BJP more negative on 7D than DPR

Started Nov 12, 2009 | Discussions
Jeff Greenberg
Jeff Greenberg Contributing Member • Posts: 799
BJP more negative on 7D than DPR
macshark Senior Member • Posts: 2,848
They are not alone
Karl Gnter Wnsch Forum Pro • Posts: 11,408
Classic

Jeff Greenberg wrote:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870853

Classic signs of someone completely out of his depths with the camera - he seems to be at home with the Nikon system and talking more like a point & shoot compact guy who has been given the awkward task of reviewing a pro level camera. Interestingly this guy remains unnamed - which is better for him but not good style for a magazine aiming at professionals.

-- hide signature --

regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

 Karl Gnter Wnsch's gear list:Karl Gnter Wnsch's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II
jsmiller Contributing Member • Posts: 823
Re: Classic

Karl Gnter Wnsch wrote:

Jeff Greenberg wrote:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870853

Classic signs of someone completely out of his depths with the camera - he seems to be at home with the Nikon system and talking more like a point & shoot compact guy who has been given the awkward task of reviewing a pro level camera. Interestingly this guy remains unnamed - which is better for him but not good style for a magazine aiming at professionals.

He's named right at the top of the article. I found the review very helpful in some ways and thought it is quite professional. He's clearly a Nikon guy, which did affect the review, but it helped me to understand why so many people are having user problems with this camera. However, the discussion was limited about the actual image quality of the camera, which makes it of limited value for me. It further convinced me that this is not the camera for me, though I had reached that conclusion already based primarily on examining images taken with it.

Joe

 jsmiller's gear list:jsmiller's gear list
Canon PowerShot ELPH 360 HS
halfamo Contributing Member • Posts: 634
Re: Classic

The article clearly states that it was by David Kilpatrick. A photographer for over 30 years.

http://www.davidkilpatrick.co.uk/

Erik Johansen
Erik Johansen Senior Member • Posts: 1,271
Re: Classic

It seem like a guy spent too little time with the camera. He admitted handling trouble himself.

No, this is worth as much as a book-review.........

Karl Gnter Wnsch wrote:

Jeff Greenberg wrote:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870853

Classic signs of someone completely out of his depths with the camera - he seems to be at home with the Nikon system and talking more like a point & shoot compact guy who has been given the awkward task of reviewing a pro level camera. Interestingly this guy remains unnamed - which is better for him but not good style for a magazine aiming at professionals.

-- hide signature --

regards
Karl Günter Wünsch

-- hide signature --

Canon since 1959 (and a Finepix F10 just in case)

 Erik Johansen's gear list:Erik Johansen's gear list
HDRsoft Photomatix Pro
miscreant Regular Member • Posts: 106
Re: Classic

pah
seems fairly balanced to me - overall he's pretty positive

not as in depth as other reviews sure, but he does raise some interesting points which could explain the early problems some had.

never ceases to amaze me this place.. if a review gives the camera a glowing report it's all sage nodding of heads, if another reviewer 'dares' to criticise some aspects they're immediately a fool or an amateur.

grow up, it's almost certainly the leader of the pack at the moment in many ways, but it's not perfect
--

The holy grail is to spend less time making the picture than it takes people to look at it.
:: Banksy ::

Lars Daniel Junior Member • Posts: 45
Re: Classic

"Does it work well? Out of the box, absolutely not."

What an utterly ridiculous statement.

ShawnCo Senior Member • Posts: 1,356
Re: Classic

I will admit, i also did not see his name in the online version of the review.

If it is David Kilpatrick, I would disagree that he is a "Nikon Guy". Actually he is more a Minolta/Sony Alpha (he started "Photoclub Alpha" if my memory serves me) kind of guy. I would also suggest that he does his best to try and be objective and professional. Actually, his reviews of Sony products seem much more indepth. Regardless, while i don't think he "trashed" the 7D and I think he did make a concerted effort say something positive and appear unbiased, it is also clear he didn't seem to take much time to read the manual or he was reading the manual while conducting his review. I don't have a problem with his review but I do take it with a grain of salt. It is my opinion he still doesn't understand the product he reviewed. For example - he seems perplexed as to why you would need custom functions for the AF, or when using 19 point auto select AF that it will try to focus on the closest object, he doesn't seem to get the evaluative metering system and also makes an off the cuff comment about how it is difficult to assign functions to buttons because he needed to refer to the manual to find the custom fuction.

jsmiller wrote:

Karl Gnter Wnsch wrote:

Jeff Greenberg wrote:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=870853

Classic signs of someone completely out of his depths with the camera - he seems to be at home with the Nikon system and talking more like a point & shoot compact guy who has been given the awkward task of reviewing a pro level camera. Interestingly this guy remains unnamed - which is better for him but not good style for a magazine aiming at professionals.

