By: Gary Gray




DP Review has released their Canon EOS 7D MK II review.  You can read it here


I read most of the reviews that come from DP Review and from other photography web sites as well.  Though I shoot Canon, I'm not an equipment fan-boy.  The best brand of camera is the one you have with you.


I don't know anything about the 7DmkII but if it's a better camera than the EOS 7D, it's a damn good camera.


One thing I do know though. DP Review has invented more imaginary photography test terms than any other photography review site. Many of these made up conditions are repeatedly used in their camera reviews, particularly when it comes to describing the test images they use for comparisons.


One that comes to mind...."Pixel Level Sharpness"


Pixel Level Sharpness is a make believe quantity. Pixels are represented by one dot in the image. A dot is only as sharp as, well, a dot. They show up as squares on your monitor. Columns and rows of square pixels.  What they are attempting to describe is edge sharpness and local contrast in images viewed on a monitor.


Some camera raw files look less punchy or contrasty (accutance is the old school word) than others. With Raw files, all of that is adjustable in post processing, so what adjustment you wish to make is up to you and it's totally variable. They talk about it as though it's a major thing, when in reality it's just something that you adjust to taste. It may not be the same from one camera to another, but there is no standardized or even non standard agreement on what that means. It's just bullshit used to fill their article with techno-babble
There is also no standardized measurement for testing camera noise levels. So, they just make stuff up. A common phrase they've used at DP review is to the effect this camera or that camera can shoot up to XYZ ISO but anything higher than Y or Z should only be used in an emergency. What the hell does that mean? I've never had an ISO emergency. Shoot the darn thing at what ever ISO you like, it doesn't require an emergency, it simply requires that you like the result. If you don't, try something else.


Digital camera noise is a non-issue and has been a non-issue for the past 5-6 years. All digital SLR's control digital noise exceptionally well and it's only getting better. Some are better than others, but there isn't anything out there generating "excessive" digital noise to the point that it's harming image quality.


Another favorite techno-babble thing they like to talk about. Dynamic Range.


Some cameras reportedly have greater dynamic range than others. I understand dynamic range in minutia, and let me tell you something. It's a made up issue. Your typical print paper and computer monitor will never display the full dynamic range that any modern DSLR can generate. So, if you're looking at that as a technical spec, you'd be better off judging it by how long someones nose is because it simply doesn't matter. No human can see the difference on a monitor or in print. It's an "Imaginary" issue.


I like how they hammer this camera on it's "video" performance. Excuse me, but this is a camera that does video. They'll never review a camcorder and talk about how bad a camera they make, so why bother here. Nobody is buying this camera to use primarily as a video camcorder.


They also rag on the lack of "face detection", like that's some major thing. Face detection is a consumer gimmick that was first introduced in point & shoot cameras to help idiots take pictures of people without being out of focus. All cameras come with face detection though, it's called YOUR EYE. If you look through the viewfinder and see a face, you've figured it out.


I even saw an older review they did where they hammered a camera for not having built in digital zoom. Digital zoom is make believe too. It's just cropping your image in the camera rather than you doing it at the computer.

The EOS 7D MK II is a camera designed to appeal to sports and wildlife photographers, not portrait photographers, but it will do as good a portrait as any other camera out there if you aren't a complete numb-skull.


They also keep going to the well on the full frame/crop sensor depth of field myth. You can read more about that on my web site, but there is no difference in depth of field between a crop sensor body and a full frame sensor body. These guys never figured that out. I'm always left wondering how anyone can give an accurate or meaningful review of a camera without understanding the most simple of photography concepts. The end result, lots of internet techno-wiz camera geeks go around spouting off pseudo facts they've picked up from reading too much bullshit from DP Review write-ups.  If you want the facts, click here


So, I like to keep an eye on what they write, but let me tell you. Most of the superlatives they use in their reviews are the blathering of a bunch of seat buffers, not photographers.


This is one bad-ass camera. Nobody has anything close to this on the market. Nikon can only wish their top APS-C body could do what this does. The fact that it's an APS-C sensor means nothing, except it's less expensive to manufacture and less expensive to buy than a full frame sensor camera. There are functional differences, but the image quality from APS-C sensors is pretty darn good and always has been.


Bottom line on DP Review, they have a wealth of information on what the current and past market offerings are, but I wouldn't read their reviews for an informed opinion, because a lot of what they say is nothing more than techno-babble filler.

Reviewing the Reviewers -  Camera Reviews On The Internet
(with a grain of salt)