishi guy at DPReview...

I'm quoting directly from the manual, which says: "The AF point is automatically *selected *based not only on AF information, but also the human face and the subject's color information."

Where does it say 'during tracking' there? Nowhere. It talks about how the point is SELECTED. You claim that has nothing to do with how it's INITIALLY SELECTED.

Where's your evidence? Rudy Winston's quotes? Which say NOTHING about how the point is initially selected? In fact, all Rudy describes is how subject tracking works. On, like, all cameras these days: some sort of image sensor is used to analyze your initial subject in order to automatically shift the AF point to stay on it. Nothing groundbreaking here - this is simply how subject tracking works.

I have no idea why you keep quoting Rudy's description of subject tracking. Duh. That's how all subject tracking works.



neuroanatomist said:


> Rishi, still waiting for you to:
> 
> 1) acknowledge that you've read and understood the way in which Canon describes the initial automatic AF point selection in AI Servo, and
> 
> 2) provide *actual evidence* that Canon is wrong in the way they describe the function of iTR



Here you go: 

Try and focus on someone's face who's holding out a hand in front of him that isn't obscuring his face, but still falls within the AF module.

According to your theory, the camera would always first focus on the hand (because it's closest), and only _then_ the face. Not only is that stupid, it's not what happens. Furthermore if the hand were far enough in front of the face, the face might fall so far out of focus that the RGB metering sensor wouldn't be able to 'see' the face anymore after the AF system focuses on the nearest subject. So that'd be one _stupid _way to program the system.

Thankfully, Canon didn't program it as stupidly as you, and you claim Rudy, suggest (I actually don't think Rudy suggests this at all - I give him more credit than you).

Which you can verify by *just doing the experiment*.

So, the fact that the camera *doesn't first jump to the hand and then the face* proves *you're wrong*, and I'm right, to put it bluntly.

But worse, as I've said _n_ times at this point, and you've *conveniently ignored*, even if you were right, you'd still be incorrect in your assessment of our piece - which concluded that Auto Area was simply more useful on the D5 than the 1D X II. That's true regardless of intended design. Whether or not Canon was DESIGNED to only focus on what's nearest (which it's not, not the least because that'd be a stupid design when you have the information off the metering sensor), if that's what it did, while the other was more intelligent about what it chose, then that'd still be an interesting result - _period_.

Let me re-state this for the tenth time: *regardless of what Canon's actual programmed behavior is, how does any of this discussion detract from the fact that our observation was that the Canon's mode was less useful in that shooting scenario??* It doesn't. You're just trying to hide behind 'well DPR didn't even know this was the original intent, so they're stupid, so you shouldn't listen to them'.

That's really mature. And ultimately wrong anyway, because again we're the ones who actually know how it works, proven by the simple experiment I suggested, and backed up by Canon's own wording in the manual. 

In fact, ironically, it is you who are suggesting that Canon has programmed their Auto mode stupidly, and us giving it more credit. I'd ask Canon Japan what the actual design were, if only your suggested behavior weren't so stupid (when you have a metering sensor) that my asking if that's how they programmed it might risk me suggesting their engineers are idiots. 

Also, they might then just refer me to the manual, that, again for the 10th time, states 'the point is selected based off of face and subject color information'. NOWHERE does it state in that iTR discussion 'but the initial point is the one that registers the nearest point, AFTER which if a face is detected the camera suddenly switches erratically from the originally chosen nearest subject to a face'. Because, you know, that'd be a really stupid way to program your algorithm, and I actually give Canon more credit than you do, it'd seem.

Even worse, your claim that we now love shooting in Auto Area modes and that's what we care about is ludicrous - no one at DPR shoots this way, we just recognize that it can be useful, especially as a backup method you can activate instantaneously to try and salvage the shot if all else fails.

Our testing it is suddenly construed as us thinking it's all-important, and is now weighted into our scoring system heavily, as you and fellow commenters now suggest?

What on earth??



neuroanatomist said:


> Note that the following – all of which you've already tried, in some cases more than once – do _not_ constitute actual evidence:
> 
> restating your opinion
> shouting
> ...



Well, for one, I gave you a perfectly executable experiment that proves you're wrong and I'm right. Do it. I can't wait to hear what sort of justification you have next to prove we're wrong and you were right. It's already amazing you can take the very words written in the manual and twist them to suit your theory because you pull Rudy's words that essentially say the same thing, yet don't at all distinguish what's done 'initially' vs. not to suit your own theory. I believe there's a term for that...

Finally, how do you get on your high horse and accuse me of shouting, name-calling, sarcasm, etc.?

You take a look in the mirror lately? At least I don't even bother accusing you of this stuff, because I expect it from you. But then again at least I have the decency to have this open conversation with my name tied to everything, as opposed to sitting behind a fake username insulting whomever I desire, calling them trolls, biased, incompetent, and putting words in their mouths they never said in hundreds of posts in multiple threads...

-Rishi


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 28, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> ok people, step back from the keyboard, go outside, take some pictures.....
> 
> It doesn't matter which camera it is, what mode it is in, or who is using it.... If the scene has too much DR for the camera, you can't capture it all in one shot. You can expose for highlights, expose for shadows, or somewhere in the middle, but whatever you choose something is either going to be noise or washed out... You have three options: wait for technology to give you more DR, shoot HDR and hope that it works, or you can admit the limitations of today's technology and deal with it.
> 
> As to AF usage: Everyone - Admit that Canon AF and Nikon AF work differently and that a test that is good for one system may be a poor test for the other system. Rishi - take some of the suggestions here and integrate them into a proper review of the 5D IV. Everyone else - It was "FIRST IMPRESSIONS", not a comprehensive review.... wait for the proper review..... modern AF systems are complex and it is going to take a reviewer (or a camera buyer) time to get used to the system and start to get decent results. Of course Rishi is not using it perfectly; but to be fair, none of us would pick up a new body and be instant experts either. <EDIT> except Neuro.... he knows too much and types too fast to be human...there is a distinct possibility that he is a cyborg sent back from the future with a secondary mission to kill Sarah Conners and a primary mission to annoy Dilbert </EDIT>



How am I not using it perfectly? Please be specific.

Your own forum members here don't know how to set up 61pt Auto for 'auto' vs. 'manual' initial point selection, and despite us telling you how to do so in our very motocross article that neuro ridicules, said members had to hear from neuro how to do what we already told you how to do. 

But we're the ones that don't know the AF systems?

Someone else here suggested we were testing complete 'Auto' on the Canon to 3D Tracking on the Nikon - which is of course untrue. We tested '61pt auto with auto initial pt selection' against 'Auto area AF', and 'auto with manually selected initial point' vs '3D Tracking'.

So, again, our incompetence isn't the basis for our measured difference between the systems.

So, again, I ask: how did we not 'perfectly' set up the systems?

Could it be that people like neuro are just trying to pull the wool over CR readers' eyes, trying to discredit us so he doesn't have to accept that there's some aspect of his system that isn't as good as he thinks it is in his limited experience (clearly not working with multiple systems day-to-day)?

Just a thought.
-Rishi


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> I have no idea why you keep quoting Rudy's description of subject tracking.



Because he is describing how iTR works, and he specifically states that the AF system identifies the subject, then the metering system uses the selected AF point to initiate tracking. Apparently you can't grasp that explanation, so you are choosing to believe it doesn't apply. 




rishi_sanyal said:


> Finally, how do you get on your high horse and accuse me of shouting, name-calling, sarcasm, etc.?


Who called who a troll? Who stated, "Ah, so first an initial subject is chosen and focused on *and only then* is a face attempted to be detected and then WHOOPS OMG JUST KIDDING I SHOULD PROBABLY FOCUS ON THAT RIGHT?!" Oh, wait...it was the AF system you pretenting to anthropomorphize the AF system who was sarcastically shouting. 




rishi_sanyal said:


> Even worse, your claim that we now love shooting in Auto Area modes and that's what we care about...
> 
> What on earth??


What on earth, indeed. Please, Rishi...quote where I claimed anything of the sort. You can't, because I haven't.




rishi_sanyal said:


> But then again at least I have the decency to have this open conversation with my name tied to everything, as opposed to sitting behind a fake username insulting whomever I desire, calling them trolls, biased, incompetent, and putting words in their mouths they never said in hundreds of posts in multiple threads...


Yes...you have an open conversation with your name tied to it where you call me a troll and put words in my mouth that I never said. Now, that's integrity. :


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 28, 2016)

Larsskv said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > Larsskv said:
> ...



And yet, that's exactly how we use iTR when comparing to 3D Tracking. With a manually selected AF point (save for when Dan tried 'auto' in the motocross piece).

Perhaps you should try reading the text in our reviews?

Maybe then PVD wouldn't think I am 'wrong' in not clarifying ALL my points in EVERY image caption, because naturally we're not supposed to assume people read the actual text of our reviews...
[/quote]

Excuse me, but I have read over and over again, that you find that Canons iTR focusing doesn't focus where you wish it would, but some foreground element, which proves that you dont use a selected AF-point to start the iTR focusing.
[/quote]

Where have you read that? In neuro's misguided summaries of our findings?

We ALWAYS use a pre-selected AF-point to start iTR focusing, EXCEPT in that ONE motocross piece where we decided to test Auto on the Canon vs. Auto on the Nikon. Normally, we never even test Auto selection, because no pro uses it. Frankly, we tend to balk at every Sony AF example being shot in 'wide' mode - essentially auto - because, seriously, what creative photographer shoots in complete Auto mode?

Trust me, you and we are much more on a similar page than you think. The sort of times we think Auto is useful is for (1) parents not so interested in photography or its creative process; or (2) as an absolute last resort backup method when all else has failed, in which case jamming the 'auto' button is great if it at least saves your shot.

So, since your accusation of our incompetence isn't the issue here, what is?

I'm assuming you're referring to our findings that iTR tends to jump off to foreground objects *even when we use an initially specified, manual AF point to select our subject*. Well, that's an entirely different matter entirely, isn't it? Specifically, are you referring to:

Where AF Point Expand (no iTR) fails: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii/10#AFExpansionFailAdj

Where iTR fails: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-1d-x-mark-ii/10#iTRFail

If so, that's another matter entirely. It's the failure of the predictive algorithms, which suddenly see a temporarily passing subject as indication that the ORIGINAL subject has suddenly accelerated. So in the next instant of time (or for the next 6 frames), the camera front-focuses severely, because it expected your subject will have continued its progression of rapidly accelerating toward your camera. Even though it didn't (it was just a subject passing in front momentarily). That's a failure of the predictive algorithms that is, yes, made worse by 61pt auto selection because the camera then just has 60 more points that can trip up its predictive algorithm.

And since, in our hundreds of repeated tests, subject tracking isn't very reliable on Canons to begin with, we're not surprised that 61pt Auto with iTR (but with MANUAL initial point/subject selection) makes matters worse for the predictive algorithms. Which is probably why, as many even here have noted, pros just revert to single point AF because that's just more reliable.

That doesn't hold true for all other systems though, and it's when we say this that things go off the rails, with claims of incompetence, bias, purposeful misleading, or some combination thereof being the reason why you shouldn't listen to anything we say.

Up to you as to what you want to believe. All I can say is that it is our #1 priority to provide correct information to photographers, but I can see that my words hold little value to some here, whose louder voices end up swaying many other readers to erroneously think we're actually motivated by other factors.

*shrug* not much I can do about that, I see.

And before someone comes in and states 'if predictive algorithms got it wrong as often as you suggest, why would all those Rio photographers be shooting Canon?', let me just respond pre-emptively: 'you think they never have out of focus shots?' and 'you think they've compared systems like we have to make sure they're not missing out on _any _lens or _any _system that gives them a higher keeper rate?'

-Rishi


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > I have no idea why you keep quoting Rudy's description of subject tracking.
> ...



If you think I'm actually going to sit here and compile every instance of where you've suggested I'm a troll, incompetent, biased, paid off, etc., think again.

In this very thread, you've suggested that I think that you should use Auto, on a camera that at least does Auto well... and have led others to believe that we now factor Auto Area AF performance heavily into our scoring. But I'm sure you'll just shrug that off and say 'well I can't be responsible for what people read into what I write or suggest'.

Finally, this is your response to my very clear experiment that proves you're completely wrong about how auto area selection with iTR works?

So you're admitting that Canon engineers programmed their system inanely stupidly, relative to how everyone else with access to an image sensor (prior to exposure) does it?

And you still have no response to the fact that how the Canon auto area mode behaves has no bearing on our reporting on its actual behavior, and how useful it was or wasn't to our shooting scenario? Rendering *your entire criticism* not just *wrong*, but also *useless *and *irrelevant*?

All the while misleading readers as to how iTR actually works?

Interesting. But not surprising.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 28, 2016)

docsmith said:


> Wow....this is both off the rails, somewhat entertaining, and somewhat informative all at the same time.
> 
> So...I stopped reading DPR years ago. I started out there when I bought my first digital camera in 2003, but somewhere around 2007-2009 I had simply found what I considered to better review websites. I cannot say I have used DPR to select gear or recommended DPR to anyone for several years. I still check it now and again, but definitely have not relied upon it. I do not say this to be intentionally hurtful, more of a statement of fact. If anything my intention is to get Rishi to take a step back and evaluate why a reader might go elsewhere.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry we lost you as a reader.

But I do find fascinating that the one site that actually covered interesting findings like:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Dual Pixel AF is now available for the 1st time in a FF camera in Servo mode for stills
[*]Dual Pixel AF with face detection is now incredibly useful due to a simple tap of the joystick jumping between detected faces, which it'll track after you've selected
[*]Dual Pixel AF is inherently accurate because of on-sensor AF that is insensitive to optical path distance differences, and is insensitive to residual spherical aberration of lenses, no longer necessitating LUTs to deal with RSA as a function of subject distance and aperture
[*]Dual Pixel AF with 4K/30p effectively gives you a way of shooting 17:9 8.8MP JPEGs at 30 frames per second, with AF
[*]That the above is limited by rolling shutter (recent update)
[*]That Dual Pixel Raw gives you a couple of nose pores of refocusing range for a typical 85mm headshot (recent update)
[*]That if the 1D X II and 80D are indicative, we expect DR improvements that place the camera half-way to the best of the competition (not so unreasonable to extrapolate, is it, when the biggest improvement comes from going to on-sensor ADCs, with miniscule improvements from generation to generation, and considering that the last 'generation' was, like, a few months ago...)
[*]A suggested simple fix to Custom Controls that'd literally benefit most Canon shooters, and some examples of where the current system falls short - in an effort to, you know, suggest something that'd actually better the cameras to Canon
[/list]

That was all, well, 'not so useful' compared to what other sites provided?

Could you please tell us what it is that was useful that other sites provided? We're always looking to improve.

As for overall positivity, I respectfully disagree, being the person who wrote that a particular set of features on this camera 'might just change your life forever', and all the constant gushing on DPR re: the latest L-series lenses. But you're of course entitled to your own opinion. 

I'd just question the immediate opinion of readers when we receive feedback like 'where in the review did you talk about F8 focus, or the a7 cameras overheating and poor menus'? Considering these were all written directly into the concluding pages of respective reviews, if not directly in pros/cons tables, I really do have to raise an eyebrow and ask: ?

-Rishi


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 28, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, how do you get on your high horse and accuse me of shouting, name-calling, sarcasm, etc.?
> ...



Hey, I'm just regurgitating the behavior you're suggesting.

Sound ridiculous? That was the whole point. It is. Yet it's how you suggest the AF system works. 

Thankfully, Canon engineers know better than to program it as poorly as you're suggesting they did.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 28, 2016)

Cool it the pair of you. Scientists should not be having such a vituperous public brawl. Mind you, both of you write very well and have neat turns of phrase with excellent grammar. I'm afraid US politicians are not setting a good example for public debate.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> How am I not using it perfectly?


I'm sorry, but NOBODY uses a complex AF system perfectly. If we could, we would have a 100 percent keeper rate... There are too many variables to cover. Did I have the mode right? Did I select the optimum AF point? Did I select the proper case? Was tracking sensitivity set to the optimum value? Was accel/decel tracking set to the optimum value? Was AF point switching set to the optimum value? Was my holding technique perfect, did I move the camera smoothly enough.... There are five menus of settings to go through and nobody is going to get them right every time, particularly as subject behavior, lighting conditions, and our muscle control change over time. And to further confuse things, sometimes the right thing to do is to turn it off and go manual......

Perfection is something to strive for, yet never obtain. The more practice we get, the better (hopefully) we become, but to be perfect? Never going to happen! I don't care if it is Rishi, Neuro, Or the Canon AF design team..... NOBODY gets the AF right every time.


----------



## Joe M (Aug 28, 2016)

First off, I haven't been on dpr forums for quite some time. I found them to be repetitive and overbearing. In the time I haven't been there, maybe they've improved. I don't know and that's ok and for those who like them, that's ok too. While I haven't contributed to the forums here much (when I don't have anything useful to add to the conversation I keep mum), I do stop by to see "what's up". For Canon news, I stop by here. For Canon news, I stopped looking at dpr long long ago as the tone of the site changed drastically. It became a place where you could get someone's opinion, not evaluation of equipment. Yes, there is a difference. That said, for those who think dpr is great and value the previews and reviews, well good for you. I say potato and you say potahto. No harm no foul. That's just the way I see it.
Now, _that all said, I must say I don't know why anyone cares about the dpr "preview". While some may think it informative, it's obvious that many think it's worthless and in fact written with bias. I admit I haven't read it and have no intention of doing so (although I've gotten quite a bit of it through quotes from posters in this thread), as I already mentioned that I've given that site up for the reason that just this example of a review demonstrates perfectly. If someone can't cut to the chase without innuendo and shady comments then I'm not interested in listening._


----------



## bwud (Aug 28, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Even worse, your claim that we now love shooting in Auto Area modes and that's what we care about is ludicrous - no one at DPR shoots this way, we just recognize that it can be useful, especially as a backup method you can activate instantaneously to try and salvage the shot if all else fails.
> 
> Our testing it is suddenly construed as us thinking it's all-important, and is now weighted into our scoring system heavily, as you and fellow commenters now suggest?



Mr. Sanyal -

I recall reading once that dpreview intends to allow users to set custom weightings to the scoring system. Is that available now or still in work?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 28, 2016)

Rishi, here is an example of what I think has happened in the past that might get you in trouble, especially when people skim, which is inevitable when time is limited and the material is heavy.