He's named right at the top of the article. I found the review very helpful in some ways and thought it is quite professional. He's clearly a Nikon guy, which did affect the review, but it helped me to understand why so many people are having user problems with this camera. However, the discussion was limited about the actual image quality of the camera, which makes it of limited value for me. It further convinced me that this is not the camera for me, though I had reached that conclusion already based primarily on examining images taken with it.

Joe

Dom Regular Member • Posts: 451
Who's Darwin Wiggett?

BJP, well known, well respected journal with a serious reputation.

Darwin Wiggett- with respect, who's he and why should any of us be bothered about his opinions? Just interested as there's lot's of people on the internet with opinions, many of which seem quite different.

macshark wrote:

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/

blfaul Regular Member • Posts: 320
This reviewer gets it

Here is an example:

"Tungsten and fluorescent indoor shots were not fully corrected, retaining some of the feel of the original lighting."

Time after time I've seen other reviewers (including DPR) and countless commenters who do not seem to understand this concept.

His focusing discussions are another excellent example. He gets it and understands the camera. If people read his review they will be much less likely to have trouble with the auto focusing.

Thanks for the link.

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 18,226
Re: Who's Darwin Wiggett?

Dom wrote:
BJP, well known, well respected journal with a serious reputation.

Darwin Wiggett- with respect, who's he and why should any of us be bothered about his opinions? Just interested as there's lot's of people on the internet with opinions, many of which seem quite different.

macshark wrote:

http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/

His "review" is mentioned in another thread....and has been laughed off. Apparently, he doesn't understand issues with diffraction to well....nor capture sharpening.

BJP is a great mag....but this fellow needs to learn how to review gear....as his "review" was a joke.

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X Fujifilm X-Pro1 +18 more
UKMatt Forum Member • Posts: 52
Re: Classic

Lars Daniel wrote:

"Does it work well? Out of the box, absolutely not."

What an utterly ridiculous statement.

I too think that this camera like equivalent nikon offerings has to be tuned to get the best from it. I would not call that statement ridiculous though. It still has a full auto mode (god knows why, at this price I'd expect any buyer to know what they're doing before spending a great deal of money). Based on a few threads re. Dodgy focus (not to be confused with the genuine faulty 7d threads) it's clear some users do not know how AF works in general and expect the camera in full Auto 19 point mode to focus on the subject of their choice and be in perfect focus. I think several were out of their depth and blamed the camera when their inexperience was the limiting factor.

This brings me back to the quote, by including the auto mode many people may consider this camera a superb auto p&s and treat it as such assuming the 19 points will do it all for them. I think the reviewer is probably addressing this point. I remember taking ages to confgure my D300 for optimal results.
--
best regards

Matt

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 18,226
Re: Classic

miscreant wrote:

pah
seems fairly balanced to me - overall he's pretty positive

not as in depth as other reviews sure, but he does raise some interesting points which could explain the early problems some had.

never ceases to amaze me this place.. if a review gives the camera a glowing report it's all sage nodding of heads, if another reviewer 'dares' to criticise some aspects they're immediately a fool or an amateur.

That's not the issue here at all. He obviously doesn't understand the issues around diffraction. f11 in the studio setup....f16 for the landscape samples? No capture sharpening to compare true per pixel rez, etc.

If he did this with any camera, I call the review fluff. I've got no problems achieving sharp images with my 7D....but what does he expect at f16....sheeesh.

grow up, it's almost certainly the leader of the pack at the moment in many ways, but it's not perfect
--

The holy grail is to spend less time making the picture than it takes people to look at it.
:: Banksy ::

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X Fujifilm X-Pro1 +18 more
Mrs Reality Regular Member • Posts: 366
Re: Classic

miscreant wrote:

pah
seems fairly balanced to me - overall he's pretty positive

not as in depth as other reviews sure, but he does raise some interesting points which could explain the early problems some had.

never ceases to amaze me this place.. if a review gives the camera a glowing report it's all sage nodding of heads, if another reviewer 'dares' to criticise some aspects they're immediately a fool or an amateur.

grow up, it's almost certainly the leader of the pack at the moment in many ways, but it's not perfect

What's interesting too is which people are bashing the review in this thread. They're some of the same ones who bash anything or anyone who dares to be honest and realistic about Canon gear.

chisquared Senior Member • Posts: 1,303
Re: This reviewer gets it

Agreed.

I think many of the reported AF problems were caused by confusion. But, I still think there is an issue with some units. More than normal? I have no way of knowing.

The Davinator
The Davinator Forum Pro • Posts: 18,226
Re: Classic

Mrs Reality wrote:

miscreant wrote:

pah
seems fairly balanced to me - overall he's pretty positive

not as in depth as other reviews sure, but he does raise some interesting points which could explain the early problems some had.

never ceases to amaze me this place.. if a review gives the camera a glowing report it's all sage nodding of heads, if another reviewer 'dares' to criticise some aspects they're immediately a fool or an amateur.

grow up, it's almost certainly the leader of the pack at the moment in many ways, but it's not perfect

What's interesting too is which people are bashing the review in this thread. They're some of the same ones who bash anything or anyone who dares to be honest and realistic about Canon gear.

