jaykumarr: readers who are angry about the pricing should see the pricing of 80-400mm II Nikon AF-S. That is 20% higher. ( As per the feedback from users, that Nikon lens is extremely fast focusing and almost as sharp as prime. So I neither blame that price).
@Teila Day "Today, Nikon still sells the 200-400 f/4 lens, which, Canon (thankfully) surmised was ridiculous when full frame digital cameras became common across the professional demographic, because it's too short and offers too little latitude!"
Looks like Canon was a little shortsighted there. This is a Pro lens that sells for over $6K and it does sell, so the Pros seem to disagree with that assessment.
NJOceanView: I would have preferred to read an opinion from someone who used and embraced crop sensor cameras, since that is the category the 7D2 is in and the marketplace where 7D2 buyers will come. The opinion should have been about the 7D2 compared to other crop cameras, not compared to the 1Dx or 5D3.
I'm also surprised she cited "a little more reach" from the 7D2 vs. FF. It's 60% more, not "a little more." That's why 90% of pros who use crop cameras use them.
Agreed. I lost all respect for her opinion when she said 10fps felt like slow motion. 10fps is not slow by any means, even when compared to a 1D-X. If she's incapable of keeping things in perspective then she's the wrong person to review this camera.
Photographer2: After D600 disaster lost 100% confidence in that brand, now 100% happy with my Canon 6D, not missing anything.I had to send in my US 6D to Canon Canada for a button not working, this was done on warranty using the Canon service website, the service experience was fantastic. Nikon service I totally hated, what a difference.
Not missed anything except features. Like a built-in flash, extra card slot, 28 more focus points, 100% viewfinder, faster continuous shooting, and on and on and on.
"several commentators, including ourselves, remarked on its uncanny resemblance to the Canon Powershot G-series."
I've heard this before. All these reviewers must be very young. This camera looks like a rangefinder. It has the distinctive shape of rangefinders since the 50's. The Canon, also, looks like a rangefinder. It could be said the Canon G-Series looks like the Nikon SP from '57. There is little difference in them all.
Ramjager: A stronger opponent with the 5DMk3 in terms of Autofocus?You mean the Nikon AF system works this time or is it still sharp on the right soft on the left?Funny how in the DPR D800 review no mention was made of the poor AF and QC issues which plagued the D800 bodies.How many people went through multiple bodies to get one good one that had an AF system half as good as Canons...lots.Yet hey it had 36MP its the king.Your kidding yourseld DPR thinking some actually read and take your reviews seriously until you start reviewing properly and thoroughly.But hey its got 36.3 MP and made by Nikon it must be good..right?
The 5DMk3 has its own AF problems. You just have to Google it to see that. Combine that with the oil/dust issue that is now plaguing Canons 1DX and 5DMk3 and you'll find that QC problems are everywhere. In a recent 1DX/D4 comparison the Canon AF was found to be spot-on for only 9 shots out of 12 while the Nikon's was 100%. Canon shooters have nothing to crow about with AF anymore.
JamesD28: Meanwhile, Canon are still....... nowhere to be seen.
"Give me AF problems over dirty oily sensors any day of the week."
You're in luck, Serickmetz. As a Canon shooter you can now have both. The 1DX and the 5DMk3 both have the oil affliction that the D600 had. And, apparently, Canon isn't handling the problem any better than Nikon did.
MABurney: "The EOS 6D is Canon's attempt to entice DSLR owners who are looking for the benefits of full frame shooting - including shallower depth of field and wider-angle lens coverage, but can't afford the EOS 5D Mark III."
". . . Canon's compromises have turned what could have a been a truly great camera into merely a very good one. "
This is interesting. Do we want 6D to be like the 5D Mark III? Then why not buy the $3,500.00 camera.
The 6D would never be considered a great camera compared to the 5DMk3. More than likely the compromises that make the 6D "merely a very good one" are those with respect to the D600.
CameraLabTester: The Nikon D600 and the D610 are both very good cameras.
But there will always be that speck of dust in one's mind...
And that's exactly where it was for most of the people complaining about dust: in their minds.
Cyrus the Great: Nikon D800 is clear winer over 5D iii in every things. Nikon has much sharper lens. don't know why some people buy Canon???!!!!!
No cameras white balance is perfectly neutral. That's why we have the ability to manually change it on the camera and even fine tune on some of the higher end models. Nikon cameras do run slightly toward the cool side, but they can always be fine-tuned to be neutral in-camera. Canon cameras have always leaned towards the orange color tint. Luckily for Canon the end result is a slightly warmer image that many photographers like the looks of. Few pros would buy a camera that couldn't be made to produce true colors. And that forest of white lenses has been thinning out quite a bit since the advent of the Nikon D3. I'm one die-hard Nikon enthusiast who's ecstatic with Sony sensors. No other brand can even match their dynamic range.
kuklukklak: Great test, neutral result.
Funny to see Canon and Nikon swap their strategy regarding to noise vs MP and their fan boy defending them hard. LOL
And now that Nikon has switched their strategy all you Canon fanboys are saying lower MP is better and you defend Canon to the bitter end. So what?
do7slash: what i don't understand is people's obsession with the video quality on these DSLRs.
Shirley the main reason to buy a DSLR is for still photography? Buy a dedicated video camera if you want to shoot video?
Most of what you said is pure crap.
If you are going to say the "vast Majority" you better back it up with statistics because the vast majority of people I know don't even use video.
Video on a DSLR is mediocre at best. Nikon and Canon have been thriving up to this point without good video on their cameras and would most likely continue to do so. I'd love to see Nikon and Canon introduce separate versions of their cameras: one that has video and one that has none. That way all you people who want the video function can pay for it. I, and many others, don't want to have to pay the extra money that is built into the DSLR price for the few of you who whine about having video.
If Nikon and Canon were realizing that video was important it would be a lot better than it is today and would have gotten better much sooner.
Just because you don't want something doesn't mean the rest of us should have to pay for it.
Why don't you people buy a video camera with a stills photo function?
BW18: Have a Canon and I love it (5D). Someday when I have the $$ I will get a second body. I am a photographer. It is frustrating to hear that all the camera manufactures are adding video. Perhaps there is a need for some, but give me a break! While reading this article it sounded great until "…it's clear that Canon has had movie shooter in mind." If I want to shoot movies I will use a movie camera! Thoughts anyone?
Well said BW18.
Do you others actually believe what you're saying? No extra costs involved to add video?
What about extra programming time to add menus to support video and its settings. What about changes to the body to cram in extra buttons? What about designing a sensor that will run continuously without melting down from overheating? There are substantial extra costs involved in adding video to a DSLR. I'd like to see Canon offer two 1D X cameras - one with video and one without. Then we'll see if the buyers in this price range are willing to pay for the amateurish video function. I suspect that video in cameras at this level would be gone in a year.
harold1968: sorry, 16mp on a professional camera does not cut itCanon and Nikon are like supertankers. They have heard photographers demanding better quality higher ISO for years so now have both delivered low pixel cameras for their flagships.Many of us most shoot at base, or just above, ISO and want maximum detail.Are we now being pushed to medium format ?I hope Canon and Nikon have high pixel flagships up their sleeves.
If Nikon follows the same pattern they have in the past they will release a D4X in the near future. This camera should be the higher resolution D4 variant like the D3X was to the D3.
It's the quality of the photo that counts and not the number of megapixels. Remember photographers flocked back to Nikon for the 12MP D3 even though Canon had higher MP cameras.
MPA1: If I want a video camera, I'll buy one!! I want a stills camera....without expensive technology I will never use.
Video isn't all that cheap to include, especially 1080P at 60fps. A lot of work goes into the implementation of video. I'd like to see Nikon produce a D4 variant without any video at all and with a correspondingly lower price. I suspect they'd drop the video model when they see how few people are willing to pay extra for it. Personally I don't want it and I never use it. And it seems that a lot of others agree.