"Your own forum *members* here don't know how to set up 61pt Auto for 'auto' vs. 'manual' initial point selection, and despite us telling you how to do so in our very motocross article that neuro ridicules, said members had to hear from neuro how to do what we already told you how to do. "

At worst this appears to include all of CR if skimming and at best it appears to ridicule a member(s) who is just being honest about something he likely doesn't consider all that important and hasn't investigated thoroughly. This example illustrates how a tone is established during interaction and it leaves you at a disadvantage (after all neuro doesn't run a website such as yours, he just contributes to CR). Those of us who don't do too well when things get heated (I'm one), are better off not engaging to the end but rather respectfully agreeing to disagree and exiting.

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > rishi_sanyal said:
> ...


you have a predictive algorithm in a camera...
You have a multitude of input settings on the camera...
you have movement (often unpredictable) of the subject....
you have (often) movement and vibration of the camera....
you may or may not have confusing items also in the frame....
you have a wide range of lighting conditions....
you have a wide selection of lenses and focal lengths....

The outcome of this system is non-deterministic. Success is measured in percentages, not absolutes. To expect perfection is to set one's self up for a continuous stream of disappointment.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 28, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Short of bugs, they're pretty damn close to perfect. With few exceptions, these things do exactly what the user tells them to. 

To your point, there are countless ways to tell it what to do, and expecting the perfectly instruct the system every time is unrealistic.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 28, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


true, and the human holding the camera makes a big difference....

For example, Rishi might hold the camera a lot steadier than I do, so the proper settings for me might be to bump up the "random motion" a notch or two.... And Neuro might be so good at panning smoothly that a particular mode works for him, but for me it is a disaster....

In the end, it becomes "what works for you"


----------



## romanr74 (Aug 28, 2016)

wow, are the baby girls finally done?


----------



## GuyF (Aug 28, 2016)

unfocused said:


> Thank you. I knew there was something I wasn't doing correctly.



Now you'll have to change your name to "focused"! ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > rishi_sanyal said:
> ...



No, Rishi... In this very thread, I have not suggested that, nor even mentioned DPR's scoring, much less criticized it. As I implied above ('conflation of my comments with those of other members), you seem to be confusing *Larsskv*'s comments with mine. So, whether I am responsible for what others read into comments is irrelevant in this case, because I made no such remarks. However, everyone _is_ responsible for _their own_ words as written, and your words are a flat out lie. You'll probably just shrug that off and say 'well I can't be responsible for checking my facts before I write something'...but you are, particularly after insisting that providing accurate information is what gets you out of bed in the morning. 




rishi_sanyal said:


> Finally, this is your response to my very clear experiment that proves you're completely wrong about how auto area selection with iTR works?



So you ignore my pointed question for quite some time, then you demand that I respond to you immediately, before I have a chance to test out your 'very clear experiment'? Who's on their high horse, now? : 

It's a good suggestion, and I'll get around to trying it when time permits. 




rishi_sanyal said:


> And you still have no response to the fact that how the Canon auto area mode behaves has no bearing on our reporting on its actual behavior, and how useful it was or wasn't to our shooting scenario? Rendering *your entire criticism* not just *wrong*, but also *useless *and *irrelevant*?
> 
> All the while misleading readers as to how iTR actually works?



As I said, your experiment is a good suggestion, but suggestions aren't data. The bearing that how the mode behaves has is, if it's behaving as designed but not as you expect, you don't blame the camera – the problem is your expectations. Obviously, you can – and should – express a desire that it should be better than it is. But a camera performing as the manufacturer says it will is, by definition, not 'confused'.


In any case, this is all essentially moot. Your bias is evident in the tone of DPR's reviews, which changed noticeably after you joined. Your lack of integrity is evident in your blatant misattribution of statements to me. In my career, I have on occasion been required to deal with biased, dishonest individuals...on my own time, I am not. I hope you take to heart some of the suggestions offered by others here, for the benefit of what could become an unbiased resource for photographers.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



Which of course was his point.


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> In any case, this is all essentially moot. Your bias is evident in the tone of DPR's reviews, which changed noticeably after you joined. Your lack of integrity is evident in your blatant misattribution of statements to me. In my career, I have on occasion been required to deal with biased, dishonest individuals...on my own time, I am not. I hope you take to heart some of the suggestions offered by others here, for the benefit of what could become an unbiased resource for photographers.


I still don't understand why DPR produced test cases (5DSR review and 7D2 review) to prove that low ISO DR is a problem for lot of users not just landscape users. Then in D5 review, they declared same level of low ISO DR is not a problem for any kid of users except hardcore landscape users. Then they feel offended when someone says they are biased. Is it wrong thing to say, DPR is biased.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 29, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > In any case, this is all essentially moot. Your bias is evident in the tone of DPR's reviews, which changed noticeably after you joined. Your lack of integrity is evident in your blatant misattribution of statements to me. In my career, I have on occasion been required to deal with biased, dishonest individuals...on my own time, I am not. I hope you take to heart some of the suggestions offered by others here, for the benefit of what could become an unbiased resource for photographers.
> ...



Yes DPR is biased and unless we stand up and illustrate that fact whatever they say will be taken at face value.

The 5DSR practical DR example is so dishonest it is beyond words and despite many polite requests, and many not so polite ones, Rishi has refused to show us the RAW file.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5ds-sr/12

This image is extremely dishonest.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 29, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > In any case, this is all essentially moot. Your bias is evident in the tone of DPR's reviews, which changed noticeably after you joined. Your lack of integrity is evident in your blatant misattribution of statements to me. In my career, I have on occasion been required to deal with biased, dishonest individuals...on my own time, I am not. I hope you take to heart some of the suggestions offered by others here, for the benefit of what could become an unbiased resource for photographers.
> ...



We're all biased ... well except perhaps Rishi. Just joking - even cloth has a bias.  If you claim to be neutral then bias is a dirty word.

It might be better if a reviewer were to say we're biased but we try to be as objective as we can. 

I honestly believe Rishi is trying his best but is frustrated by the fact that there are nuances in the way he presents his opinions and observations that people pick up on and object to and he gets in trouble trying to defend them (his major point might be correct, but the interaction exposes shortcomings). 

It's not unlike the situation of the clerk who has to say the customer is right in order to keep customers returning and buying. I'm not one to judge if he has been right or wrong what percentage of the time when accused but he does himself no favor by engaging the heavyweights. I think the time has come to cut him a little more slack, though.

Can you imagine how tough it is to do his job perfectly well?  I surely couldn't do it.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 29, 2016)

It's like this: If I stand up and say I'm perfect I'll get stoned. If I stand up and say I'm imperfect but try my best, I'll get praised. Isn't that an amazing concept! Humans are generally pretty compassionate, even those within CR.

I joined the party late so have been unaware of some of the previous bias issues. Sounds to me like Rishi dug himself into a hole by the flavor of some of the posts.

All I can say is that since joining CR I have been encouraged and helped by all the longstanding members including neuro. Sometimes threads go negative but that's usually provoked by idiotic statements. CR is not the best place to make idiotic (or overly emphatic incorrect) statements.  

Jack


----------



## Ph0t0 (Aug 29, 2016)

Mr Rishi Sanyal, 
I don't know if you saw my last post. It probably got lost among other posts in this heated debate.
Anyway.. I do a lot of night photography and I'm really interested how this camera performs at moderately higher ISO settings. Do you care to make any comments about your first impressions? How do you feel it compares to the old 1DX and 6D in terms of image noise when shooting on ISO1600 to ISO6400?

Thanks


----------



## JohanCruyff (Aug 29, 2016)

After all, this is an interesting thread.
I have benefited from Neuro's expertise and suggestions in this forum so many times that I consider very unlikely that he could/might be wrong. But he could, after all (I'm atheist but I believe in Karl Popper's epistemology). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

The main question (usability of the AF of the 5D4/1DX2) should be tackled in a on field real test: the official DPR expert "against" a non-DPR Canon expert (Neuro himself?): they should use a 1DX2 (or a 5D4) with the same lens, shooting at the same set of subjects (kids, animals, butterflies afflicted by hiccup etc.), using the most appropriate focusing method, and then check their keeper rates.
Then, they should repeat the same test using a Nikon D5/D810 (after having trained the Canon expert on how to make the most of it), on the same subjects.
Otherwise, I suspect we will read other countless replies.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> CR is not the best place to make idiotic (or overly emphatic incorrect) statements.



Is ther a good place for that? Besides the political stump, I mean...


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
> _Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways including "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity,"[1][2] or "Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding."_



Thanks for your explanation of why we should not think your comments are malicious.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 29, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



In that particular photo, which is very nice, the photographer had compete control over the background light levels and the subject's light levels. It's clear that a key light was used on the subject, the sun has set behind the model...and yet there is a glint in her eye in the opposite direction and the shadow direction is quite harsh and contrasty...so we are probably looking at a gelled flashgun. So...the reason for the noise in the shadow areas...is the photographer's fault for not balancing the exposure difference between the background and the subject correctly...it's not like he didn't have control over it at all? The background is clearly underexposed, if the background needed pulling, then this is the photographer's fault and not the camera. Blaming the camera's dynamic range for a photographer's error or hastiness. Expecting to pull the shadows to hide his mistake. So while it would help in this case, 5 stops shadow pushing...does anyone really want to see the equivalent of 3200 iso noise in their shadows anyhow?


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 29, 2016)

JohanCruyff said:


> After all, this is an interesting thread.
> I have benefited from Neuro's expertise and suggestions in this forum so many times that I consider very unlikely that he could/might be wrong. But he could, after all (I'm atheist but I believe in Karl Popper's epistemology). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
> 
> The main question (usability of the AF of the 5D4/1DX2) should be tackled in a on field real test: the official DPR expert "against" a non-DPR Canon expert (Neuro himself?): they should use a 1DX2 (or a 5D4) with the same lens, shooting at the same set of subjects (kids, animals, butterflies afflicted by hiccup etc.), using the most appropriate focusing method, and then check their keeper rates.
> ...



Michel used to do these kind of tests. Not sure if he is going to do 1dx2 vs D5 shootout. DPR did similar kind of praise regarding d7100 focusing system. Then they expressed some reservations regarding 70d focusing system. When Michael did shootout between d7100 vs 70d, results are difference. 70d produced more keeper rates compared to d7100 in most situations. That is when I started suspecting DPR focusing tests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOM4r1gxsbs


----------



## tron (Aug 29, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


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


How about taking the conversation to - true - almost s_ i _y dpreview forum? That would be interesting although I have not been interested in opeing an account there due to many idiotic (up to malicious) comments.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



So you have ruled out "malicious", leaving stupidity?


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 29, 2016)

tron said:


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



It would be an exercise in futility 

The 5Ds example is a little like the backlit wedding sample taken on the 5DIII in th 5DIV first impressions review: "it's what the camera set and I can't satisfactorily make it right in post". Ero the camera is inferior to one which can screw up the exposure and fix it in post. For some that might be the correct conclusion, but there is never any mention of the scenario where you, the photographer set the exposure input ( including EC) to optimise the exposure for that shot, and what the difference between makes would be then. But of course that's no fun because the answer would then be "naff all".


----------



## tron (Aug 29, 2016)

The way they try to promote Nikon in that specific case tempts me to name it:

"The stupid yet lucky photographer's camera" ;D


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



Come on dilbert, take it on the chin. AlanF's post was quote of the month


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2016)

JohanCruyff said:


> I have benefited from Neuro's expertise and suggestions in this forum so many times that I consider very unlikely that he could/might be wrong. But he could, after all



Thanks, glad to help!

As for being wrong, I can be, have been, and will be again, and I appreciate the benefits of learning from my mistakes.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


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



I disagree; bias isn't necessarily intentional, nor is it necessarily a sign of stupidity. 

Ask an internal medicine doc what to do and he'll prescribe medicine. Ask a surgeon what to do and he'll suggest surgery. Neither doctors are stupid, neither is chasing a higher profit margin, but both are biased by what they know and what they do.


----------



## CanadianInvestor (Aug 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> JohanCruyff said:
> 
> 
> > I have benefited from Neuro's expertise and suggestions in this forum so many times that I consider very unlikely that he could/might be wrong. But he could, after all
> ...




Larry Ellison has stated, 'I used to think. Now I just read The Economist'. In my case, I used to study optics and things photography. Now I just look up what neuro says and I'm sorted. In this tread, I've learnt a lot ... at least the bits I understood. The rest, I'll defer to our friend, neuro, who has been known to admit his errors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 29, 2016)

JohanCruyff said:


> The main question (usability of the AF of the 5D4/1DX2) should be tackled in a on field real test: the official DPR expert "against" a non-DPR Canon expert (Neuro himself?): they should use a 1DX2 (or a 5D4) with the same lens, shooting at the same set of subjects (kids, animals, butterflies afflicted by hiccup etc.), using the most appropriate focusing method, and then check their keeper rates.
> Then, they should repeat the same test using a Nikon D5/D810 (after having trained the Canon expert on how to make the most of it), on the same subjects.



A friend and I did something similar a while back, perhaps better in that no one had to be trained, but worse in that we didn't shoot hiccuping butterflies. We were at a local birding spot, him using a D810 and Nikon 500/4 VR and me with the 1D X and 600/4 IS, both on gimbals side by side. Both of us had substantial experience with our gear, learning to get the best from it. We compared results, and found that while both cameras had a very high keeper rate in terms of in-focus images, the 1D X did slightly better. With the much higher frame rate and deeper buffer, I had a noticeably higher compositional keeper rate (mainly based on wing position, where higher fps gives more choices). 

The key takeaway from our impromptu comparison was that both systems delivered some really excellent images.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 29, 2016)

AlanF said:


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



My laugh for today.

Jack


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> JohanCruyff said:
> 
> 
> > The main question (usability of the AF of the 5D4/1DX2) should be tackled in a on field real test: the official DPR expert "against" a non-DPR Canon expert (Neuro himself?): they should use a 1DX2 (or a 5D4) with the same lens, shooting at the same set of subjects (kids, animals, butterflies afflicted by hiccup etc.), using the most appropriate focusing method, and then check their keeper rates.
> ...



Yes, so often we forget that we are comparing very good against very good, where the overall differences are small and in the end, both systems work well..... where we compare camera bodies, yet the choice of lens may have more impact.....


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 30, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A friend and I did something similar a while back, perhaps better in that no one had to be trained, but worse in that we didn't shoot hiccuping butterflies. We were at a local birding spot, him using a D810 and Nikon 500/4 VR and me with the 1D X and 600/4 IS, both on gimbals side by side. Both of us had substantial experience with our gear, learning to get the best from it. We compared results, and found that while both cameras had a very high keeper rate in terms of in-focus images, the 1D X did slightly better. With the much higher frame rate and deeper buffer, I had a noticeably higher compositional keeper rate (mainly based on wing position, where higher fps gives more choices).
> ...



What I'd like to see are tests where there is less subject separation and more confusing foreground/background elements than in birding, as it seems to be specifically those sorts of situations the DPR claims Canon's tracking has trouble. Also, using the full area mode in such confusing situations.

At least with my lowly 80D - and I fully admit I'm a newbie at using complex AF systems - with full 45pt mode the AF just often gets distracted and locks on contrasty background elements when it loses the actual subject for a moment. OTOH with enough subject separation it seems to work pretty well. The Live View Face&Tracking is definitely superior, though, as seems to be the case with the 5D4 as well.


----------



## Macoose (Aug 30, 2016)

Two things I took away from the Mr Neuro/Rishi discussion:

1. Mr Neuro got Rishi to read part of a Canon manual. Something the young man may have not done before.
It may have been a little heated at times, but some people don't like being forced out of their comfort zone.

2. A good discussion on iTR and how it works. This was something I needed and am better for it.



Thanks!


----------



## docsmith (Aug 30, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> I'm sorry we lost you as a reader.
> 
> But I do find fascinating that the one site that actually covered interesting findings like:
> 
> ...



Finally have a bit of time to respond....never said the review wasn't useful. Of course there is something of benefit. I know it would be easier to argue is I said something so drastic, but, didn't. 

My point was and is that I considered what was written unduly negative. People can throw bias around, I did. And that may be correct. And yes, you like DPAF. I'll even acknowledge that you doubled down and stated that you "love" DPAF (6 of your 8 points above were about DPAF). But in reading this thread, I wonder if the issue is perspective. 

Your perspective is that of a reviewer who handles a lot of different gear from different brands. Perhaps you think your job is to compare those different brands. If this assumption of mine is true, then this is where I think this is, at least partially, if not mostly, the issue.

See, my perspective is from not only someone who likes gear, but as someone who has invested into Canon. It would take something monumental to make me change brands. There was a point, when I bought my 5DIII, when I considered the Nikon D800. But I went 5DIII and now have >$15,000 invested. 

So, while it would take something monumental to get me to switch brands, I absolutely plan to someday upgrade from the 5DIII to another Canon camera. Thus, from my perspective, what has improved from the 5DIII to the 5DIV is relevant. Or comparing the 5DIV to the 5DsR/1DxII. And you did some of that. But not much. Statements about expectations that the sensor is improved but still not as good as Sony, or about a Canon menu system that I am going to use no matter what camera I have is at best irrelevant but if done repetitiously, a massive turn off.

So, from the perspective of someone handling many different brands, perhaps distinguishing between the brands is relevant. But I wonder how many readers share that perspective? At best, I would think only those about to buy into a system. But for those of us already in the system, it really isn't. 

I do watch and read a good number of reviews, and there are some reviewers that seem to think that you can Frankenstein a camera together. Take what you like from each brand. But, of course, at a minimum because of patents, you can't. Apparently, as is evidenced above, you would take Canon's DPAF. Great. But I have to buy an entire camera as I've yet to see a camera with the best features of each brand for sale.


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 30, 2016)

docsmith said:


> So, from the perspective of someone handling many different brands, perhaps distinguishing between the brands is relevant. But I wonder how many readers share that perspective? At best, I would think only those about to buy into a system. But for those of us already in the system, it really isn't.
> 
> I do watch and read a good number of reviews, and there are some reviewers that seem to think that you can Frankenstein a camera together. Take what you like from each brand. But, of course, at a minimum because of patents, you can't. Apparently, as is evidenced above, you would take Canon's DPAF. Great. But I have to buy an entire camera as I've yet to see a camera with the best features of each brand for sale.



A friend over the weekend asked if Sony cameras were hype or not... I said I didn't know... and I don't care... because I'm so deeply dug in with Canon, that it isn't even worth my time to consider a switch... so I don't.


----------



## tr573 (Aug 30, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Dual Pixel AF with face detection is now incredibly useful due to a simple tap of the joystick jumping between detected faces, which it'll track after you've selected



Not sure if this was overlooked , but this isn't a new feature Rishi. The 7D2 and 5DS (not dual pixel that one of course) will both cycle through faces with a tap of the joystick in face detect mode.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


been there, done that..... The AF system said BIRD!!!! no, FENCE!!!! no, BIRD!!!! no, FENCE!!!! and kept jumping back and forth...... so rather than spend a week re-reading the AF manual, I put it into manual...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 30, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Sharlin said:
> ...


the RTFM approach - Resorting To Focusing Manually ;D


----------



## Viggo (Aug 30, 2016)

I just thought about that yesterday, it should be a way to limit focusing range in a more specific way than just the limiter on some lenses. That way you could focus on the fence and set "mfd" a meter in front or something.

I used the limiter last night when standing behind the net of a soccer goal, it worked , so more freedom and options to tune that distance would be great.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Well, that too I guess but I was thinking more about action/sports situations where you want to track a single person among many. My personal interest is in swing dancing where I'd like to track one of the partners when they're continuously moving past one another.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Aug 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> JohanCruyff said:
> 
> 
> > The main question (usability of the AF of the 5D4/1DX2) should be tackled in a on field real test: the official DPR expert "against" a non-DPR Canon expert (Neuro himself?): they should use a 1DX2 (or a 5D4) with the same lens, shooting at the same set of subjects (kids, animals, butterflies afflicted by hiccup etc.), using the most appropriate focusing method, and then check their keeper rates.
> ...


You forgot to mention one important detail, so I *fixed* it for you. 8) 

Seriously speaking: nice test, and thanks for sharing!


----------



## Orangutan (Aug 30, 2016)

JohanCruyff said:


> The main question (usability of the AF of the 5D4/1DX2) should be tackled in a on field real test... they should use a 1DX2 (or a 5D4) with the same lens, shooting at the same set of subjects (kids, animals, butterflies afflicted by hiccup etc.), using the most appropriate focusing method, and then check their keeper rates.
> Then, they should repeat the same test using a Nikon D5/D810 (after having trained the Canon expert on how to make the most of it), on the same subjects.



Just assign two DPR staff to the test, one a Canon expert and one a Nikon expert. Make sure they have a week to learn their cameras. Have them shoot head-to-head, then switch cameras and do it again. Offer a $1,000 bonus to the one with the higher keeper rate over both shoots (winner-take-all, no split). This will motivate each photographer to learn how to squeeze the most out of each camera, not to complain that it doesn't work exactly like the other one. Not only will they RTFM very carefully, but will practice until they really UTFC.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 30, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



haha


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 30, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> JohanCruyff said:
> 
> 
> > The main question (usability of the AF of the 5D4/1DX2) should be tackled in a on field real test... they should use a 1DX2 (or a 5D4) with the same lens, shooting at the same set of subjects (kids, animals, butterflies afflicted by hiccup etc.), using the most appropriate focusing method, and then check their keeper rates.
> ...



And if you did that every two weeks for a couple of years, you might start to see some data emerge.


----------



## Deleted member 378221 (Aug 30, 2016)

Yeah, I don't think there's really a subjective test for AF performance. I mean even if you put up two shooters with the *same* camera one could come back saying it is awesome and the other finding it sucks, only depending on expertise. Now add on top different familiarity with the two systems and that sometimes it's just not your day.

I think both systems are more than good enough for what they are used, especially in the hands of someone having used the system for years. And while I find such comparisons interesting in general, I doubt that at the professional level anyone would sell all their lenses to switch between Nikon and Canon.

I know there are always a few people contemplating or even actually doing this move, but for me unless a new flagship Canon camera really, really tanks and there is no alternative using the last generation, nothing will get me to sell my lens connection and switch to another manufacturer. Like someone here said before, grass is not always greener on the other side, it's just a different shade.


----------



## Dan Renţea (Aug 30, 2016)

This wasn't supposed to be a topic about 5D Mark IV? All I read about in the last 14-15 pages is about some guy from DPReview trying to explain how the focusing system from 1 Dx Mark II works. And by the way, playing for a couple of days with cameras and then writing a few words and publish some photos taken with those cameras...call it anything you like, but not a proper/real review. I mean, who's buying cameras/lenses based on DPReview reviews? I know I don't. much prefer to read reviews on forums and then go and rent cameras in order to do my own testing, rather than relying on some bad jokes, pompously called by today standards reviews.

That being said, I hardly wait to put my hands on 5D Mark IV. For the moment I'm still happy with my 6D, so I have enough time to play with 5D Mark IV before I make the financial effort to buy it.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 30, 2016)

Orangutan, as they say, "where there's a will there's a way. In that sense I think DPR has fallen short.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 30, 2016)

" bad jokes, pompously called by today standards reviews", that's a cute way of putting it. ;D

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 30, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Often the focus limit range switch will stop that behaviour, obviously depending on the situation.


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 30, 2016)

Canon Rudy is everywhere on net explaining 5d4 duel pixel raw.Looks like he knows how Canon iTR focusing suppose to work. Not sure why DPR ignores his suggestions and material.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 30, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Canon Rudy is everywhere on net explaining 5d4 duel pixel raw.Looks like he knows how Canon iTR focusing suppose to work. Not sure why DPR ignores his suggestions and material.



I think what comes into play when heels get dug in, is ego. Some folk are less receptive than others, which seems strange considering that we can always learn something new if we're willing to be receptive, but that's human nature. I know from personal experience! 
Wonder if Rudy would ever consider directly addressing any of DPR's criticisms?

Jack


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 30, 2016)

AF tracking is has so many variables. How is your subject moving and how fast? What sort of lighting conditions? How much do they change and how drastically while shooting? What lens are you using? Some can lock focus far faster than others.

I was watching something a few days ago where the AF was getting tested with the 85L 1.2, a notoriously SLOW (by comparison) lens to AF lock. Probably not the best lens to try and test a camera's AF potential with.

I tend to take AF opinions with a grain of salt without knowing what the variables were, and trust me I've shot in some absolutely insane focusing conditions with great results from a 1DX and 1DX2 but I was using a 70-200 IS II and a 200-400 F4 L. Those things are lightning fast. Had I been using an older lens or that 85L, my results would not have been as good.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 30, 2016)

DPR has just looked at the focus tweaking. It was a very preliminary analysis yet the wrote a damning conclusion. I must admit that they do seem to be up themselves. It's the pompous, carping tone that grates.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 30, 2016)

Why harp at poor Rishi when there is stuff like this out there. This guy is hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_FtiZB9DYQ

Jack


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 30, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Why harp at poor Rishi when there is stuff like this out there. This guy is hilarious.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_FtiZB9DYQ
> 
> Jack



OK, seriously, we've had our differences but drawing a comparison against that guy is just, plain unnecessary.


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 30, 2016)

AlanF said:


> DPR has just looked at the focus tweaking. It was a very preliminary analysis yet the wrote a damning conclusion. I must admit that they do seem to be up themselves. It's the pompous, carping tone that grates.


Looks like Canon already documented limited use of this functionality. Still DPR is trying to sound it like Canon failed solution to MFA. At least that is how readers are interpreting based on the way it is presented. Canon should have named it to software Image Nano adjust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcQ9MSRRvn4


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 30, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Why harp at poor Rishi when there is stuff like this out there. This guy is hilarious.
> ...



I agree. Still he gets views and I guess that pays his bills. 

Jack


----------



## Deleted member 378221 (Aug 30, 2016)

The effect supposedly gets better with longer focal length, distance to subject and aperture, and they tested with an 35mm/1.4 at only 87.5cm distance, and an 85/1.8 at who-knows-how-up-close since the subjects head pretty much fills the frame. Hardly realistic shooting scenarios for me. I'd assume I'll get more out of it with my 85mm and 135mm at real working distances. I'm not expecting miracles, but testing two focal lengths at rather close distances and talking about the technology like "miss, try again in future" is hardly worthy of an article. It's a disgrace for dpreview to draw conclusions from these two samples and present them as facts.

This is a half-assed Test at best, made worse by throwing in the microfocus adjustment tidbits as filler, which have absolutely nothing to do with the DPRAW adjustments.

Also


> Overall, traditional 'AF (lens) microadjustment' is a much more powerful tool for achieving pinpoint sharpness and ensuring any particular lens is properly calibrated to your body.


 is _completely_ missing the point of the tech. I can AFMA all day, if my subject and/or I move during shooting I will still get slightly out of focus pictures, which I then may or may not be able to correct. Noone in their right mind would use DPRAW to adjust focus on all their images because they were to lazy to AFMA. Are they for real?

Again, I'm not saying the functionality is the best thing since sliced bread and will solve all focus problems in post, in fact I don't know if my RAW converter of choice (C1) will ever support it and I don't care. But I can see the flaws in this "test" from miles away.
How come they haphazardly get to play with a 5D Mark IV while I'm eagerly awaiting shipments and could actually put it to some good use?


----------



## benperrin (Aug 31, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Why harp at poor Rishi when there is stuff like this out there. This guy is hilarious.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_FtiZB9DYQ
> 
> Jack



When I first started I used to be a sheep and would believe all the bs that reviewers like this would spew forth. I've found though that it's best to use the gear yourself and find out what you need in a camera. I don't need a high fps camera for 99% of my shooting so someone claiming that a camera is a turd because it doesn't have cfast doesn't translate for me. I love landscape photos and so the dr issues should be a bigger deal to me but they aren't. People turn the most minuscule issues into deal breakers. Even if a certain technology has never been available in the past people act like great photos can't be taken without said technology.

This will be a great camera. I'll probably buy one when the price goes down a bit.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 31, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Canon Rudy is everywhere on net explaining 5d4 duel pixel raw.Looks like he knows how Canon iTR focusing suppose to work. Not sure why DPR ignores his suggestions and material.



We're not ignoring Rudy's material. We've enjoyed and learned from his technical documents and expertise many times over the years.

The point I've tried to make in numerous posts at this point is that Rudy's description of iTR does not disagree with ours. Neuro is trying to over-interpret Rudy's words to fit his preconceived notion of how auto selection with iTR works. I'm saying that if you simply do the experiment - focus on a face with some other object in the foreground - it's quite clear that Auto _does_ use the metering sensor for initial point selection using scene/subject analysis.

Nothing Canon's manual, nor Rudy Winston, says contradicts that. 

Furthermore, how iTR works is irrelevant to this entire discussion about our motocross piece - whose simple crime (apparently) was to point out, amongst many other points, that Auto area appeared to struggle on the 1D X II in that situation, which we actually spun around positively by framing it as 'but switching to manual point selection for Auto area mode instantly helped'. It was an opportunity to educate our readers re: how to get the best result out of that system. Just as it was an opportunity to educate our readers that, for whatever reason, Auto area selection appeared to be more successful at picking a subject of interest on the D5, in that situation. After all, the piece was a shootout of the D5 vs the 1D X II. 

Yet we're blamed and discredited for comparing the two?

We pointed out our findings, and yet here at CanonRumors in the comments about the article, one might conclude our entire piece was only about Auto area AF - a mode we rarely use as anything but a fall-back when all else fails in the heat of the action. 

We're not the ones that made a big deal about Auto area AF performance between the cameras - in fact, _it's not even mentioned in the conclusion of that article_.

Fair criticism is fair criticism - in fact, I took suggestions from some CR members on board in the 1D X II vs. D5 slideshow, whilst also pointing out the unfair criticism, if you remember, here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30411.msg611230#msg611230

But unfair and unjust criticism, the kind this particular thread is rife with, needs to be called out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2016)

Loibisch said:


> The effect supposedly gets better with longer focal length, distance to subject and aperture, and they tested with an 35mm/1.4 at only 87.5cm distance, and an 85/1.8 at who-knows-how-up-close since the subjects head pretty much fills the frame. Hardly realistic shooting scenarios for me.
> 
> This is a half-assed Test at best, made worse by throwing in the microfocus adjustment tidbits as filler, which have absolutely nothing to do with the DPRAW adjustments.



Basically, the impact of image microadjustment varies inversely with DoF, so wider apertures and higher magnification (longer FL and/or closer subject) will increase the amount of adjustment possible. At its best, it's still not going to be a significant change. 

When the 5DIV press release was leaked a few hours prior to the official announcement, CR published it as usual – without the footnotes. Someone asked what the *** footnote for DP-RAW stated, and I summarized the actual footnote (which I had read from the source of the leak) as follows:



neuroanatomist said:


> ***Dual Pixel RAW may not be all it's cracked up to be. Caveat. Another caveat. Maybe one more caveat for good measure.



I suspect some assumed I was being facetious, but I wasn't. For reference, here are the three caveats:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Sufficient adjustment volume and compensation effect may not be achieved, depending on lens in use and shooting conditions.
[*]Adjustment volume and compensation effect vary depending on camera position (landscape or portrait).
[*]Sufficient adjustment volume and compensation effect may not be achieved depending on the shooting conditions.
[/list]

Since DPReview published the press release, I assume they bothered to read it (but maybe I have fallen victim of the classic ASSumption trap). How anyone could read that and come away with the idea that anything greater than minuscule effects in select situations was possible is beyond me, unless their reading comprehension skills were less than even rudimentary. But even if they missed that, Rudy Winston (Canon tech rep / mouthpiece) published an article on Canon DLC _five days ago_ making the limitations abundantly clear, using words like 'tiny', 'subtle' and 'just a tad'. Anyone with the tiniest, most subtle, or even just a tad of journalistic skill and integrity would have found and read that article prior to reviewing the feature. 

But instead, DPR posts a rush-job 'test' of the feature – can it be used for major or even minor focus shifts? "No," they conclude...which is exactly what Canon already told us. They suggest that higher levels of sharpening could enhance the microadjust effect, but don't bother mentioning that the microadjustment itself increases image noise,which would be further accentuated by increased sharpening (Rishi, you really should incorporate that bit into the article, since you always take such pains to highlight how noisy Canon's sensors are, it seems you missed a bet to have another go at that old saw, by highlighting how this 'could-have-been-great' feature is not only barely effective, but makes Canon's horrible noise problems even worse if you try to use it).




Loibisch said:


> > Overall, traditional 'AF (lens) microadjustment' is a much more powerful tool for achieving pinpoint sharpness and ensuring any particular lens is properly calibrated to your body.
> 
> 
> is _completely_ missing the point of the tech. I can AFMA all day, if my subject and/or I move during shooting I will still get slightly out of focus pictures, which I then may or may not be able to correct. Noone in their right mind would use DPRAW to adjust focus on all their images because they were to lazy to AFMA. Are they for real?



DPR missing the point? Wow, there's a shocker. :


----------



## CaptureWhatYouSee (Aug 31, 2016)

Perhaps DPRAW isn't so useless:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30663.msg619428;topicseen#new


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 31, 2016)

CaptureWhatYouSee said:


> Perhaps DPRAW isn't so useless:
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30663.msg619428;topicseen#new



I'm not up to fully understanding what was happening other than it seems that the combined files preserve highlights that were otherwise lost. Can someone add their take on this.

Jack


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 31, 2016)

benperrin said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > Why harp at poor Rishi when there is stuff like this out there. This guy is hilarious.
> ...



Re: the 'bs that reviewers like this spew forth' and turning 'the most miniscule issues into deal breakers', allow me to quote the conclusion of the motocross piece being referred to throughout this thread as evidence of our incompetence, bias, overexertion on features, etc.:

"Obviously, both the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II and Nikon D5 are in a league of their own when it comes to professional sports cameras...

In the end, we saw firsthand the advantages of a ridiculous burst rate and practically bottomless buffer while shooting objects that move very, very fast. We saw that the *1D X Mark II shoots at a noticeably higher burst rate than the D5*, and that it is *able to track subjects noticeably better than other Canon cameras*, including the EOS 7D Mark II and original 1D X. However, the Canon still can't match the Nikon's uncanny ability to track objects reliably and accurately as they progress across the frame while also coming toward or moving away from the camera. Regardless, *both are impressively capable photographic machines worthy of professional sports photographers*."

This is what we actually write (is it unreasonable?). Then we get labeled as being biased/incompetent by people who dislike one aspect of the entire piece where their camera didn't win. Then that's the conversation spread on these forums, which then turns CR readers off from potentially useful info they could've benefitted from. Like unfocused, who wrote: "I am not thrilled with any of the Canon autofocus tracking for sports photography. I'd love to be able to focus on a single player and then have the autofocus continue to track that player as they move through the scene. Maybe there is a way to do that, but I sure can't find it in any of their manuals or online resources." He would've benefited from reading our piece, but was probably told not to, because DPR is a joke, after all, right? Another with the same sort of feeling despite knowing of the manual point selection for Auto area AF might, on the other hand, benefit from knowing that there are cameras that are more reliable in this regard (1D X II over 5D IV, for example, or, yes heaven forbid, D5 over 1D X II). 

Yet readers are turned off from this very information because of erroneous claims of bias and incompetence. And that is sad. I know of people who, for example, really did care about DR, yet never knew about the superiority of some cameras in this regard, because was fed erroneous information right here on CR that (1) it doesn't matter, (2) DXO is paid off, and (3) that DPP solves all your DR problems. So he was led to believe there _actually weren't any differences_, which is patently false. That's the kind of misinformation that was spread for years (probably still is), and it's particularly worrying when it comes from someone that otherwise appears knowledgeable and perfectly capable of logical reasoning. Because that sort of person earns trust, and yet then must be _willfully_ misleading people by disallowing any negative conversations about his favorite brand by balking at, and continually trying to discredit, any source of any negative discourse. I saw the crusades against jrista, with dilbert, etc. - all of whom are, I'm sure, trolls in everyone's book here, right? Is that the truth though? It's a similar story now for AF subject tracking.

What ends up happening is that posts and experiences like Sharlin, who said: "At least with my lowly 80D - and I fully admit I'm a newbie at using complex AF systems - with full 45pt mode the AF just often gets distracted and locks on contrasty background elements when it loses the actual subject for a moment. OTOH with enough subject separation it seems to work pretty well. The Live View Face&Tracking is definitely superior, though, as seems to be the case with the 5D4 as well."

... get buried amidst all the erroneous claims of bias and incompetence. He sees _exactly _the behavior that we refer to and have been digging into the causes (relying too heavily on phase information vs. metering sensor for subject tracking, and the ramifications on which shooting scenarios this works vs. doesn't work well for). He sees this either because his shooting scenarios highlight these shortcomings, or because he doesn't have blind bias, or some combination thereof. But all he hears here is how he shouldn't listen to us (whether it's us telling readers how to more effectively use their system, or comparing it to other cameras/systems), and that's a missed opportunity for education. 

And if you were to just step back and ask: 'who is more likely to be biased: the user of only 1 system, or the multiple users of multiple systems who are required to fundamentally understand principles of AF and then use _all_ camera systems'? As I've said before - we're certainly biased, but toward photography-accelerating technologies, not brands. It's our job to dissect which technologies are better at what use-cases/scenarios, so you can judge how suitable a particular camera/lens/system is to you for your needs. At some point we have to offer our opinions, sure, and we do when it comes to how good/bad performance along any one axis applies to certain use-cases. But we're transparent about why we think so, so you can decide whether to listen to or ignore our findings.