Let's see how well the Nikon gear, or any other gear for that matter does when diffraction is an issue at f11 or f16....without any capture sharpening. The "test" has issues no matter what camera he is reviewing.

I see no blind brand loyalty here....just people questioning why his results are so different. This fellow had no problems understanding the issues at hand:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=33674912

 The Davinator's gear list:The Davinator's gear list
Canon PowerShot G3 Canon PowerShot SX150 IS Canon EOS D30 Nikon D2X Fujifilm X-Pro1 +18 more
Mrs Reality Regular Member • Posts: 366
Re: Classic

Dave Luttmann wrote:

miscreant wrote:

pah
seems fairly balanced to me - overall he's pretty positive

not as in depth as other reviews sure, but he does raise some interesting points which could explain the early problems some had.

never ceases to amaze me this place.. if a review gives the camera a glowing report it's all sage nodding of heads, if another reviewer 'dares' to criticise some aspects they're immediately a fool or an amateur.

That's not the issue here at all. He obviously doesn't understand the issues around diffraction. f11 in the studio setup....f16 for the landscape samples? No capture sharpening to compare true per pixel rez, etc.

If he did this with any camera, I call the review fluff. I've got no problems achieving sharp images with my 7D....but what does he expect at f16....sheeesh.

Depth of field maybe? Duh.

No matter where I look I don't see Canon or any other company saying that f16 should never be used or that it's a bad choice of f-stops. Maybe Canon should release a whole new line of lenses that only stop down to about f6.3 for the 7D and any other high pixel density cameras. Yeah, that's the ticket. We don't need no stinking f16!

Believe it or not, many people want reviews that show what a camera will do under various circumstances with various settings. All you and other fanboys seem to want are reviews for the 7D that show it as the ultimate, perfect, flawless, most wonderful camera ever produced, even though it has its share of limitations and imperfections.

Get real, it's just a camera.

grow up, it's almost certainly the leader of the pack at the moment in many ways, but it's not perfect
--

The holy grail is to spend less time making the picture than it takes people to look at it.
:: Banksy ::

tko Forum Pro • Posts: 11,831
he doesn't understand AF, that's for sure

If he read the manual of any SLR he'd find the algorithm using multiple focus points is to pick the closest one, not the one w/the highest contrast. He does not understand the most basic elements of modern day dSLRs. Here is his description, which is absolutely wrong and misleading.

"Does it work well? Out of the box, absolutely not. The default 19-point Auto Selection AF setting prefers closer subjects, and averages the setting based on an f/5.6 depth-of-field when more than one point is confirmed. I found that with a typical wide- angle landscape or street scene, focus would be at the bottom of the image, five to 10 feet from the camera. In any crowd shot, the closest figures to the camera would be sharp even if the main subject was much better lit and centrally placed. Closest detected object priority has been a standard Canon default for multi-point AF from inception."

Would you any camera to find the high contrast AF points and average the results?

Mrs Reality Regular Member • Posts: 366
Re: Classic

Dave Luttmann wrote:

Mrs Reality wrote:

miscreant wrote:

pah
seems fairly balanced to me - overall he's pretty positive

not as in depth as other reviews sure, but he does raise some interesting points which could explain the early problems some had.

never ceases to amaze me this place.. if a review gives the camera a glowing report it's all sage nodding of heads, if another reviewer 'dares' to criticise some aspects they're immediately a fool or an amateur.

grow up, it's almost certainly the leader of the pack at the moment in many ways, but it's not perfect

What's interesting too is which people are bashing the review in this thread. They're some of the same ones who bash anything or anyone who dares to be honest and realistic about Canon gear.

Let's see how well the Nikon gear, or any other gear for that matter does when diffraction is an issue at f11 or f16....without any capture sharpening. The "test" has issues no matter what camera he is reviewing.

Yeah, diffraction issues apply to any camera with greater pixel density. So?

It doesn't seem to matter what someone finds wrong, or limiting, with a Canon camera. You and other fanboys come running to Canon's rescue and rant about bias or ineptitude on the part of the reviewer or the person who reports any problems or limitations.

All cameras have limitations and some have flaws in design or QC. Some have more limitations or flaws than others and there's nothing wrong with reporting those flaws or limitations. It's the best way for people to find out about a camera before they spend any money on it just to find that it doesn't perform as they would like it to.

If the reports show the camera as a good performer or a bad performer in the conditions or with the settings a person normally uses, they can make their decision whether to buy it based on those reports. The more information, whether good or bad, the better.

I see no blind brand loyalty here....just people questioning why his results are so different. This fellow had no problems understanding the issues at hand:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=33674912

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads