sleibson: I was happy to see this review because it has the ring of truth to it. This pro photographer brings her biases to her review, just like any reviewer. She is a full-frame shooter. She has a color preference. She knows what she likes and what she doesn't like. I found her review of the 7DII very credible based on that. She noted the fast AF and the fast burst speed. She noted controls she didn't like. She also noted how she sets the camera up for her work. In all, this is as informative a working review of a camera as you can hope to get and I appreciate the even-handed, easy-to-read tone.
And no, Canon didn't pay me to write this.
Totally credible, because she puts things into perspective by comparing to 7d and 5d/1dx.
fmian: Good to have such a perspective on the camera, but.
Pro:Cropped sensor is a pro when you need a little more reach on lenses, like a 70-200 in the end zone
Con:The cropped sensor is a negative point for me, for the most part
Makes it sound like she doesn't shoot tele sports action much.
No, you simply do not understand what she means.
Michel F: She says she prefers shooting full frame a few times in the story then states that she hated shooting with the original 7D. Why on earth did they ask her to post an opinion on this new APS-C camera ? It's biased from the start. I mean they could have asked for a writeup from a pro that already uses a crop sensor camera often and actually likes it. As the number one con, she writes "no voice recorder" ??? How can I take this article seriously when the reviewer says the number one pet peeve about a camera is that it has no voice recorder ?
Is it really too hard for you to understand her arguments?If yes, you better stop reading any reviews.
Donnie G: I'm sure that the DPR staff would gladly ask any professional sports/action/news photographer to do an opinion piece on any non-Canon or non-Nkon pro camera that they use to put bread on their tables. I'm sure DPR is looking high and low for that one courageous soul, no matter where in the world he may be. LOL, DPR has a better chance of finding a yeti. So get over it folks. :)
There already is an article on this site about using m43 for sports action. Just look it up.
Sven Witter: Well, she is used to Nikon if not a Nikon envabgelist. Someone who is used and in favour of Nikons way of treating colours, may not find right away the necessary workflow to satisfie their taste. So how much worth is her verdict anyhow? It's just a persons statement with some prejudice and not much proven expertise. I could even ask my sister - she once became an ELDAF-member (elite group of German amateur fotografers sponsored by a Colourfoto magazin)... as a hobby artist in fotografy her verdict might even be worth more.... Or I just trust my own verdict - cause my sister is a free minded artist and I do what my clients pay me for....
Have you read the article, at all?1DX is not a Nikon afaik.
Just because she has different needs than you for professional use does not invalidate her statements.
mpgxsvcd: Canon seems to be oblivious to what there competition is doing these days.
Beckler8: I don't really understand this. We're in the 4K era now. If you just need a quick camera to get some basic HD footage, then you don't need a 6 thousand dollar setup. But then if your application is serious at all and you're even looking at this price level, then you (should) have zero interest in capturing immediately obsolete 1080 footage. But all that said, there must be a narrow segment for whom this camera makes sense - not sure what that is though.
No 'we' are not. This is a cam for professionals, not for some silly iPhone user who thinks he can shot movies with his gadget.
What a huge disappointment!The performance figures are abysmal and EV comp is implemented in the most stupid way one could think of.
Even at half the price I would not even consider buying it.You gain one stop in ISO compared to a good compact but lose everything else.
Sdaniella: I'd rather have ultra-lowlight FF sensor with CLEAN NOISELESS video capability at high ISOs, say from Canon (in 2013 March) which even Sony Alpha 7S lacks (a compromised product, in 2014 April), than a tinier Sony sensor that's noisy in ultra-low light hardly better than its A7S FF sensor
Canon FF CMOS color video sensor, that shoots HD (1080p) in sub-lux 0.010 (less than one-third of moonlight; specifically, no moonlight at all):
Canon develops 35 mm full-frame CMOS sensor for video capture (stars, meteors, etc):http://vimeo.com/61250248
same Canon FF CMOS video sensor capturing bioluminescent fireflies under a moonless night in the forest:http://petapixel.com/2013/09/13/canon-debuts-exciting-prototype-sensor-exceptional-low-light-capability
All Sony can do is show they have a long way to go to to meet Canon users preferences since Canon appears more on-track to deliver what we want, that Sony's A7S is just a rushed compromised half-effort that falls short of delivering good IQ
@Sdaniellea: If you only work with JPG ooc, the 5D/6D may be the right choice for you. But claiming that its sensor has better noise performance than an 810 based on the cameras JPG engine is simply wrong:http://tinyurl.com/pgltffy810 has clear advantage over 6D. Upscaling the 6D image would even make it worse.
You are right about the Sonys, though.
mahonj: a: No-one drives around at night with their lights off - they drive around with them on.Thus, you do not need this capability for automotive applications.
b: The image quality at +72db of gain is fairly awful - but what would you expect with +72 db gain in an image.
c: I think the news is the ability to do +72db if gain at all, or to get usefully clean images with (say) +36 db gain.
As far as I can see, this is about 2x as sensitive as normal sensors.
Which is something, but not driving cars around at night with the lights off.
