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.
It's quite simple imo:1. She prefers her FF zooms to stay the same. This means she also needs the wide-angle part of them.2. She prefers IQ of FF to that of crop sensors.
So for her, the cons "win".
For someone - not her - who mainly(!) wants more reach, a crop sensor can be a pro.
Steve Balcombe: It's really good to read the actual thoughts of an actual working pro. But I'm afraid her reaction mostly comes across as "Ew, a crop camera".
The first big giveaway was "I like knowing that my lenses are true to their focal length", which is just ridiculous and betrays a complete lack of understanding. I wonder what she did before the 1Dx (i.e. only 3 years ago), when sports professionals routinely used the 1.3x crop 1D MkIV?
Then there is this emphasis on the voice memo feature which is apparently a deal-breaker for her. I can understand how useful it is. Yet she speaks highly of the 5D3 *which has no voice memo feature".
And she lists "no built-in wifi" in her Cons, but no 1-series or 5D has that either.
Fine, these are the observations of a working professional photographer and valuable as such. But I think she decided she didn't like it because it's not a "professional" body in the traditional sense, then she looked for reasons to justify that.
@Steve: "How can lacking something which her favoured cameras also lack make it unsuitable?"
Because she wants to give a complete list of pros/cons, not only a list of "additional cons". If she followed your logic, she'd have to remove most of the pro points, too, as these also apply to a 5d/1dx.
Besides, what most fanatics of 7dII here in the forum seem to overlook: She does not say that the camera is unsuitable. Instead she calls it a "very good contender for the price."
That she still prefers the higher specs of the much pricier models is no contradiction at all.
'And she lists "no built-in wifi" in her Cons, but no 1-series or 5D has that either.'
And this is why she should not list it as a 'con'?I cannot follow your 'logic' here...
Read the whole article and you'll understand.Her pro and con list makes perfectly sense.
tampadave: She lost me at "puke."
I read it with a giggle and enjoyed the rest of the article.
Nindy5: Troll city on this forum
... as usual. :-)
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.
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.