But what perplexes me is the anger with which data/opinion we present is vehemently attacked and ascribed to all sorts of malicious intent and incompetence in an effort to discredit. When further 'discussion' uncovers we actually knew what we were talking about all along, the other side can't publicly admit that, because then they'd look stupid, so they double down. And that's the vicious cycle (I, on the other hand, have very publicly admitted when there was an oversight: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30411.msg611230#msg611230. And, of course when there wasn't). 

On Pentax Forums I'm an anti-Pentax Canon fanboy, after the Pentax K-1 review. On Sony forums after the a7 II review, I was labeled a 'hack' scientist for daring to suggest the a7/II's low light Raw noise performance fell to the level of the best APS-C sensors, despite all our controlled lighting/SNR tests proving it. And after the Nikon VR analysis, I was labeled an anti-Nikon Canon fanboy for daring to suggest there were vibration issues with Nikon because, if there were, how could knowledge of it not be more widespread (nevermind a lot of people felt safe 'coming out of the woods' and admitting they'd seen the same issues after we published the article - a reminder that tones of discussions in forums can be stifling to knowledge). 

What neuro attributes to anti-Canon bias when I joined is actually us just revamping and modernizing our testing. We didn't actually analyze Raw files before (but when we did, it brought to light just as many issues with Sony files as it did Canon). AF analysis was often restricted to one paragraph; now, we study multiple aspects of it across multiple systems every day - because it is probably the most complex thing about a camera you can test (so I fully appreciate the concerns re: 'how can you test AF objectively?' -- we think about this _every day_). And not all our tests show Canon to be bad - that would be ludicrous. The 1D X II scored an 89% Gold, Canons nail Z-axis refocusing for steadily approaching subjects almost all the time in our tests, Canon's DPAF *does* nail subject tracking, we have the highest regard and only positive things to say about all of Canon's newest lenses, as well as Canon colors, like the following quote from my 5DS review:



> "JPEGs exhibit the pleasing Canon colors we've come to expect, particularly when it comes to skintones. I spend countless hours fiddling with Nikon and Sony Raw colors to get the skintones I desire; compare that to the mere minutes I spent on the model shots on this page."



The words of an anti-Canon Nikon/Sony fanboy? Or just the words of someone who tries very hard to be realistic about positives and shortcomings of every system, just trying to share our observations and test results?

What's particularly funny re: the meat of the discussion here in this thread is that: for all the claims of our *emphasis on Auto area selection* (which as I understand none of you care about, and neither do we except as a fall-back method), the reality is there are only a *couple sentences* about the actual auto selection not being very successful (or as successful as the D5) in the motocross shootout scenario, with the real information being that Canon users should probably switch to manual point selection in Auto area.

It wasn't even talked about in the conclusion of that piece. So I'd ask: who is it that's making a big deal of Auto area AF? Us? Or the critics?

For your reference, the piece being referred to: https://www.dpreview.com/news/6990762465/motor-drive-and-motocross-with-the-nikon-d5-and-canon-1d-x-ii


----------



## unfocused (Aug 31, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Why harp at poor Rishi when there is stuff like this out there. This guy is hilarious.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_FtiZB9DYQ
> 
> Jack



I think it's false advertising for him to sit in front of an umbrella that says "buff" on it.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 31, 2016)

"But what perplexes me is the anger with which data/opinion we present is vehemently attacked and ascribed to all sorts of malicious intent and incompetence in an effort to discredit."

It bothers any soft hearted person to have attacks taking place period even if there is a basis. It's not the way we should behave, exchanges should be friendly. 

Being relatively new here, it seems I missed out on some of the more, it is claimed, obviously biased reviews. Thus I tried to stay clear of harsher criticisms but was able to, for me anyway, see how you sometimes framed things in way that would irk people, and provoke bias accusations. So I said, yes there is bias and I still believe that. 

In other words, some of your statements demonstrate a bias but it's minor and I believe it's not something you can perceive in the same way your reader does. To me that's it. It's minor so anyone can just ignore it. To boot you guys put a lot of work into all this and deserve some praise too.

I can't see you gaining much by visiting these threads, though. It seems the D5 may well have slightly better AF, at least in some cases, and ....... that's nice! 

Jack


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 31, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...


Fair enough. You skipped these forums when D5 review published. You are very critical of 7D2 DR and explained thoroughly importance of DR and ISO invariance. You declared 7D2 DR situation is dire. Similarly with 5DSR and showed example how its DR going to be problem with lot of users other than landscapes.

"Getting an optimal ETTR exposure is difficult and usually only best done via extensive bracketing. Given the difficulty of absolutely nailing an optimal exposure, the flexibility offered by a camera with greater dynamic range cannot be understated for situations such as these: they prove more tolerant of any 'mis-exposure' which, in fact, may not be a 'mis-exposure' at all when you're using the in-camera exposure indicators to judge your exposure with higher dynamic range scenes such as this one."

"Note that the dynamic range advantages of cameras with high base ISO dynamic range can extend to higher ISOs as well, where the 'ISO-invariance' of cameras like the D7000 allows you to purposefully underexpose the image by lowering the levels of ISO amplification. This gives you extra highlight headroom in accordance with the amount of reduction in ISO amplification. The 7D Mark II is not amenable to this type of shooting."

Then down played similar DR situation for D5:

"Either way, in our opinion, we'd try not to over-stress the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important."

"In real world shooting, the D5's dynamic range hasn't been a huge problem. Sure, you'll need to watch your exposure in high contrast scenes more than you would on, say, a D750 or D810 - pushed low ISO Raw files out of the D5 exhibit a lot more shadow noise than those other cameras. But that's taken care of by either sacrificing some highlight detail during your exposure, or with a little bit of luminance noise reduction in post. And if you shoot JPEG and nail your exposure, or routinely in low light, there's even more to like." 

Don't you think, you are kinda unintentionally playing to strengths of Nikon in your review by downplaying DR. 
Barney justified this by saying, 7d2 is a general purpose camera and D5 is a specialized expensive tool which is fine for target users. When pointed out about how 7D2 is compared with 1dx in your review and your recommendation for Canon users to take a look at 7D2 instead of 1DX, he didn't respond.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Don't you think, you are kinda unintentionally playing to strengths of Nikon in your review by downplaying DR.



Sure, let's go with 'kinda' and 'unintentionally'. :-X


----------



## benperrin (Aug 31, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



Wow. Seriously Rishi you are not doing yourself any favours. I specifically was having a go at the video by Theoria Apophasis. My response even includes a reply with that link in it. I wasn't even having a go at your article. Yes, I think too much emphasis is placed on low iso dynamic range (not that we all wouldn't like a little more). This is something I see dpreview doing but to be fair, others are doing a worse job in that regard. The example 5dsr image posted on the thread is a great example where dynamic range was not the issue but a poorly exposed image was. Then, you've been getting defensive about the focusing. Now to me the 5d2 is mostly adequate for my focusing needs (not for weddings though) so generally I just skip that portion. However, since you brought it up I find it very hard to find credibility in your claims when the test images appear to be shot by an amateur with all sorts of focusing errors occurring. I'm talking about the ones posted here https://www.dpreview.com/samples/0574215952/canon-eos-5d-mark-iv-real-world-samples-gallery. 

You seem to be confusing who is posting what. I have an a7r2 so I'm not a Canon fanboy. Just posting my honest opinion. I stand by what I said. Technique is more important than having the latest technology and too much blame is placed on current generation cameras and not enough on the skill of the photographer. Yes, it's great that modern cameras are making it easier for newbies to take great pics. However as an owner of an a7r2 I feel that I'm quite familiar with it's shortcomings and the overemphasis of certain areas of performance. I wouldn't sell it but I'd also be just as happy with a 5dsr or a 5d4. Just my opinion. I never had a go at your article, but I never believe everything I read on dpreview (or other websites). There is bias included regardless of what your intentions are. There probably has to be. I take the parts that are important to me and consider those points. The rest is ignored.


----------



## Freddell (Aug 31, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> xps said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting postings. Sometimes the "sound" of the postings is a little bit rude.
> ...



Rishi, I would want a camera to focus on the closest subject automatically if possible since to many shots with my Fuji end up with focus on the background. 
I also would like spot metering to meter the selected af spot. Not only center.

Admitting that a camera has bad color reproduction, broken auto focus, bad ergonomics then awarding it 90% gold award? It is not that a great camera with such flaws.
If a canon would have such flaws it would be dismissed completely.

I advice you to stop posting here because you are only exposing your bias and ignorance.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 31, 2016)

Rishi, I'm afraid you can't win.  It's a tough row to hoe.

Jack


----------



## tpatana (Aug 31, 2016)

Freddell said:


> I advice you to stop posting here because you are only exposing your bias and ignorance.



No, I want him to stay here. For one I don't think he means ill, and also for both us and him it's good to discuss the conclusions and such. He might have missed something during the review and it's good for all if that gets corrected, and other times could be there was something during the shoot that wasn't mentioned on the text and that's why it got misunderstood, again good if he's here to give more details to explain.

So I really hope he keeps talking with us.


----------



## Dan Renţea (Aug 31, 2016)

No offense Rishi, but what DPReview calls a review I tend to call it just your first impression about a camera or an easy afternoon read. A proper review means that the photographer had spent at least 1-2 months with a camera in order to have some conclusions based on arguments and thousand of photographs taken in various scenarios to back up his statements about af, dynamic range, ISO capabilities, handeling, and so on.

These days most of the reviews are written based on the camera's specs, on some lab tests and based on a day trip in wich you take 400-600 images... I know, you don't have time to spent more time with the cameras you test and I understand the reasons (you have many cameras to test, you have to return the cameras in a short period of time, etc.), but try and be honest, you don't educate anyone with your reviews. In the most optimistic scenarios, after I read your "reviews" I focus a little longer on the things you say are not as good as you expected. Last time I did that was with my friend's Pentax K1. What a bad joke was that part of your review about K1's af. So, saying you educate your readers is amusing, but far from reality. DPReview used to be more credible a few years ago. Now it's just an easy afternoon read.


----------



## Deleted member 378221 (Aug 31, 2016)

Dan Renţea said:


> No offense Rishi, but what DPReview calls a review I tend to call it just your first impression about a camera or an easy afternoon read. A proper review means that the photographer had spent at least 1-2 months with a camera in order to have some conclusions based on arguments and thousand of photographs taken in various scenarios to back up his statements about af, dynamic range, ISO capabilities, handeling, and so on.


Well, in the Internet age this is just not possible, you don't get a lot of extra points for being 100% right, but you get a lot of points for being faster than the next guy. I would just love to see more honesty. Call the "review" what it is, a preliminary impression from someone who had the camera for a couple of days.
Please don't use titles like "Putting Image Microadjust to the test on the Canon 5D Mark IV" when apparently all you did was try out the feature on two images that do not even meet the guidelines on where this tech is actually supposed to be useful.

Please, just some honesty how you present your articles and findings. Don't want anything else really.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 31, 2016)

Dan Renţea said:


> No offense Rishi, but what DPReview calls a review I tend to call it just your first impression about a camera or an easy afternoon read. A proper review means that the photographer had spent at least 1-2 months with a camera in order to have some conclusions based on arguments and thousand of photographs taken in various scenarios to back up his statements about af, dynamic range, ISO capabilities, handeling, and so on.



I don't think that's really fair. Their "first impression" articles are labeled as exactly that. The full reviews come later, usually published in parts as the parts get written.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Aug 31, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> On Pentax Forums I'm an anti-Pentax Canon fanboy, after the Pentax K-1 review. On Sony forums after the a7 II review, I was labeled a 'hack' scientist for daring to suggest the a7/II's low light Raw noise performance fell to the level of the best APS-C sensors, despite all our controlled lighting/SNR tests proving it. And after the Nikon VR analysis, I was labeled an anti-Nikon Canon fanboy for daring to suggest there were vibration issues with Nikon because, if there were, how could knowledge of it not be more widespread (nevermind a lot of people felt safe 'coming out of the woods' and admitting they'd seen the same issues after we published the article - a reminder that tones of discussions in forums can be stifling to knowledge).


Then you are worse than evil: you are Satan!  








ritholtz said:


> Fair enough. You skipped these forums when D5 review published. You are very critical of 7D2 DR and explained thoroughly importance of DR and ISO invariance. You declared 7D2 DR situation is dire. Similarly with 5DSR and showed example how its DR going to be problem with lot of users other than landscapes.
> 
> "Getting an optimal ETTR exposure is difficult and usually only best done via extensive bracketing. Given the difficulty of absolutely nailing an optimal exposure, the flexibility offered by a camera with greater dynamic range cannot be understated for situations such as these: they prove more tolerant of any 'mis-exposure' which, in fact, may not be a 'mis-exposure' at all when you're using the in-camera exposure indicators to judge your exposure with higher dynamic range scenes such as this one."
> 
> ...


I kinda noticed this too. ??? 
The side problem I noticed is that, if one googles "5D review", "7D Mark II review" or whatever photographic gear review, the first result provided by Google is the link to DPReview, which is clearly unbiased, but sometimes a bit inconsistent in giving importance to some features.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2016)

Loibisch said:


> Well, in the Internet age this is just not possible, you don't get a lot of extra points for being 100% right, but you get a lot of points for being faster than the next guy. I would just love to see more honesty. Call the "review" what it is, a preliminary impression from someone who had the camera for a couple of days.
> Please don't use titles like "Putting Image Microadjust to the test on the Canon 5D Mark IV" when apparently all you did was try out the feature on two images that do not even meet the guidelines on where this tech is actually supposed to be useful.
> 
> Please, just some honesty how you present your articles and findings. Don't want anything else really.



You're correct that in the clickbait business of today, fast is more important than accurate. Well, to some...I don't see Bryan publishing reviews on TDP within hours or even days of an announcement...but then, he generally buys gear he reviews through normal retail channels. As for honesty, Rishi claims it's important to him:



rishi_sanyal said:


> My first and foremost objective every morning I wake up is to provide meaningful and correct information to my audience.



It would be nice if he lived up to his ideals. The fact that he edits articles to correct omissions (such as when I pointed out they ignored the f/8 AF differences in their 1D X II / D5 comparison) is encouraging. But the bias is still manifest, the most recent glaring example being their excuses and justifications for the D5 having less low ISO DR than its predecessor. Imagine if the 1D X II had lost a stop of DR compared to the 1D X...does anyone believe that they'd have 'tried not to over-stress the importance' of that, and concluded from real-world testing that it 'isn't a huge problem'? No...it would have been trumpeted through the review and conclusions, with lots of comparisons to 'peers' (like Sony APS-C MILCs) to demonstrate the glaring flaw.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 31, 2016)

OK, the trial is over! NOT guilty as charged by reason of insanity. 

Joking aside, there are some good points that have been made and I think Rishi is between a rock and a hard place. Obviously, it is always possible to improve but a person can only do their best and sometimes one's best is not what people are willing to accept. I suggest criticism should always be delivered in a kindly fashion and emotions kept out of it, and everyone will benefit. If I was constantly in the public eye ....... I shudder. 

Jack


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 31, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Loibisch said:
> 
> 
> > Well, in the Internet age this is just not possible, you don't get a lot of extra points for being 100% right, but you get a lot of points for being faster than the next guy. I would just love to see more honesty. Call the "review" what it is, a preliminary impression from someone who had the camera for a couple of days.
> ...



I might be wrong here. I think, lot of things are unintentional in their reviews. But not doing comparisons between 1DX2/d5 focusing systems with f/8 setup is intentional. How does 3D/iTR/Non intelligent focusing is going to work with F8 setup. On paper as long as DPR chooses initial AF point as suggested by Rudy/Neuro, Canon AF system should work as it is in F8 setup with all 61 points. Whereas D5 is limited with F8 setup. What is going to happen to superior D5 focusing argument? Can it 3D focus like Canon with F8 setup? Can DPR still claim D5 has superior focusing system to Canon even after testing it with F8 lens setup. It is like testing f1.4 and f2.0 lens using f2.0 aperture claiming one is superior. 

There are articles explaining how difficult is to incorporate all F8 focusing system. Why do you think DPR ignored such a important feature in their reviews? Considering there are lot demanding users here in terms of focusing system, between iTR/3D focusing vs all F8 focusing system which one do you think important for d5/1dx2 users.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 31, 2016)

If Rishi is willing to take them to heart, there are valid points being made that will help him to improve and and we're not talking about Canon praise here, just equal treatment. That would be a good outcome.

It's like a kid being king of the castle and a dozen others climbing up to knock him off. That is unproductive and serves no purpose, and so we should simply continue to give useful suggestions, maybe sometimes with a little less harshness.

Jack


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 31, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> I might be wrong here. I think, lot of things are unintentional in their reviews.



You're not wrong. They _are_ unintentional. You (and others) are complaining about possible bias in downplaying the D5's DR by quoting Carey's personal experience/opinions in the review without the context of all the other places where - including in the review - we wrote things like "This limits the ability of the D5 to shoot at a low ISO setting in low light (to protect highlight information), rather than pushing up the ISO amplification."

Why are you doing that? Reviews are necessarily both objective and opinion, and I can't rewrite someone's entire opinion unless it's wrong. But what I can do, and did, was add passages like the above statement (which sounds awfully a lot like what I wrote for the 7D II) and _repeatedly _drew comparisons to the superior 1D X II.

Furthermore, we literally published a piece entitled "Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR".

And here's what Barney and I wrote in our slideshow:



> "With the D5, you *have to chose*. Expose for highlight detail and color and* lose definition in midtones and shadows*, or expose for midtones and *say goodbye to the brighter areas*. With the EOS-1D X Mark II, while not best-in-class,* Raw files are much more flexible*."



Why ignore all that? Confirmation bias? How could we be any clearer? You act as though we're tough on Canon and not on Nikon in this regard, and it's just not true. In fact, we've never published something as alarming as that D5 DR article title. One could argue we're soft on Canon.

The quote you cherry pick from Barney "Either way... we'd try not to over-stress the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers" was an Editor's Note in direct response to a bunch of Nikonians complaining about our harsh 'Worst dynamic range' title. You know, like you guys complain. 

So to appease those readers, we lessened the blow. How fitting, like a taste of your own medicine...



ritholtz said:


> But not doing comparisons between 1DX2/d5 focusing systems with f/8 setup is intentional.



You're correct, it's absolutely intentional, for the reasons below.



ritholtz said:


> How does 3D/iTR/Non intelligent focusing is going to work with F8 setup. On paper as long as DPR chooses initial AF point as suggested by Rudy/Neuro/*DPR itself*



Sorry, just had to fix that for you because it appears you missed the fact that we talk about manual initial AF point selection for Canon 61pt iTR _all the time_.



ritholtz said:


> Canon AF system should work as it is in F8 setup with all 61 points. Whereas D5 is limited with F8 setup. What is going to happen to superior D5 focusing argument? Can it 3D focus like Canon with F8 setup? Can DPR still claim D5 has superior focusing system to Canon even after testing it with F8 lens setup. It is like testing f1.4 and f2.0 lens using f2.0 aperture claiming one is superior.