Sure, Sony did this just for the fun of it. There must be no serious application at all. You must be right, Mr. Knowall!
Yoggie: I plan to use this as my next travel superzoom
No need to travel... just point it into the direction you want to go and zoom in.:-)
dark goob: I applaud DPreview for not mentioning "equivalence" in this article, and for not calling Super35 a "crop sensor".
I'm glad we've finally evolved beyond calling things "full-frame" vs. "crop". Clearly, when Canon's most advanced optics by far are made full-frame relative to Super35 (24.9x14mm), which is much smaller even than an 16:9 APS film frame, we are finally in the future where 135-format's long dominance over the cultural milieu has ended.
Maybe now DPreview would be open to switching to using Range Factor terminology. This lens is a 2.01:1–41.08:1 Range Factor. The ratio is D:W, where D=distance-to-subject, and W=width-across-frame. I.e. a 1-foot ruler will occupy the entire width of the frame left-to-right from 41.08 feet away at 1000mm. With the extender it increases to a max of 59.76:1.
"Compare" this to a Canon SX60HS which has a Range Factor of 0.62:1–39.55:1 on its 1/2.3"-format (6.2x4.6mm) sensor, which is a 27% crop of Super35.
"Foot"?You can't be serious...:-)
Some strange results... I'm surprised how little you gain at base iso vs. a small-sensor compact.
In some areas the big boys even lose imo:http://tinyurl.com/qyb8jyohttp://tinyurl.com/nw37pez
I would only consider them, if I really needed the lower DOF.
PeterBM: Still waiting "my" good camera:- compact with large sensor- good fixed lens, min range 28-135, possibly more- max aperture 2.8, possibly better- overall good features (photo quality, responsiveness, focus accuracy, ...)- and absolutely a fully articulated screen
Meanwhile you should consider Olympus Stylus 1.Its sensor is not large, but constant F2.8 makes up for it in most situations.In terms of handling, responsiveness and compactness it is second to none.
armandino: Canon M system:Camera + 22/2.0 $31111-22mm $40018-55mm $10922/2.0 $11955-250mm $400adapter for EF $100
The canon M is designed for basic functionality and unfortunately a non competitive focus speed. Yet you can buy a whole system for the price of a mid range mirrorless. If AF speed and EVF are not your concern this is an excellent proposition. It also underlines the most obvious of the issues with the hyped mirrorless systems: they are overpriced.
armandino: mZuiko 45/1.8: 237 USD, or Nikon 1 18,5/1.8 or Sony 50/1.8 and probably some more...
And you can be quite sure that most of them are much more useable at 1.8 than the cheap lenses from Canikon, but most people just don't get this and compare apples to oranges.I don't mind - you may choose whatever system you think is best for you. I know for sure that I would not pick an SLR.
MarcusGR: Hi, DPR. Thanks for these sample-shots. But ... Some ISO 6400/12500 in a dark place would be my very first shots with LX 100 ! Why did you try only ONE, and very close-up, too (the cork image) ? We, travel photographers, are the ovious target of such a camera, and what we are most curious about is how much it can push the limits of our current compacts when it comes to shooting hand-held in poor light !! Aren't you curious about it yourselves ???
@Marcus: Most people are interested in its performance in regular light.If you're a high ISO fetishist you should get an FF with a bright prime.
EinsteinsGhost: @Damien (author): Why is there no mention Sony RX100 at all? It is LX100's most direct competition (the article wasted way more space providing irrelevant history lessons).
Because he doesn't care about the Sony and it is too dissimilar to LX100.
Wedding photographer: Very poor samples gallery. All photos in this gallery have been taken with static objects, family portraits and etc. This camera can shoot at 10 frames per second and examples above don't reflect the "substance" and design of 7D. Thanks.
@Wedding P:Ridiculous comment. He went for a little trip with his lady over the weekend. Do you expect him to waste time in the next sports arena?You should be grateful that he publishes such private pics at all!
" You cannot get inexpensive lenses in any mirrorless system."I don't think this is true in general: It just depends on what lenses you need. Oly offers a very good 40-150 for $199. Their 17/2.8 isn't expensive either. MFT kit zooms are cheap and quite good.Then there's Fuji with very affordable double-zoom packages and excellent lenses.An exception can be top-level mirrorless lenses. Some of them tend to be pricier than the latest top-level offerings from Sigma for "Canikon". So, if only top-level is "worthy" for you, SLR may be the better system for you. Still, this does not defeat the purpose of mirrorless for many other buyers. Yes, it is still a niche, but also the only growing sector in the industry.Also, your statement that most stick to their kit lenses is also true for SLR owners. My conclusion: Mirrorless and SLR cams are both excellent choices. Which one is better for you depends on your specific needs and should be considered very carefully.
You can get an E-PM2 kit for 380 USD. Is this also overpriced?Or do you want to compare an E-M1 or a GH4 to the EOS M?
If you meant that the prices are (too) high compared to regular SLRs, maybe, yes. But many people are willing to pay this premium for a smaller and lighter system.
If you cannot care less, fine. Others do care a lot. We all should be happy to - still - have the choice. ;-)