rrccad: yes, sony's making more profit at the expense of mount marketshare.. they are turning more boutique to make a dollar.
what happens when people decide what they have is "good enough" and no reason to upgrade?
while DSLR's for the most part have hit that "good enough" stage, MILC's are getting pretty close to that.
it's hard to argue that someone with a A6300 or a A7RII will see the need to upgrade next year, or in two year's time, as both cameras are excellent.
however it's good to always see sony recover from 5-6 years ago when it looked like they weren't going to be around too long.
and their latest innovations such as the GM line certainly shows they see a future.
I also notice that this sony advertisement missed the fact that they went from 8.5 million units to 6.1 million units shipped - a trend that Sony certainly needs to stop.
A well-known and outspoken Canon fanboy making fun of fanboys.The irony..
Dougbm_2: What about the Nikons? DL 18-50 and DL 24-85?
One can only hope that Nikon will shake things up a bit and give us a decent lens in a reasonably compact body. That's what they claim about the DL line, anyway. Not holding my breath, though...
Why bother with those "enthusiast" compact zoom cameras and their compromised lenses when you can get one of these. This lowly DSLR with its "kit" lens is more of an enthusiast camera.
Hard to get too enthusiastic about these "enthusiast" cameras and their compromised lenses. I understand there are trade-offs, but come on...
Compromised lenses galore...
Hopefully, the 24-85mm lens is free of the compromises that Canon went for in their G7X lens. If that is indeed the case, the we may have something really good here.
If the 24-85mm lens is free of the compromises that Canon went for in their G7X lens, then this can be really good. We shall see...
Barry Goyette: I think whats not being answered with all this focus on Dynamic Range and SNR is "does 14 stops of DR produce a photo that LOOKS BETTER than one taken at 12 stops. Sure I get that the Nikon/Sony will let you shoot directly into the sun while you focus on your tulips...but when I look at that shot....I see a very strange looking sky, which is where most of that DR is being utilized. I shot some tests with the 5dsr today in stupidly backlit situations and was able to get very satisfactory results exposing for the highlights and pulling up the shadows. The shadows had a bit of noise in them sure, but at this resolution, who flipping cares...you're never gonna see it won a print shy of 24x36.
But here's the thing, when I maximized these images with their paltry 11.7 stops of DR, frankly...they looked a little fake to me. They looked a little like DPR's tulip photo...(HDR anyone?) My question is this. Would stuffing 2 more stops of DR into that shot make it look any better?
You do what you want with your camera and let others do what they want with theirs.
breivogel: Very poor ergonomics on the G7 in two critical areas. This was so bad that I returned the camera, which I otherwise liked.
The Video button is totally flush with the top surface - it is impossible to tell by feel where it is. They should have at least have put a raised ring around it or made it stick out a bit. The 4-way controller is also very hard to use, as the buttons don't stick out enough either and are hard to actuate. Maybe these work OK with small Japanese hands, but not mine, They would be totally useless if wearing gloves (as in wintertime).
I tried and Olympus OM-D E-M5 II - the difference in the same controls was night and day. The M5 4-way controller much better, and you could locate the video button.
Right, other than shutter shock, gimped dynamic range with the electronic shutter and a few other things, it's "stellar."
JPEGs from ACR seem to have obvious uncorrected chromatic aberration, but the equivalent out-of-camera JPEGs do not have that issue. Is ACR not capable of correcting chromatic aberrations for the lens on this camera?
clickstation: Am I missing the part where they test the buffer depth?
Also, are you sure there's no exposure compensation on Manual mode? The device has a touchscreen, are you sure you can't change the ex.comp there?
How come the reviews aren't standardized, with a checklist of the things that **must** be in the review? The reviewer can add their own personal touch here and there, but those standardized items must be there.
Canon's modus operandi appears to be to annoy their customers into purchasing the biggest and heaviest DSLR possible ;)
No touch screen?!?
Kaso: Strengthen the technical analyses of cameras and lenses. Stop the wimpy essays like this one, which is already one too many! No need for opinions by some pretender sitting in a cafe with a fruit-brand notebook and typing out a stupid stream of unconsciousness.
@intruder61:Yes, I can see how "democracy with a free mind" is difficult to cope with for you:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55323762
Another spectacularly prejudiced and intolerant mind with many admirers to boot ;)
Still no control over minimum shutter speed for auto-ISO in the A and P modes???
Lots of complaints here about the fact that the X-A2 does not use an X-Trans sensor, just like X-A1 didn't. Must be a big drawback, obviously...
Be that as it may, how come the X-A1 photos from DPR's new studio comparison scene look so good, JPEG or RAW, compared to the other Fuji cameras that do use the X-Trans sensor?
As always, the reactionary types are out in full force. They can always be counted upon to resist progress ;)
retro76: I picked up the J4 recently for $399 on sale (same sensor as V3). I also picked up the Olympus OMD-EM10 and Sony NEX 6 from Amazon (thanks to Amazon's amazing return policy). I ended up keeping the J4 and returning the other two bodies for the following reasons: 1) The J4 is faster and more accurate in focus 2) The J4 touch screen is better than Olympus 3) Nikon's color and metering is better. While high ISO noise is better controlled by Olympus and Sony, the high ISO grain is nicer leaving more detail on the Nikon. Overall unless you pixel peep, the Nikon images look better in print than the other two bodies. Olympus has some strange color hues and often clips highlights whereas the Nikon seems to do better in the highlights and the Olympus in the shadows. The Nikon has a sharper kit lens, the IS works better, and I love that the "lens-cap" is built in. The Nikon menu system is better than Olympus and the minimalist design and handling makes for a better travel companion.
Glad to hear you ended up with the camera you deserve ;)
Some of the comments here are so crass, they border on hooliganism. I trust that the DPR team will not be unduly influenced by them.Many thanks, again, for taking the time and the effort to bring us the DR comparison in this review. The technical depth that this type of analysis brings to the reviews here is indeed very much appreciated. Please keep up the good work.