I don't need to do a test to tell you what will happen. The answer to that is easy: the 1D X II (and 5D IV) will be better. (1) Because as we've mentioned many times, iTR _does _appear to work well for telephoto subjects that have good phase difference separation, and (2) doesn't matter how much better 3D tracking is than iTR if you have far fewer points to work with...

What test would we do? Why would we do a test? Isn't that a waste of time for an already resource-strained group that constantly gets complaints about late review and an utter lack of lens reviews?

The bigger question is: why are you suddenly emphasizing F8 focus as if it's the end all be all of all photography (kind of like how high ISO DR was back when it was the only aspect of DR Canon was good/equal at)? The reality is that it's relevant to a fairly small faction of photographers, and for those photographers where that really matters, yes I'd argue the 1D X II is a better choice. 

_Which is what we said in its review._ Note we also emphasized it in our 5D IV coverage: F8 focus implications is *literally in the 2nd sentence *of my AF section in my First Impressions.



ritholtz said:


> There are articles explaining how difficult is to incorporate all F8 focusing system. Why do you think DPR ignored such a important feature in their reviews? Considering there are lot demanding users here in terms of focusing system, between iTR/3D focusing vs all F8 focusing system which one do you think important for d5/1dx2 users.



I don't understand why you think or erroneously claim we ignored this important feature, when in reality, we mentioned it repeatedly as a plus for wildlife photography and birding in the 1D X II review.


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 31, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > I might be wrong here. I think, lot of things are unintentional in their reviews.
> ...


Good points Rishi. I still do not understand why do you think it is waste of resources comparing how F8 focusing system works. It is one the most important functionality added to 1dx2 by Canon. How can you say Nikon focusing system is superior/class leading when in your own words it is limited to work only with F5.6 set up. When canon is going to work with F8 lens setup. Between f8 focusing and 3d/iTR focusing, which one do you think is important for target users of D5/1DX2?


----------



## scyrene (Aug 31, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> The bigger question is: why are you suddenly emphasizing F8 focus as if it's the end all be all of all photography (kind of like how high ISO DR was back when it was the only aspect of DR Canon was good/equal at)? The reality is that it's relevant to a fairly small faction of photographers, and for those photographers where that really matters, yes I'd argue the 1D X II is a better choice.



I think you've generally acquitted yourself pretty well here. However this quotation could be refashioned to apply to low-ISO DR. Many (most?) photographers managed quite well before low DR became one of the key bones of contention in online forums and reviews, and still do* - a stop or two of low ISO DR is of importance to most only rarely, yet you've devoted a fair amount of energy to evaluating and discussing it. But here you dismiss other similar issues as minutiae essentially beneath you. Why one and not the other?

I don't doubt that f/8 AF is important to fewer people and in fewer situations than higher low ISO DR, but I suggest it's not as big a difference as your coverage might imply (a lot of bird photographers can benefit from it, both budget-conscious amateurs and demanding professionals). And as for high ISO performance, that's pretty important too...

*while in actual fact virtually everyone on these forums has agreed that the more DR the better, those of us who've said in real life it makes far less difference than some evangelists have claimed, and have pointed out other ways of dealing with it (ETTR, HDR, exposure bracketing, use of ND filters, etc) have been accused of defending outmoded technology, hating change, being luddite, and so on.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 31, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Loibisch said:
> 
> 
> > Well, in the Internet age this is just not possible, you don't get a lot of extra points for being 100% right, but you get a lot of points for being faster than the next guy. I would just love to see more honesty. Call the "review" what it is, a preliminary impression from someone who had the camera for a couple of days.
> ...



We take months to review gear to make sure we're right and thorough - one of the biggest complaints leveled against us. But when camera companies give us early access, we try to get as many initial impressions as possible, and we work hard for it, because of the level of interest at launch. We still don't write things we're not confident about - and in this case, we actually had some extensive time with the 5D IV prior to launch.

We're trying our best to balance being thorough in an age where thoroughness is not rewarded by business return.



neuroanatomist said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > My first and foremost objective every morning I wake up is to provide meaningful and correct information to my audience.
> ...



Erroneous claims. Excuses and justifications? Like an article headlined: "*Nikon D5 has worse dynamic range of any FF Nikon*"? Or like writing: "With the D5, *you have to chose*. Expose for highlight detail and color and *lose definition in midtones and shadows*, or expose for midtones and* say goodbye to the brighter areas*. With the EOS-1D X Mark II, while not best-in-class,* Raw files are much more flexible*."? Or like _repeatedly _mentioning in _each_ respective review that the 1D X II bests the D5 in this area?

You've simply cherry picked a couple of quotes of either Carey's opinion or of our Editor's response reminding people to retain perspective given our overtly negative 'worst dynamic range' title. Meanwhile, you've conveniently ignored all the negatives we've written, some of which I've shown above, others of which are scattered throughout our Nikon D5 pieces, including the review itself. We have similar justifications for some Canon DSLRs, notably, in two recent Canon DSLR reviews: "it's debatable whether this [dynamic range performance] will matter to buyers." Or, after a comment on iTR's foibles: "But if you can follow the action yourself with a chosen AF point or zone, the camera will reward you with a very high amount of in-focus 'keepers.'"

No one can hope for ultimate consistency for every piece of content with multiple writers. You should know that. But you're ignoring it and purposefully cherry picking excuses - which exist even for Canon products - in our content. 

We may need to hire a full-time employee to respond to the hundreds of erroneous claims of bias that cherry pick data to fit a preconceived narrative. Come to think of it, this type of behavior matches that of this news organization that constantly filters out negative opinion of their supported camera candidate...


----------



## ritholtz (Aug 31, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Loibisch said:
> ...



I agree about cherry picking few lines from your reviews. I have one more question about your scoring,
-D5 has worse dynamic range compared to 1DX2
-D5 focusing system doesn't work with f8 lens setup(With F5.6 lens setup D5 is better. But f8 Canon is better). 
-D5 I think has less number of selectable AF points with less coverage.
-D5 can only record 4k 30p when Canon do 4k 60p
-D5 can only record for 3min max at the time of your review.
-D5 doesn't do proper video AF and inferior Live view implementation (Canon dpaf).
-D5 has slower FPS (14 vs 12). 
-No frame grabs for D5 when you are very excited to pull 60 frames from 1DX2 with low rolling shutter.

How come D5 scored as much as 1dx2? Did you guys rig the scoring system. Is it possible to write one common head to head through review where we get to see comparisons between only these two. Sometimes you kinda throw in different camera (a7r2, a6300) for some tests (DR, Video) in order to dilute Canon strengths instead of doing straight comparison with D5.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Aug 31, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> If Rishi is willing to take them to heart, there are valid points being made that will help him to improve and and we're not talking about Canon praise here, just equal treatment. That would be a good outcome.
> 
> It's like a kid being king of the castle and a dozen others climbing up to knock him off. That is unproductive and serves no purpose, and so we should simply continue to give useful suggestions, maybe sometimes with a little less harshness.
> 
> Jack



But my question is: is anyone willing to take to heart the points _I've _made in response to many of the points raised here? Last I checked, you admitted to not really reading all the content of my posts. I know there's a lot of content here, but I've spent countless hours reading and responding to those made by others here, incorporating useful feedback when it's actually valid/useful, but mostly responding to skewed/erroneous claims made (mostly by neuro) to fit a preconceived narrative to discredit us so as to not have to accept _any _critical remark we make on cameras that are sacred to forum members here.

Which means: I've actually read much of the feedback/points made here. But it feels like few have read my points. And those who have (there are some of you that have) do at least, to their credit, respond with 'good points'. *Thank you*, by the way.

The rest of you: please read my points before summarily judging and hastily responding. And thanks to those who are polite.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 31, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > If Rishi is willing to take them to heart, there are valid points being made that will help him to improve and and we're not talking about Canon praise here, just equal treatment. That would be a good outcome.
> ...



No you haven't. You argue semantics, ad nauseum, meanwhile you avoid any mention of many of the points that have been raised about you.

My pet peeve is the 5dsr image you used to demonstrate poor dr, we both know that is a dishonest representation of the cameras capabilities. Now I am not saying more dr isn't useful on occasions, but to try to say that is the best that camera could do in that situation and it is a failure because of that is dishonest.

Post the RAW and prove me wrong.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 1, 2016)

Rishi, I generally do read it all, except this thread was becoming so negative it kind of turned me off. 

I know the feeling. I authored a programmable logic book a few years back and requested a review from an Altera trained prof. The review came back pretty harsh and some of the criticisms clearly weren't justified but many were. It took a day or two but I stepped out of my box and allowed myself to see that there was lots I needed to rewrite, and that I did, with a little humbler attitude.

Someone has mentioned semantics and I have also, some time back. It's possible to get in trouble in the way comments are phrased, even though in your mind the description is 100% accurate and valid. My daughter who is now an MD had no clue about electronics but helped me a lot proof reading.

Do your best, don't get discouraged! 

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Or, after a comment on iTR's foibles: "But if you can follow the action yourself with a chosen AF point or zone, the camera will reward you with a very high amount of in-focus 'keepers.'"



[quote author=Rishi @ DPR]
You could say the same about the utter failure of the 1D X II's iTR subject tracking system (no one in the office would even enable that mode on any Canon DSLR because of the unreliability, yet almost solely rely on it with a D5), but we chose not to make that the focus of that review.
[/quote]

[quote author=Carey Rose, Dan Bracaglia @ DPR]
I started off the day shooting with the 70-200mm with the camera set to Auto Point Selection, which utilizes iTR....

When shooting in the Auto Point Selection AF mode with the area selection set to manual, you can simply choose any one of the 61 points as your starting place. Once a subject passes over that point, or once you've placed your selected point over your subject, hit the AF-on button and the camera should lock focus and track the subject.

Depending on which way I anticipated the rider coming into frame, I set my initial AF point just off centered toward their side of entry. In most cases, the 1D X Mark II was able to pick up on a rider entering the frame and maintain consistent focus. This was likely helped by the fact that I often panned along with motorcyclists due to the very fast speeds in which they were zipping by. Shooting in this manner gave me a very high hit rate.

The un-edited images in the above roll-over are part of a 36-frame burst shot using the method described above. These five images were taken toward the end of the burst as the rider passed by, however all 36 were perfectly in focus.
[/quote]

Yes, iTR is so unreliable that it gives a very high hit rate. Delivering 36 of 36 shots perfectly in focus...yes, that sounds like "utter failure." Not that you're biased, or anything.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, iTR is so unreliable that it gives a very high hit rate. Delivering 36 of 36 shots perfectly in focus...yes, that sounds like "utter failure." Not that you're biased, or anything.



I'll add to that my personal tests thus far with my new 1DX2 in video mode using iTR DPAF tracking during filming is VERY VERY good, and my three kids have been giving it a serious workout running around the yard. Oh wait... Nikon can't even do that at all...even for the 3 minute recording time on the D5


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2016)

PureClassA said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, iTR is so unreliable that it gives a very high hit rate. Delivering 36 of 36 shots perfectly in focus...yes, that sounds like "utter failure." Not that you're biased, or anything.
> ...



Rishi has heaped praise on DPAF for video. Kinda like, "See, I have a ________ friend."

But speaking of AF, Rishi has repeatedly pointed out how the f/8 AF capabilities of the 1D X II are well-covered in the 1D X II review, and when I mentioned the convenient omission 'simple oversight' in the 1D X II vs. D5 comparison article, that was corrected. But, where are the D5's f/8 capabilities discussed in the D5 review? The manage to include a cute little slam on Canon's iTR at the end of a footnote, but conveniently omit a discussion of f/8 from the D5 review, much less discuss Canon's advantage in that area. I'm sure some Nikon-shooters use f/8 TC combos (I know several), so why avoid the topic? Oh, I know...another cherry-picked, simple oversight.


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm sure some Nikon-shooters use f/8 TC combos (I know several), so why avoid the topic? Oh, I know...another simple oversight.



Begging the (DPP grade) question "Why would anyone use a Nikon anything for serious telephoto work like birding and wildlife and sports without the basic ability to AF when using teleconverters?" ... Oh crap wait... 70-80% of those shooters do not use Nikon.

DPP feels to me like it's become a Consumer Reports repository of consumer grade reviews seemingly focusing (no pun intended) on a particular set of sensor measurements.


----------



## arbitrage (Sep 1, 2016)

To be fair, the D5 actually can focus with all of its AF points at f/8, Nikon advertises only a select few work in the middle but at least on my D500 all of them work with my 200-500+1.4TC at f/8. Nikon doesn't restrict them like Canon does (in all but the 1DX2 and 5D4). And in my testing the outer points do work at f/8 in outdoor light.

Also the D5 now has 30min recording for 4K.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > Or, after a comment on iTR's foibles: "But if you can follow the action yourself with a chosen AF point or zone, the camera will reward you with a very high amount of in-focus 'keepers.'"
> ...



[quote author=Carey Rose, Dan Bracaglia @ DPR]
I started off the day shooting with the 70-200mm with the camera set to Auto Point Selection, which utilizes iTR....

When shooting in the Auto Point Selection AF mode with the area selection set to manual, you can simply choose any one of the 61 points as your starting place. Once a subject passes over that point, or once you've placed your selected point over your subject, hit the AF-on button and the camera should lock focus and track the subject.

Depending on which way I anticipated the rider coming into frame, I set my initial AF point just off centered toward their side of entry. In most cases, the 1D X Mark II was able to pick up on a rider entering the frame and maintain consistent focus. This was likely helped by the fact that I often panned along with motorcyclists due to the very fast speeds in which they were zipping by. Shooting in this manner gave me a very high hit rate.

The un-edited images in the above roll-over are part of a 36-frame burst shot using the method described above. These five images were taken toward the end of the burst as the rider passed by, however all 36 were perfectly in focus.
[/quote]

Yes, iTR is so unreliable that it gives a very high hit rate. Delivering 36 of 36 shots perfectly in focus...yes, that sounds like "utter failure." Not that you're biased, or anything.
[/quote]

Oh, I see - so *one example in isolation* represents the entire performance of that system? Nevermind the very person that wrote that exact phrase concluded at the end of that very piece that iTR is comparatively unreliable (having used the D5 after the photographers switched off)? Hmm, I wonder why? Maybe even as a non-scientist he's intelligent enough to know that one example doesn't constitute the entirety of performance?

Did you say you were a scientist? Only in your offline life, then?

Consider that in the a7R II review we have an entire rollover showing Lock-on AF nailing every shot in our bike test. Yet we know from actually using the camera that Lock-on is not actually all that reliable in day to day shooting. So we dug into it, talking to Sony engineers about it as well, and concluded that with our isolated biker example, Lock-on, which gave up, defaulted to subject tracking based off of phase information only (what Canon weights their subject tracking to as well, we suspect) - which works great for isolated bikers, but not for complex scenes.

By your logic, we shouldn't have concluded, as we did, that Lock-on is unreliable, because hey we had a 100% hit-rate in that one rollover. Right? And yet we didn't - we did the more responsible thing: test, test, test, use in the real-world, rinse and repeat. Which led us to our pretty harsh criticism of Lock-on, in pretty much every Sony review.

Can't hear anything negative about Canon, can you? But _we're _definitely the ones that are biased...


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



When one camera brings a new feature that no other camera has, it doesn't automatically become the standard by which other cameras are judged. That'd be stupid. And if we did that, we'd be calling out every Canon, Pentax, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji camera for not having highlight-weighted metering (HWM). Again, that'd be stupid. Rather, HWM is called out in the Nikon reviews as a pro.

When a good proportion of cameras exhibit a new feature that is useful to enough users, it starts to set a standard, and an expectation, and then only is it pointed out as a negative if a camera doesn't have it.

Make sense? If we didn't work this way, we'd suddenly start knocking all Canon cameras for not having dual-gain architecture for increased high ISO DR. We don't. But now that almost all Sony and Nikon cameras are starting to get it, we _might_, because then it becomes a standard. But we probably won't, unless we decide it affects a wide enough array of users.

Which gets me to my next point: add to all this the fact that F8 autofocus affects an arguably narrow group of 600mm+ shooters. We're not going to start counting it as a con in every DSLR suddenly because the 1D X II has it. If Canon now sets it as a standard across all their cameras over their next couple of cameras, we might revisit this discussion.

And if *arbitrage* is right... then... 

There is actual thoughtful reasoning behind what we do. But you just love jumping to the conclusion that fits your preconceived narrative, not actually think, or heaven forbid _ask_, about what our actual thought processes might be. Reminds me of this one news organization that couldn't be bothered to check their facts... or has become really good at ignoring the ones that don't fit their narrative...


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 1, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Douglas said:
> ...



No, it's not, and I'm tired of arguing this with you. All you and others have done is raise completely invalid points about how because the flash and background exposure are independent, I could've nailed the perfect exposure.

What does the flash have to do with this?? ???

I never once talked about the model exposure. I said that in order to protect the gradient in the sky, I chose an exposure that placed them near, but not at, clipping. In which case the foreground falls to darkness. The foreground, not the model. Tonemapping that foreground, which is no longer illuminated by light so long after sunset, brings into the image noise on a camera with limited dynamic range (limited for that scene). Just like 

There's nothing surprising about that. We all already know old Canon sensors were challenged in DR for such scenes - half an hour to 45 min after sunset is one of the highest dynamic range scenes you could come across. Same issue in my tulip image here: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3673531883/dxomark-eos-5ds-r-sensor-is-highest-ranked-canon-sensor-yet/2

... the only difference there being I perfectly ETTR'd the tulip shot, because I had the time to do so via bracketing. The next 1/3 EV longer exposure clipped skies/clouds irrecoverably. With the model shot, I had a tad more headroom in the Raw, despite the camera indicating clipped channels. But that's beside the point - it's unreasonable for anyone but an armchair forum troll to expect an actual photographer to perfectly ETTR (getting the brightest tones you care about within 1/3 EV of clipping) anything but static studio/landscape imagery. Without the tools that no camera maker but Phase One provides (Raw channel clipping in-camera), you simply will not perfectly ETTR every shot. So there were actually two points I was trying to make: (1) even a perfectly ETTR'd shot of a scene like that challenges the dynamic range of the 5DS; furthermore, (2) _actual photographers_ who don't sit there with a computer and RawDigger to check that RGGB 14-bit Raw values are approaching, but not exceeding, clipping also benefit from extended latitude for those sorts of scenes where the photographer wants to ensure the colors in the sky aren't lost while actually, you know, trying to _take pictures_. That is, direct the model/set up the lighting/focus/compose, etc. 

Armchair forum critics are completely disconnected with the realities actual pro photographers face. Tell a pro wedding photographer to perfectly nail exposure so that Raw green channel values are exactly within a 1/3 of a stop of clipping, and he/she will laugh.

Oh, and someone else (you?) blamed me for blaming the camera's automatic choice of exposure. ??? That shot was exposed completely _manually_. How could I be blaming the camera's auto exposure?

I have little interest in engaging in such irrational arguments (it's too bad - for my own health - that I have enough of an interest to respond at all...)


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 1, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


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



Yet another perfect example of Rishi's discursive replies littered with misinformation and strawmen arguments.

Show me one instance where I have mentioned the exposure on the model other than to say it isn't relevant. Indeed in the counter example I posted when we first jousted over this I didn't include a model as it is irrelevant to what you are demonstrating.

Or where I said anything about auto exposure. Strawman upon strawman. 

Mind you, if you had used auto exposure AV mode and ETTL it would have done a better job than you did. You would have got a longer shutter speed that would have only impacted your background exposure and the ETTL would have taken care of your subject exposure.

I only ever said you were being dishonest about your background exposure and I still believe that to be true. Don't waffle, I will apologize if I am wrong. Post the RAW file that demonstrates the background is just below clipped highlights and the shadows lift was necessary. You said this was a 'real world example of where the camera would let a user down', prove it, post the RAW file.

I might be an armchair critic of reviewers, but I am also a pro photographer. I do a little consulting engineering and yacht crew training, but over 80% of my income is from photography. I shoot weddings without fear with cameras well below 5DS capabilities.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Oh, I see - so *one example in isolation* represents the entire performance of that system? Nevermind the very person that wrote that exact phrase concluded at the end of that very piece that iTR is comparatively unreliable (having used the D5 after the photographers switched off)? Hmm, I wonder why? Maybe even as a non-scientist he's intelligent enough to know that one example doesn't constitute the entirety of performance?
> 
> Did you say you were a scientist? Only in your offline life, then?



You sure do like to put words in others' mouths, don't you? No, one example is not necessarily representative. But, if you recall basic scientific method, a hypothesis can never be proven, only disproven. If your hypothesis is that iTR is, in your own words an, "utter failure," then the example of 36 of 36 frames in perfect focus is the experiment that disproves the hypothesis. Quod erat demonstrandum.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 1, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...


Canon doesn't do 3d focusing in all of their Cameras either. There is so much emphasis on 3D/itr focusing in your reviews, how much percentage of users do you think are using this feature? How many of users in recent olympics are using 3d focusing / iTR for capturing the event with 1dx2 and D5. Regarding F8 focus support, Nikon and Canon keep on adding more focus points supporting F8 in each iteration. It is not something new. It is just that Canon suddenly added all F8 focus points. I feel like, I am wasting your time by asking lot of unnecessary questions.


----------



## ritholtz (Sep 1, 2016)

arbitrage said:


> To be fair, the D5 actually can focus with all of its AF points at f/8, Nikon advertises only a select few work in the middle but at least on my D500 all of them work with my 200-500+1.4TC at f/8. Nikon doesn't restrict them like Canon does (in all but the 1DX2 and 5D4). And in my testing the outer points do work at f/8 in outdoor light.
> 
> Also the D5 now has 30min recording for 4K.


That is good to know. I wish DPR did some testing with f/8 len set up between D5 and 1dx2 (D500 and 7d2) and show the findings.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> When one camera brings a new feature that no other camera has, it doesn't automatically become the standard by which other cameras are judged. That'd be stupid.



Yes, that would be stupid. You've already told us what sets the standards. Except the standard for low ISO DR, because, well, lots of cameras, even crop sensor cameras like the 80D, are better at that. Low ISO DR is so important that you've developed several new tests and metrics to demonstrate it. But you know, for the D5, well, having less of it is 'not a huge problem' for real world shooting. But there you go...standards. Some have them, others don't.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> So there were actually two points I was trying to make: (1) even a perfectly ETTR'd shot of a scene like that challenges the dynamic range of the 5DS; furthermore, (2) _actual photographers_ who don't sit there with a computer and RawDigger to check that RGGB 14-bit Raw values are approaching, but not exceeding, clipping also benefit from extended latitude for those sorts of scenes where the photographer wants to ensure the colors in the sky aren't lost while actually, you know, trying to _take pictures_. That is, direct the model/set up the lighting/focus/compose, etc.
> 
> Armchair forum critics are completely disconnected with the realities actual pro photographers face. Tell a pro wedding photographer to perfectly nail exposure so that Raw green channel values are exactly within a 1/3 of a stop of clipping, and he/she will laugh.



In that case, what's an _actual pro wedding photographer_ to do when trying to _take pictures_ in challenging exposure situations if he/she is shooting with the standard-setting Nikon D5? Oh, wait...it's not going to be a huge problem in that real world situation, even though it's a evidently a bona fide problem for the poor sap who picked the 5Ds. Same low ISO DR, different impact. But no bias.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> I have little interest in engaging in such irrational arguments (it's too bad - for my own health - that I have enough of an interest to respond at all...)



Dan: Are you coming down into the pit of DR? Mark II's got his strength back. I'm starting him on the machine tonight. 

Rishi: [sincerely] Dan, you know how much I love watching you work, but I've got Sony's 500th anniversary to plan, my Pentax review to arrange, Canon to murder and Nikon to frame for it; I'm swamped. 

Dan:


----------



## R1-7D (Sep 1, 2016)

Looks like Rishi has been caught with his pants down. My god, this is gold. 

I'm really enjoying this thread. Neuro and Privatebydesign have ripped him to shreds, whether he sees it or not. ;D ;D


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 1, 2016)

Yup


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 1, 2016)

I presume I am lacking the background to understand how Rishi came to be so controversial. When did it start and was it really so bad as to garner all this negativity. Yes I have read some comments in the last year or so that to me represented bias and I've pointed a few things out to him but I never considered it to be that bad. It all just seems so tedious to be pursuing it.

Now, the lame assertions that came from many new posters over the last few weeks, that was starting to get to me far worse than any DP review material does!

I'm pretty enthused about the 5D4 and would be happy with it if I don't get the 1DX II.

Jack


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 1, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > No you haven't. You argue semantics, ad nauseum, meanwhile you avoid any mention of many of the points that have been raised about you.
> ...



You're throwing so many red herrings your writing is beginning to smell quite fishy 




rishi_sanyal said:


> the photographer wants to ensure the colors in the sky aren't lost while actually, you know, trying to _take pictures_. That is, direct the model/set up the lighting/focus/compose, etc.
> 
> I have little interest in engaging in such irrational arguments (it's too bad - for my own health - that I have enough of an interest to respond at all...)



It's not an irrational argument; far from it. What you say might well have been true with the raw converters of the mid 2000's. Are you still using the ACR from 2003 ? These recent cameras are extremely robust in the highlights, and the latest raw converters are a huge improvement for bringing out the detail that's within the highlight headroom. Also blue is the weakest (thinnest) wavelength and the blue channel is the one to suffer first in loss of saturation through over exposure, yet in your example the highlights were reds and yellows anyway - much more robust. 

Do you actually experiment with these cameras to see how far you can push them to your advantage ? I do when I get a body I haven't used before. I'm attaching a shot taken with the M3 (you know,_ that _camera ) where i was seeing how far I could push the over exposure of a _blue_ sky, at mid day, and pull full detail back in ACR. You can see that even the histogram is telling me that I've clipped, yet the resultant pull has kept full detail, with nothing lost in the blue of the sky. 

The point with your 5Ds image is that the_ highlights are under exposed_ by at least 1.5 stops, which is huge, resulting in you lifting the dark shadows off the sensor floor where it has recorded virtually zero detail in very thin light. If I didn't know better, and I was i the market for a 5Ds type camera for landscape, you'd have put me off. 

You can put this to bed by letting us have access to the raw file, but you know you have seriously under exposed those highlights and no one is going to need raw digger to discover that.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 1, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> I have little interest in engaging in such irrational arguments (it's too bad - for my own health - that I have enough of an interest to respond at all...)



Well....to tack this on the end of a long list of three defensive posts is a more than a little pointer to cognitive Dissonance. Everyone's work in photography is open to criticism and critique. It's not personal and you are not personally on trial. So don't react like it's a personal affront and please don't respond by being personal. Questioning if some one is a Scientist is really out of order and shows that you will resort to personal smears instead of objective discussion. It's not big and it's not cleaver and it will only inflame...but we've had discussions over DRP's morality before.... 

There is clear historical evidence of a bias in DRP's reviews. It goes back to when Phil Askey used to make quite direct opinions about Canon and it was clear from his reviews that he was heavily biased towards Nikon.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 1, 2016)

It's interesting that the D5 does SO badly in the iso invariance test. Compare it to the original 5D...from 2005 in RAW. Nikon didn't have a camera in that niche until 2008...three long years later. It would be interesting to see a comparision of D4 / D700 sensor vs the current "gold" D5. I'm pretty sure the original 2005 5D would have similar results.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5197378415/throwback-thursday-the-canon-eos-5d/3

The comment about "still a 5D with a mirror still in it"...hmm, talk about an exaggeration of an issue that only effected a few users. I ran a pair of original 5D's in a professional capacity for three years...and I didn't have any mirror issues. 

It's comments like this combined with the ISO invariance between the ancient 5D and brand new D5 which reaffirm my opinion that DRP is biased towards Nikon and has been for a very long time. But it's OK really...Canon has had market share for a very long time...as long as DPR have been reviewing cameras. So I guess it shows how much influence DPR has on buying photographers.


----------



## DannyPwins (Sep 2, 2016)

I'm glad I don't get caught up in these pointless arguments. I just shoot.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 2, 2016)

So this Swedish guy also used 35mm, and then tried focus shift:

http://www.kamerabild.se/tester/vi-har-provat-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv?nodePage=3

(if you don't read Swedish, just scroll down and look at the 2 pictures)

He can shift focus from the woman in front, to woman in back. Looking at the full frame picture, I'd say it's good 2 meters between them (~6 feet). And shot settings: EF 35mm/1,4L II USM 1/1600s, f/2,2, ISO 320

Not sure why he has such huge range, compared to dpr testing. Could the focal distance already affect that much?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 2, 2016)

tpatana said:


> So this Swedish guy also used 35mm, and then tried focus shift:
> 
> http://www.kamerabild.se/tester/vi-har-provat-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv?nodePage=3
> 
> ...



Ha, I skimmed that blurry eyed last night and assumed he had shot with two different focus points! If DP's is able to accomplish this, it should be headline news IMHO.

Jack


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 2, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > So this Swedish guy also used 35mm, and then tried focus shift:
> ...



He's shooting with a 50 mil at f/5.6, so has a fair DOF anyway, but yes, it's remarkable to be able to do that from the same raw !


----------



## LordofTackle (Sep 2, 2016)

tpatana said:


> So this Swedish guy also used 35mm, and then tried focus shift:
> 
> http://www.kamerabild.se/tester/vi-har-provat-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv?nodePage=3
> 
> ...



but is it just me or does this focus shift screw up the background? If you look at the bald guy with the camera, pretty much in the middle of the frame..

The blur looks kind of strange in the second picture on him...


----------



## benperrin (Sep 3, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> He's shooting with a 50 mil at f/5.6, so has a fair DOF anyway, but yes, it's remarkable to be able to do that from the same raw !


That's where I'm getting confused. I saw a focus shift on one of the first released Canon videos that showed quite a decent focus shift. Then dpreview said it was closer to a micro-adjustment. I think they even called it a nano-adjustment. That's not what I've seen from some of the sample images so I'm starting to wonder what the true capabilities of this new technology are. Could dpreview have actually been totally wrong about this?


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 3, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > So this Swedish guy also used 35mm, and then tried focus shift:
> ...



Wait... so... are both the man and the blonde woman in focus and within the depth of field... and the program is just adding blur to what is presumably in front of and behind the plane of focus... or is this similar to light field... I didn't pay any attention to the new features... so I could literally be behind.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 8, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It's interesting that the D5 does SO badly in the iso invariance test. Compare it to the original 5D...from 2005 in RAW. Nikon didn't have a camera in that niche until 2008...three long years later. It would be interesting to see a comparision of D4 / D700 sensor vs the current "gold" D5. I'm pretty sure the original 2005 5D would have similar results.
> 
> https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5197378415/throwback-thursday-the-canon-eos-5d/3
> 
> The comment about "still a 5D with a mirror still in it"...hmm, talk about an exaggeration of an issue that only effected a few users. I ran a pair of original 5D's in a professional capacity for three years...and I didn't have any mirror issues.



Referring to a well-known/reported issue in passing in an otherwise largely positive piece is evidence of bias against an entire brand? Speaking of exaggerating an "issue"...



GMCPhotographics said:


> It's comments like this combined with the ISO invariance between the ancient 5D and brand new D5 which reaffirm my opinion that DRP is biased towards Nikon and has been for a very long time. But it's OK really...Canon has had market share for a very long time...as long as DPR have been reviewing cameras. So I guess it shows how much influence DPR has on buying photographers.



We didn't compare the 5D to the D5, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. But since we're on the topic: the D5, despite being Nikon's worse full-frame DSLR in this regard, far outperforms the 5D in terms of dynamic range. And yet, we specifically call out the D5's poor DR throughout its review, its comparison pieces against the 1D X II, even in the 1D X II review itself, and in standalone pieces titled 'Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR'.

But we're biased towards Nikon...



GMCPhotographics said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > I have little interest in engaging in such irrational arguments (it's too bad - for my own health - that I have enough of an interest to respond at all...)
> ...



And yet there are those (like the guy I was referring to) who like to question if I'm really a scientist when I write some finding they don't like. I'm just not allowed to return the favor I suppose?

Double standards much?



GMCPhotographics said:


> There is clear historical evidence of a bias in DRP's reviews. It goes back to when Phil Askey used to make quite direct opinions about Canon and it was clear from his reviews that he was heavily biased towards Nikon.



Back when Canon was genuinely making better (CMOS) DSLRs than Nikon, we ranked them higher, and got blamed for being biased towards Canon.

Could it be we're actually influenced by the cameras themselves, not crooks biased towards brands giving us more money [or insert whatever is your favorite reason for our bias here]?


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 8, 2016)

R1-7D said:


> Looks like Rishi has been caught with his pants down. My god, this is gold.
> 
> I'm really enjoying this thread. Neuro and Privatebydesign have ripped him to shreds, whether he sees it or not. ;D ;D



So my correcting Neuro as to his erroneous assumption of how Auto AF point selection actually works when iTR is engaged by referring him back to the very manual he tried to use to prove our incompetence - just referring him to the right page this time - is me being ripped to shreds? 

Then suggesting he do the experiment we did that shows we, in fact, were very much correct in our understanding of how Auto/iTR works, while he was wrong, and never hearing back - probably b/c he did the experiment & realized he was wrong - is _me_ being ripped to shreds?

I find the variance in conclusions here - from 'Rishi you've largely acquitted yourself' to 'Rishi's been ripped to shreds' - interesting, to say the least.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 9, 2016)

Sporgon said:


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



The red herring was actually coming from those talking about the model exposure, which has absolute nothing to do with the DR limitations I mentioned.

??



Sporgon said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > the photographer wants to ensure the colors in the sky aren't lost while actually, you know, trying to _take pictures_. That is, direct the model/set up the lighting/focus/compose, etc.
> ...



Going to stop you right there. No camera is better than another at highlight recovery, so it doesn't matter what software I'm using. This is a fundamental property of current CMOS linear capture. So your anecdotal examples of how much highlight you recovered in this or that shot means nothing - you could recover that much from a Nikon, or Sony, or what have you shot as well. That's why we look at the shadows, where read noise performance differences between cameras _do _make a difference in DR.



Sporgon said:


> yet in your example the highlights were reds and yellows anyway - much more robust.



My example was after -100 Highlights, -100 Whites, latest ACR, negative exposure gradients in the sky, with saturation boosts. 

The original OOC JPEG had lost most of the tones in the gradient in the sky to a clipped yellow approaching white.

You think that sky is how the original exposure looked? I'm beginning to understand the source of all your erroneous claims about how dishonest that 5DS example was... it was your poor assumptions all along.



Sporgon said:


> Do you actually experiment with these cameras to see how far you can push them to your advantage ? I do when I get a body I haven't used before. I'm attaching a shot taken with the M3 (you know,_ that _camera ) where i was seeing how far I could push the over exposure of a _blue_ sky, at mid day, and pull full detail back in ACR. You can see that even the histogram is telling me that I've clipped, yet the resultant pull has kept full detail, with nothing lost in the blue of the sky.



Yes, we do. Your anecdotal example is just that: an anecdotal example irrelevant to higher DR scenes. And I can think of a million scenes with far more DR than the tiny DR scene you've chosen as your example...

Furthermore, this is why our actual tests aren't anecdotal - our studio comparisons level the playing field, and show differences between cameras. Up to you to decide and figure out how they translate to real world shooting, since we can't encompass all real world scenarios in our test scene. We'd love, but we can't, so we try to provide perspective where we can (and do real-world sunset shootouts, which are then pulled apart for not being 0.01% closer to the perfect



Sporgon said:


> The point with your 5Ds image is that the_ highlights are under exposed_ by at least 1.5 stops,



Incorrect. Less than one stop according to RawDigger. How/why are you _assuming _it was 'at least 1.5 stops'?



Sporgon said:


> resulting in you lifting the dark shadows off the sensor floor where it has recorded virtually zero detail in very thin light.



A 3 EV push (around what I did of the foreground grass) of ISO 250 is equivalent to ISO 2000. So then are you claiming that when you take a shot at ISO 2000, you're recording 'virtually zero detail in very thin light' at the level of your sensor prior to ISO amplification? So you never shoot at ISO 2000 or above on full-frame?

The fact remains that a camera with little to no read noise would've rendered that grass just fine (like an ISO 2000 shot), whereas the 5DS didn't. End of story.



Sporgon said:


> You can put this to bed by letting us have access to the raw file, but you know you have seriously under exposed those highlights and no one is going to need raw digger to discover that.



I could, but on principle I won't. Because last time I did during a similar discussion, the people who realized we _were _in fact less than 1/3 EV from clipping the skies turned to other conspiracy theories. The plane in the background sky had flown further in the Nikon shot, so it was shot later than the Canon shot, which meant a scene with less DR. Ironically, about a half hour after sunset, the _later _you shoot, the higher the scene DR. Whoops. Nevermind it only took the plane a matter of seconds to move that much...

It appears some will find any (irrational or simply erroneously deduced) reason to say 'you could've done better', which just wastes my time more. Or they'll apply a massive amount of noise reduction and say 'see it looks OK now!' -- which misses the point entirely.

Worse, it ignores the fact that a better performing camera wouldn't have asked you to perfectly nail exposure within less than a 1/3 EV to get better performance - a laughable expectation for any working pro that isn't a studio or landscape photographer. I just checked my shot both in RawDigger and on the back of the camera. On the back of the camera, the sky is blown to a clipped yellow, and histograms show a clipped red channel (green approaching clipping). RawDigger says tones in the sky are less than 1 EV of clipping (8700 in a 14-bit Raw file), so for the _perfect _exposure I could've increased ISO _at most_ 2/3 EV.

Are you telling me that if you're working in the field and take that shot, then see a clipped yellow sky above the mountains, you're going to think to yourself 'let me raise the ISO exactly 2/3 EV (my shutter speed & aperture have already bottomed out) but definitely not 1 EV... no that would clip my sky gradient!'

If so, you're probably a robot, hardwired into the camera sensor. Kudos. But even if you were, you might also be able to accept the fact that an ISO-invariant (higher base ISO DR, or lower read noise) camera would've allowed you to just not worry, and move on to something far more interesting, like iterating the model pose, heck interacting with the model, changing the key/rim light, etc.

Heck, if I wanted to be really safe and make sure none of the gradient in the sky were lost, I might have even underexposed _more _after looking at the clipped channels in the JPEG preview!

*To sum up: your entire argument is predicated upon the notion that a photographer who knew what he was doing would obviously have known to - despite a completely clipped yellow sky in the JPEG preview on the back of his camera - raise the ISO from 250 to either 320 or 500, but not 640. In the field. While posing the model, talking to her, choosing focus precisely because F2, placing the rim light, placing the key light, figuring out their proper balance, then figuring out the proper balance of flash to background.*

Let's let that sink in...


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > You can put this to bed by letting us have access to the raw file, but you know you have seriously under exposed those highlights and no one is going to need raw digger to discover that.
> ...



It has, you are a lying coward.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 9, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Ah, selective editing of text to change implied intent, and name-calling. Tools used often by the rational and informed.

I did one better than provide the Raw file - I provided raw readouts of the relevant channels in the sky, & a description of the OOC JPEG, to explain to people that at best the already-clipped JPEG shot could've tolerated 2/3 EV higher ISO (importantly: _not_ exposure) _at most_ in Raw.

So that the rest of the readers on here - the rational ones - might appreciate how ridiculous of an assertion it is to claim a photographer should be able to perfectly ETTR a Raw within less than 2/3 EV error in the field. _Every. Time. _No matter how complex the shoot.

I've seen what providing the Raws in the midst of heated discussions like this does. I've done it before. I've learned. Nothing to do with being a lying coward, and everything to do with someone who's learned from past behavior.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 9, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


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



More prevaricating, you are so full of it is farcical. At this point who exactly do you think you are fooling? 

DPR posts thousands of raw files, we have asked for one, there would be nothing difficult in you doing that and nothing is "better than that", anything else is evasion. Anything less is an insult to your readers.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 9, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> The red herring was actually coming from those talking about the model exposure, which has absolute nothing to do with the DR limitations I mentioned.
> 
> ??



Well you are throwing a few more now 



rishi_sanyal said:


> The original OOC JPEG had lost most of the tones in the gradient in the sky to a clipped yellow approaching white.
> 
> You think that sky is how the original exposure looked? I'm beginning to understand the source of all your erroneous claims about how dishonest that 5DS example was... it was your poor assumptions all along.



Where did I say that ? I showed in my M3 example how over exposed the jpeg / raw preview can look, and yet even with blue pull it back no problem with no loss of saturation (because it's only about one stop over from where it should be).



rishi_sanyal said:


> Going to stop you right there. No camera is better than another at highlight recovery, so it doesn't matter what software I'm using. This is a fundamental property of current CMOS linear capture. So your anecdotal examples of how much highlight you recovered in this or that shot means nothing - you could recover that much from a Nikon, or Sony, or what have you shot as well. That's why we look at the shadows, where read noise performance differences between cameras _do _make a difference in DR.



I didn't say Canon cameras, I said these 'latest cameras coupled with up to date raw converters'. My argument is, and always has been, that if you use the available highlight room you won't run into the problems of looking at the shadows. Yes, you don't need to state you look at shadows; we've noticed  Canon or Sony or Nikon - whatever.

It would have mattered what software you _were _using. Later converters read the highlight headroom much better, and so have offset some of the lower DR of Canons somewhat, by allowing slower exposures and not such deep shadows in the first place. Do you deny this ? 



rishi_sanyal said:


> Yes, we do. Your anecdotal example is just that: an anecdotal example irrelevant to higher DR scenes. And I can think of a million scenes with far more DR than the tiny DR scene you've chosen as your example...



Another red herring. My example had nothing to do with being extreme DR. It was showing how much you can over expose and retain highlights and even blue saturation whilst your shadow data is not as deep. I did state I over exposed for the sake of it. 




rishi_sanyal said:


> Incorrect. Less than one stop according to RawDigger. How/why are you _assuming _it was 'at least 1.5 stops'?



If the dark tones that you had been trying to lift had had one stop greater exposure you would have had a much improved response in tonal quality. Do you deny this ? One stop off the sensor floor makes a huge difference in these Canon sensors.

Which really is my point; you never really tried to make any effort in optimising the Canon exposures. Your attitude appears to be 'if I can under expose it on the Nikon then I should be able to on the Canon. And if I can't it's tough titty'. 
That's fine if you state this fact; the 5Ds can produce the image but exposure-wise it is harder to achieve. Which is a fair conclusion, and pretty well how you dealt with the lower DR of the Nikon D5.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 9, 2016)

Sporgon, I don't really like the tone that the bias discussion has taken but I, before seeing any CR material, had concluded there was a bias a while back. At this point I'm content to let it slide but I really would like to hear Rishi on your quote, because your point makes sense to me.

"Which really is my point; you never really tried to make any effort in optimising the Canon exposures. Your attitude appears to be 'if I can under expose it on the Nikon then I should be able to on the Canon. And if I can't it's tough titty'.
That's fine if you state this fact; the 5Ds can produce the image but exposure-wise it is harder to achieve. Which is a fair conclusion, and pretty well how you dealt with the lower DR of the Nikon D5."


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 12, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> So that the rest of the readers on here - the rational ones - might appreciate how ridiculous of an assertion it is to claim a photographer should be able to perfectly ETTR a Raw within less than 2/3 EV error in the field. _Every. Time. _No matter how complex the shoot.
> 
> I've seen what providing the Raws in the midst of heated discussions like this does. I've done it before. I've learned. Nothing to do with being a lying coward, and everything to do with someone who's learned from past behavior.



Rational? I don't think you are qualified to make that judgement. Someone with an opinion which is way higher than his abilities would suggest, is hardly in any place to consider anyone as rational or irrational. You say that you don't like to be name called (troll and coward) and yet you make statements that claim only the rational would agree with your line of thinking. Yet, many here who are rational don't agree with your line of thinking. To suggest otherwise is a self inflating, circular and egocentric argument. 

Well, CanonFanBoy managed to do that just fine...how hard can it be? Meter for the background...meter for the subject...dial in the exposure difference...adjust an re-shoot if necessary. Assuming...one is a Canon "get it right in camera" kind of guy and not a Nikon "bodge it and hope the shadows are pull able later" kind of guy. 
Here's a link to CanonFanBoy's image. He seems to have nailed the rising sun exposure and the model's flash exposure correctly :
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27692.105

No need for wide DR here...he got the exposure right, apparently according to his post....it wasn't that hard. Two meterings and a bit of compensation math. I guess that is what I would call rational...the application of science, application of photographic education and a dollop of talent. 

So what is my point here? Your original photo, although nice was poorly executed and failed to nail the correct exposure of the background. Indicating that your fading background light was poorly considered and that you used a Shadow pull to save your near-failed photo. It's a poor example of photographic situation that needed a higher DR than the camera was able to offer because you had complete control over the background and the subject light exposures. A better choice is where the subject had too much contrast in a scene to photograph normally (such as sunlight though a semi silhouetted tree) than a photo that uses Shadow pull to hide the mistakes made by the photographer. A raw file was requested to prove this point. The issue isn't in the file itself but the choice to even use that file to highlight a failed reasoning to start with. The idea that a Canon 5D4 is a worse camera than a Nikon D810 because it can't cover the photographer's ass so well when he/she screws up is hardly the fault of the camera. It's blame shifting the issue from the photographer to the camera. I could counter this line of thought quite easily by pointing out that in exotic cars, the more exotic they are, the more critical they are of your driving skills and less forgiving of driver mistakes. I believe the same is true of cameras...a professional tool would expect you to have a professional level of metering mastery and of the cameras inherent DR, which I believe is the same for both cameras? Around 12 stops. 

While I agree about DPR's work on ISO invariance. I cannot agree with your muddled use of the subject of DR. You are confusing a camera's range of DR with it's ability to pull iso exposure from shadows in a RAW editor. The two subjects are completely different. DR is defined as the usable exposure range from complete black to complete light. On a 12 bit camera file, that's a range of 0 to 4096, or 12 stops. Out of that 12 stops, 8 are generally usable. 
Here's is one of my many DR references:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm 

The only way to truly capture a wide DR, isn't to pull the dark shadows using iso variance...but to shoot at different exposures and combine them in Post production using HDR software. This will produce a clean file with high dynamic range and little to no iso noise.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 12, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > So that the rest of the readers on here - the rational ones - might appreciate how ridiculous of an assertion it is to claim a photographer should be able to perfectly ETTR a Raw within less than 2/3 EV error in the field. _Every. Time. _No matter how complex the shoot.
> ...



If your flash is a Canon flash (or one of several others that do ETTL) even off camera there is no metering needed, just put your camera in Av mode and select the aperture you want. The camera will use the shutter speed to create a background exposure, and will use the flash power and aperture to give you a different subject exposure. If you want the background lighter or darker use exposure compensation, if you want the subject lighter or darker use flash exposure compensation.

When you are using ETTL the camera makes two meter readings, one for the background and one for the subject via a preflash.

No meter readings, no calculations. Take picture, adjust EC for background and/or FEC for subject if desired, done.

Or, if you want more control or compensation over three stops or are using non ETTL lights go to camera manual mode. Turn flash off and set the aperture you want, take an exposure and get the background where you want it by adjusting shutter speed. Turn flash on, get subject exposure where you want it via flash power. As the scene gets darker the background exposure will too, to adjust for this just lengthen your shutter speed everything else stays the same. 

None of this is difficult or convoluted and takes a few seconds to get set up including the first shot. Most any photographer above strobist level can do this effortlessly, indeed the most time consuming part is getting the model to do what you want!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 12, 2016)

Hey Scott, this is very interesting to me - I had no idea. I'll be trying this out as you describe in the situation where I have late day winter setting sun and birds are visiting my set-up by my observatory. One issue, they often take exception to pre-flash - startled .

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 12, 2016)

GMC, that is a very rational response to Rishi and it's pointed me to some good reference material. Thanks.

Rishi, whether you wish to be public about it is you business but I've drawn the conclusion as always, that there are two sides to every argument. My guess is that you will rethink your approach to this topic in the future and probably do better, and that's really what matters.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 12, 2016)

Jack Douglas said:


> Hey Scott, this is very interesting to me - I had no idea. I'll be trying this out as you describe in the situation where I have late day winter setting sun and birds are visiting my set-up by my observatory. One issue, they often take exception to pre-flash - startled .
> 
> Jack



I appreciate not everybody knows this kind of stuff, but I believe a tester offering a very widely publicised opinion should, especially when they are drawing incorrect and damning conclusions that stem from their personal lack of handing skills.

Pre flash will always fire in ETTL. In manual it never will, for the birds/wildlife that are sensitive to preflash manual is the only way to go. Even if you can't adjust the flash power manually due to access issues, either because they are too remote or on a high boom you can effectively adjust flash power via aperture or iso, if you make corresponding changes to shutter speed then you retain control over both subject and background exposures from the camera even without remote control of flash power.

I believe anybody testing cameras should not only know this stuff but be able to apply it to every camera they test. Bench metrics are one thing, and of course delivering those kinds of results takes a certain skill set, but being able to do that does not qualify you to do authoritative hands on testing in the real world, it just doesn't.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 12, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:



> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > So that the rest of the readers on here - the rational ones - might appreciate how ridiculous of an assertion it is to claim a photographer should be able to perfectly ETTR a Raw within less than 2/3 EV error in the field. _Every. Time. _No matter how complex the shoot.
> ...



Rishi argued that he simply didn't have time to properly choose the exposure, what with all the setting up lights, chatting up the model, and so forth. Of course, there's a shot of the same model in the same field taken 45 minutes earlier, but, you know, he just didn't have time. 

Then again, any competent photographer would understand the exposure challenge of that shot, and would likely consider taking several shots to bracket the exposure. Since models are generally used to holding a pose through a few shots, it should have been easy. But I guess he didn't have time for that, either. Probably in too much of a hurry to cash the check from Nikon.....


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 12, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> While I agree about DPR's work on ISO invariance. I cannot agree with your muddled use of the subject of DR. You are confusing a camera's range of DR with it's ability to pull iso exposure from shadows in a RAW editor. The two subjects are completely different. DR is defined as the usable exposure range from complete black to complete light. On a 12 bit camera file, that's a range of 0 to 4096, or 12 stops. Out of that 12 stops, 8 are generally usable.
> Here's is one of my many DR references:
> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm



It depends entirely on your definition of DR. If you are Canon you measure it as per international standards such that when Signal to Noise Ratio = 0 that is the baseline, and is what you describe in your 0-4096 range scenario. 

However if you read your own linked article you will see that is not how most people quantify or measure DR from camera sensors. 



> "Therefore, dynamic range generally increases for lower ISO speeds* and cameras with less measurement noise*."




All electronics have a noise floor, that is at some point above SNR 0 the noise is so bad you can't actually discern the signal. This is why Canon can justifiably claim 15 stops of DR for the C300 MkII yet everybody else, equally justifiably, saying it has 13. If you measure like Canon you need an oscilloscope, if you measure like everybody else you can use your eyes, in a visual medium the eye test is more representative of usability.

So in effect the range from light to dark is the same across any camera with the same bit depth, however the usable range, the number of gradations you can see within that range is different due to the noise levels at any single SNR.

The subjective part is at what point do you personally consider the SNR to cross to the point of unusable? This is different for each person and any specific output size. Because of this testers use a 'standard', a set SNR% value that they apply across their testing. Good sites will give you several different values. 

The upshot of all this is that less noise in the shadows* is/does equal* more dynamic range. In that it is usable output from your sensor and does allow you to display more gradations.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 12, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > rishi_sanyal said:
> ...



This is fascinating and very clear, thanks for posting! I've never done this sort of work, so it's an eye opener.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 12, 2016)

This is fascinating and (not exactly) very clear, thanks for posting! I've never done this sort of work, so it's an eye opener.  Actually it is becoming much more clear. Goes to show that all kinds of interactions can be educational. I perfectly understand signal getting lost in noise and signal getting clipped and what you have to work with is in between.  Much appreciated.

Jack


----------



## Larsskv (Sep 12, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen what providing the Raws in the midst of heated discussions like this does. I've done it before. I've learned. Nothing to do with being a lying coward, and everything to do with someone who's learned from past behavior.
> ...



There's so much text in the discussions here, that the main issue with the not provided raw file can be missed. GMCPhotografics hit the nail on the head with the quoted text above.

What I and many CR members are upset about is that what seems to be an unnecessary underexposed file is used to demonstrate lack of DR in the 5Ds, making the 5Ds looking much worse than it really is. Rishi not providing the raw file indicates that CR members suspicion is correct, and that Rishi is hiding it from us - probably because providing it to us will generate strong arguments to those claiming DPR has an unfavorable bias against Canon. 

I'm sure Rishi won't give us the raw file, but then again, Rishi has himself to blame for the critics he suffer here on CR.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 12, 2016)

scyrene said:


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



All these are 'twin exposure' images, that is there is a deliberately selected ambient exposure and a different flash exposure. The technique has a very wide variety of uses and can be used in any level of ambient light from high noon to midnight.

My signature line says it all


----------



## scyrene (Sep 12, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


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



See, if you were a Nikon or Sony user, you'd have brightened those shadows by another three stops at least 

(These show precisely that that kind of shot is fine on Canon sensors, so I dunno why Rishi has been making out that it's a really tricky case; I have to say you've demonstrated your point well).


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 12, 2016)

Hey, I see a Thunderbird in the background! I've enjoyed this discussion and am wiser for it.

Jack


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 16, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > So that the rest of the readers on here - the rational ones - might appreciate how ridiculous of an assertion it is to claim a photographer should be able to perfectly ETTR a Raw within less than 2/3 EV error in the field. _Every. Time. _No matter how complex the shoot.
> ...



Actually, to suggest that the _very few_ who actually had an issue with my 5DS example are 'rationally' approaching this is what is self-inflating, circular, and egocentric. It's pretty much just a couple of CR people (privatebydesign & Sporgon) who are trying to make an issue out of nothing. Please don't artificially inflate the importance of one or two people, or conflate their opinion with 'rational' thought.



GMCPhotographics said:


> Well, CanonFanBoy managed to do that just fine...how hard can it be? Meter for the background...meter for the subject...dial in the exposure difference...adjust an re-shoot if necessary. Assuming...one is a Canon "get it right in camera" kind of guy and not a Nikon "bodge it and hope the shadows are pull able later" kind of guy.
> Here's a link to CanonFanBoy's image. He seems to have nailed the rising sun exposure and the model's flash exposure correctly :
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27692.105
> 
> No need for wide DR here...he got the exposure right, apparently according to his post....it wasn't that hard. Two meterings and a bit of compensation math. I guess that is what I would call rational...the application of science, application of photographic education and a dollop of talent.



Where is the evidence he exposed his highlights within 1/3 EV of clipping in Raw?

? Where did he actually state the Raw R,G,B values that indicate he 'nailed' his exposure (highlights within 1/3 EV of clipping)? 

Why do you think his exposure is any better than mine? 

Where's his 100% crop? 

Why do you think his scene even has as much DR as mine (it doesn't)?

In case you're wondering about that last point: he has the brightest portion of the sunset gradient (conveniently) occluded by the model's head. So, again, what makes you think his example and mine are even _comparable_?



GMCPhotographics said:


> So what is my point here? Your original photo, although nice was poorly executed and failed to nail the correct exposure of the background.



What was the 'correct' exposure of the background, considering that even slight increases in exposure would've clipped my skies?

Regardless, you hit on one of my original points: a camera with lower DR means that if the photographer can't nail the exposure _perfectly _by getting the highlights exactly as close to clipping as possible, then he/she may suffer extra shadow noise in cameras that have elevated read noise (lower DR).

*But that's my point*: "nailing" it is impossible _*because you literally don't have the tools to 'nail' it*_. _You just don't_. No camera today provides the tools to let you know when your Raw channels are close to clipping.

For all intents and purposes, I nailed my exposure, because the camera preview already said I clipped my skies. In fact, according to my camera, I_* over-exposed*_ my file.

'Poorly executed'? Says who? In the field my the camera indicated the skies were clipped - in other words, my camera thought I _over_-exposed! Who said I didn't 'nail' my exposure?? I was within 2/3 EV of having my red/green channels clipped in the Raw file, while the JPEG preview said I'd already clipped. Who are you to say I didn't 'nail' my exposure? Within 2/3 EV of nailing my exposure is pretty darn close, closer than you could expect of any actual working photographer, but of course not close enough for some forum armchair critic far removed from the realities of actual photography. 

Not to mention: you think 2/3 EV higher ISO would've suddenly completely removed all the effects of read noise/banding? 

To conclude, though: if you think pro photographers nail their Raw files such that their Raw R,G,B channels in highlights are no more than 10,986 in the Raw file (2^14 - 2,048 Canon offset), please refer me to them. I'd like to hire them in the future, and also check to make sure they're not robots.



GMCPhotographics said:


> Indicating that your fading background light was poorly considered and that you used a Shadow pull to save your near-failed photo. It's a poor example of photographic situation that needed a higher DR than the camera was able to offer because you had complete control over the background and the subject light exposures. A better choice is where the subject had too much contrast in a scene to photograph normally (such as sunlight though a semi silhouetted tree) than a photo that uses Shadow pull to hide the mistakes made by the photographer.



Like a couple others here that I accused of throwing red herrings, you also throw one, and have completely missed the point of the example entirely.

'You had complete control over the background and the subject light exposures' --> Yes, that's right, which has *nothing to do with anything*. 

The model's exposure (via flash) has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

I said the *background*, not the *background + model*, has too much scene dynamic range for this camera, which is why even when I exposed the sky to be as close to clipping as I thought I could reasonably get it without sacrificing the tones in the sky, the foreground (the grass, NOT the model) could not be brightened much without introducing noise. I didn't want a *black* foreground - I wanted _some_ detail in the grass, because that's _natural_.

Perhaps try and understand what's being discussed before so elaborately and passionately commenting on it.



GMCPhotographics said:


> A raw file was requested to prove this point. The issue isn't in the file itself but the choice to even use that file to highlight a failed reasoning to start with. The idea that a Canon 5D4 is a worse camera than a Nikon D810 because it can't cover the photographer's ass so well when he/she screws up is hardly the fault of the camera. It's blame shifting the issue from the photographer to the camera.



Your argument makes no sense and presupposes the 5DS (not the 5D4, btw, but who cares about details anyway?) has enough DR to handle every scene ever possible in the world. Which, frankly, is an unrealistic [euphemism] assertion.

Also, the 5D4 (or any Canon camera) was never claimed to be 'a worse camera than a Nikon D810'. Why do you make up false accusations?



GMCPhotographics said:


> I could counter this line of thought quite easily by pointing out that in exotic cars, the more exotic they are, the more critical they are of your driving skills and less forgiving of driver mistakes. I believe the same is true of cameras...a professional tool would expect you to have a professional level of metering mastery and of the cameras inherent DR, which I believe is the same for both cameras? Around 12 stops.



The inherent DR is the same for both cameras? You can believe all you want, but then there's reality.



GMCPhotographics said:


> While I agree about DPR's work on ISO invariance. I cannot agree with your muddled use of the subject of DR.



Considering I introduced the concept of ISO invariance at DPR and developed the test for it, you may wish to reconsider your opinion of what's 'muddled' and who's 'qualified' or not here (as you've accused me of not being 'qualified' to have these discussions).



GMCPhotographics said:


> You are confusing a camera's range of DR with it's ability to pull iso exposure from shadows in a RAW editor. The two subjects are completely different.
> ...
> The only way to truly capture a wide DR, isn't to pull the dark shadows using iso variance...but to shoot at different exposures and combine them in Post production using HDR software. This will produce a clean file with high dynamic range and little to no iso noise.



You apparently don't understand camera dynamic range, which explains your confusion over this entire discussion, but of course doesn't explain your erroneous claims that it is I who is not 'qualified' to talk about this subject. 

Camera (input) dynamic range is defined as [highest signal camera can record before clipping / lowest signal camera can record that is not swamped by noise], which usually translates to [full well capacity / read noise] if we're talking about engineering dynamic range. Since full-well capacity per unit area is generally similar for most cameras of equal sensor size (except for the Nikon D810 which has a higher one at ISO 64), differences tend to lie in read noise. Of course another way to capture wider DR is to combine multiple exposures, but that doesn't discount the fact that different cameras have different dynamic ranges to begin with.

If you'd like to understand these topics, though, feel free to chill out and ask some questions, or message me.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 16, 2016)

Hey Rishi, I think you are now beating the stick that was used to beat the dead horse. I'd just let it go.

BTW, I read through the 5D4 review and I think there are some subtle improvements (in the way the review is worded, that is) so even though the DR criticism may have been unfair (I see it as overly harsh), my assessment is that the various comments have had a positive effect.

That's my opinion from a literary viewpoint. Who knows what others think.

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > So what is my point here? Your original photo, although nice was poorly executed and failed to nail the correct exposure of the background.
> ...



Well, that's the crux of the matter. We have _your word_ that you exposed near clipping. 




rishi_sanyal said:


> I've seen what providing the Raws in the midst of heated discussions like this does. I've done it before. I've learned. Nothing to do with being a lying coward, and everything to do with someone who's learned from past behavior.



We've already learned from your past behavior that your word cannot necessarily be trusted – for example, your repeated, emphatic claims of being unbiased, as you were preparing a paid advertainment piece on behalf of Nikon. What providing the RAW file would do is substantiate your claim.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 16, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> I've seen what providing the Raws in the midst of heated discussions like this does. I've done it before. I've learned. Nothing to do with being a lying coward, and everything to do with someone who's learned from past behavior.



From your training in science you should accept that original data must always be available for review, regardless of what reaction it provokes. To do otherwise invites legitimate concerns over intellectual honesty.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen what providing the Raws in the midst of heated discussions like this does. I've done it before. I've learned. Nothing to do with being a lying coward, and everything to do with someone who's learned from past behavior.
> ...



Advertisers and entertainers are not held to the same standards of data disclosure...or ethics.


----------



## Alex_M (Sep 16, 2016)

Rishi, just couple of points, you might be aware of these facts but anyway:

1. you can perfectly nail your exposure if you used, say Seconic light meter calibrated to your camera. Ask Joe Brady - I am sure, that he will be happy to show you how.. in few words: create and load your camera profile to the light meter, find your camera cliping point ( say, +3.5EV up from mid grey for Sony sensor), expose for the highlight and set exposure around 2.5-3.0EV up from the metered value. as you want your brightest highlights be on the very right. if you are metering in reflected light, your metering will be for the mid grey point. hence the need to increase your exposure. I am sure that you are aware of all this.
2. exposure warning on your camera lcd comes up very early. not necessarily when you have clipped channels already. And not necessarily in all channels.
3. what you see on your camera lcd is a JPG with the style applied to it. it is very different to your RAW file.

Thank you.




rishi_sanyal said:


> ... *But that's my point*: "nailing" it is impossible _*because you literally don't have the tools to 'nail' it*_. _You just don't_. No camera today provides the tools to let you know when your Raw channels are close to clipping.
> 
> For all intents and purposes, I nailed my exposure, because the camera preview already said I clipped my skies. In fact, according to my camera, I_* over-exposed*_ my file.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 16, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> Rishi, just couple of points, you might be aware of these facts but anyway:
> 
> 1. you can perfectly nail your exposure if you used, say Seconic light meter calibrated to your camera. Ask Joe Brady - I am sure, that he will be happy to show you how.. in few words: create and load your camera profile to the light meter, find your camera cliping point ( say, +3.5EV up from mid grey for Sony sensor), expose for the highlight and set exposure around 2.5-3.0EV up from the metered value. as you want your brightest highlights be on the very right. if you are metering in reflected light, your metering will be for the mid grey point. hence the need to increase your exposure. I am sure that you are aware of all this.
> 2. exposure warning on your camera lcd comes up very early. not necessarily when you have clipped channels already. And not necessarily in all channels.
> ...



Quite so. I've learned not to trust the Canon image preview with regard to highlight clipping, and after a while it's possible to know how far you can push things without spoiling the raw file. Surely thisis common knowledge?


----------



## sebasan (Sep 16, 2016)

Say that you can't nail the exposure is something very ridiculous.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 16, 2016)

Hint:
There is a function called auto exposure bracketing, where the camera takes a series of exposures of different durations to enable you to choose the most appropriate ETTR exposure in post. Similarly you can also use flash exposure bracketing where flash power is varied across a series of exposures.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 16, 2016)

You guys are merciless! :'( 

Jack


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 16, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> Hint:
> There is a function called auto exposure bracketing, where the camera takes a series of exposures of different durations to enable you to choose the most appropriate ETTR exposure in post. Similarly you can also use flash exposure bracketing where flash power is varied across a series of exposures.



What, you think a model is just going to sit there and hold a pose while you take a few bracketed shots?


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Hint:
> ...


Isn't that what the model is paid for? 
Anyway 3 shots only takes 3 seconds (assuming a 1 second recycle time)
If your model has a hissy fit after only 2 seconds of work then you should consider using another model.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 16, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen what providing the Raws in the midst of heated discussions like this does. I've done it before. I've learned. Nothing to do with being a lying coward, and everything to do with someone who's learned from past behavior.
> ...


Way back in University Physics we learned that if you do not have the raw data to back up your results, and that if the experiment is not reproducible, then it never happened. 32 years working in R+D backs up that statement.

Sorry Rishi, no file, no credibility...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2016)

StudentOfLight said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...



Gotta try something bigger, because that was my point. Lost on Rishi, apparently.


----------



## Alex_M (Sep 17, 2016)

That is what incindent light meter is there for in the studio: to take the guess work out of equation and set your exposure right on the money and to the 1/10 of the stop so...

1. In studio environment, single exposure _if set correctly_ is enough in 99% of all cases as there is not enough DR in the scene to exceed your camera DR. 

2. Bracketed exposures are not always practical. I.e. Dynamic studio shots, your model moving around, jumps, leans, out of balance poses...



StudentOfLight said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > StudentOfLight said:
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 17, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> It's pretty much just a couple of CR people (privatebydesign & Sporgon) who are trying to make an issue out of nothing. Please don't artificially inflate the importance of one or two people, or conflate their opinion with 'rational' thought.



What is irrational about, _'Look at these, what you got is not what I get, can you prove your results by showing the raw file?'_ ?

So proving you are not being dishonest is "nothing", which would mean you consider being dishonest is nothing, interesting.......

I think your inability to put this to a swift end has made more than simply Sporgon and I have a keen interest, we might have been the most vocal here about that one image but we are by no means the only people interested in your work hatchet job. Stupid thing is you could have ended the debate instantly, and gained a lot of respect across this site and an apology from me if you had posted the raw, assuming it showed what you say it does.

Which can only lead to one of two conclusions, you are doing a Trump and playing it for all it is worth, any hit is a good hit and what does it matter if people think you are a lying toady. Or, the raw file doesn't show what you said, in which case everybody will know you are a lying toady. 

Given the many examples Sporgon and I have posted to refute your "word", most rational people would opt for the latter.

As Don says, from a scientific results point of view if it isn't repeatable it didn't happen. Sporgon and I have both repeated it with results different to yours and the same as each other. Something doesn't add up............


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 19, 2016)

rishi_sanyal said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > rishi_sanyal said:
> ...



Looking at that link, he doesn't appear to have made that claim. But, while we're on the subject of evidence, *where is yours?*

I don't have a dog in this fight, but you've posted thousands of words which would all be unnecessary if you would provide the only single set of data required to prove your point. But you choose not to because of some vague objection to what happens when you post a raw in heated discussions.

It's rapidly approaching "Rishi doth protest too much, methinks" territory. 

Forget the raw, just post a screenshot of the conversion with no manual post-processing which shows the raw histogram. For most people, myself included, that should be enough to validate your position. The actual raw would of course be better because it would avoid the potential for claims like "you photoshopped at different histogram onto that screenshot."


----------



## CaptureWhatYouSee (Oct 1, 2016)

Rishi. Come out and play...
My PhD may be from a State School, but, I at least learned about Scientific Integrity.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 1, 2016)

PBD, it's oh so easy for some people who are inclined that way, to make flippant comments that have no basis in reality and are at best exaggerative and it's certainly true that the only solution is to simply ignore them even though that's easier said than done.

Unfortunately, in otherwise thoughtful threads, there is often someone who is looking for a moment of glory by being the center of attention, regardless of how stupid they make themselves look with their comments. Free speech is not free, the price is potentially exposing oneself as a fool. 

As far as Richi's particular engagement goes, he has chosen to stick with his position and it's probably pointless to pursue that issue.

Jack


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 22, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > rishi_sanyal said:
> ...



I/we have provided hundreds, no thousands, of Raw files proving the point I've made. Have you missed them on dpreview.com? I am happy to help you find them.

If the fact that I do not provide one Raw file because I choose not to respond to _threats_ (you may not remember the manner in which it was originally asked for...) makes me a non-scientist with no credibility, then so be it.

But I might suggest that anyone who thinks this may want to combine his/her 'scientific' training with some understanding of the humanities. Human psychology in particular.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 22, 2017)

rishi_sanyal said:


> I/we have provided hundreds, no thousands, of Raw files proving the point I've made. Have you missed them on dpreview.com? I am happy to help you find them.
> 
> If the fact that I do not provide one Raw file because I choose not to respond to _threats_ (you may not remember the manner in which it was originally asked for...) makes me a non-scientist with no credibility, then so be it.
> 
> But I might suggest that anyone who thinks this may want to combine his/her 'scientific' training with some understanding of the humanities. Human psychology in particular.



Blah blah blah blah............

Provide the one that proves you aren't a liar. You won't. You were asked nicely first, you obfuscated and evaded, you changed the subject, you got snarky, so yes, people got snarky back. But your outright refusal to post that single RAW file, that you were using as an example of "bad Canon", just made you utterly irrelevant.


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 22, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > I/we have provided hundreds, no thousands, of Raw files proving the point I've made. Have you missed them on dpreview.com? I am happy to help you find them.
> ...



Asked "* nicely*" first? LOL. Why don't you go find the original request(s) / character assassination(s) and place it here?

Tell you what brother, I do NOT have Stockholm Syndrome. Try and mislead me, and the rest of the readers here, some other way.

Meanwhile, I don't respond positively to threats and fear-induced demands. 

The fact that you want this one file when we have hundreds of others published and available on our site showing the same thing speaks volumes: _you're not actually interested in the truth_. 

Only character assassination because you don't like the fact that I've said something remotely negative about your camera. Which we've even admitted may or may not make a difference for your shooting at all...


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 22, 2017)

rishi_sanyal said:


> The fact that you want this one file when we have hundreds of others published and available on our site showing the same thing speaks volumes: _you're not actually interested in the truth_.



Funny, I think it shows exactly the opposite, I think it shows you are not interested in the truth, if you were you'd publish it, but you won't, not because of some perceived slight but because you got caught telling a Sean, _"it was the best exposed image in the history of camera testing. Period."_


----------



## rishi_sanyal (Sep 22, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> rishi_sanyal said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you want this one file when we have hundreds of others published and available on our site showing the same thing speaks volumes: _you're not actually interested in the truth_.
> ...



Funny, considering I've claimed the exact opposite: that it was actually _ not_ the 'perfect' ETTR exposure, primarily because no stills manufacturer even provides you the tools to optimally expose your Raw. I've stated this as one of the benefits of cameras that don't go adding noise of their own... Because they give you more flexibility in such right shooting conditions.

But red herrings abound: but you could have done this or that. I suppose I could have had a laptop with me to check the raw values using RawDigger on-site right? 'Hold on Lena let me just check the 14-bit raw value of this pixel...' I'm sure that wouldn't have disturbed the shoot. I could have constantly bracketed with my flash right, asking my model to hold the perfect pose? Because candid moments are so lame...

Of course none of this addresses the simple fact that there are cameras that don't impose this limitation on you, and that benefit is all we were trying to call attention to in that ONE aspect of the multifaceted review of that, and all cameras.

But yeah I realize controversy and character assassination and alternative facts and lying and misleading are much more fun, if not the norm, these days. So, please continue. I will happily be your target. It gives me entertaining stuff to read anyway. Sadly though, you mislead your own fellow readers, even though I'm sure you feel the exact opposite.

Wish we could come to a common understanding.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 22, 2017)

rishi_sanyal said:


> But yeah I realize controversy and character assassination and alternative facts and lying and misleading are much more fun, if not the norm, these days. So, please continue. I will happily be your target. It gives me entertaining stuff to read anyway. Sadly though, you mislead your own fellow readers, even though I'm sure you feel the exact opposite.
> 
> Wars have been fought over less, so I'm ok with that. Though I'm not happy about it and wish we could come to a common understanding.



You're the one promulgating it, your the one that started this little mystery 'all but one RAW file' crap tonight. I know the exposure was bullsh!t, I called you out and you refuse to prove me a liar. You are the one pushing alternative facts, half truths and misleading nonsense for your own benefit, I'm not.

Either show us the RAW file or stop going on about it, that is the only obvious way to see who is being truthful.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 22, 2017)

Perhaps someone involved could give a brief summary of the points of contention as 24 pages are rather too much to trawl through to find out what this is all about. I did like Jack's comment, which I considered adding to my signature.



Jack Douglas said:


> Unfortunately, in otherwise thoughtful threads, there is often someone who is looking for a moment of glory by being the center of attention, regardless of how stupid they make themselves look with their comments. Free speech is not free, the price is potentially exposing oneself as a fool.
> 
> Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 22, 2017)

AlanF said:


> Perhaps someone involved could give a brief summary of the points of contention as 24 pages are rather too much to trawl through to find out what this is all about. I did like Jack's comment, which I considered adding to my signature.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, Alan, you mean I actually wrote that! It must have been one of my better days!   I often wonder how many poor judgment statements I've made amongst the 4000+ (I prefer not to check). 

My wonderful deceased parents had one major flaw, neither could let go in an argument. I did not like the arguing that often went on over trivial stuff, but then who's to judge what is trivial? 

Jack


----------

