Mister Roboto: And still you have the guts to call iPhone 6 the best all-rounder smartphone? lol
"all-rounder smartphone""All around" means that it is not the spec of a particular feature, e.g., camera sensor score, but that all of the components must work together to make it a wonderful phone first and foremost. People have already voted with their wallets, haven't they?
With the current cell phone policy that we can only have one device activated at a time, the vast majority of the people will shop for a good all around PHONE first. So this CAMERA/phone has to compete with topof the line iPhone or Android phones that have a reasonably goo camera. How well does it make calls?
It is very unlikely that Apple intends to "replace" Aperture with Photos. Photos is really a replacement for iPhoto.
The open question is whether Apple is interested in the software business to compete with other pro level specialized softwares for photos and movies (and music and …). IMOP, Apple's core interest is to build the best platform, hardware and the software needed to run IT, and then invite the app community to build softwares to do all kinds of stuff. Apple is a very focused company. Compared to iPhone, how much money are they making selling us Aperture? They might have used Aperture at one point to attract users to the Mac platform — do they still need to do that now?
What camera did you use to shoot the video? Very nice.
Will there be a separate review on the two f2.8 zoom lenses?
How does its auto-ISO work? Auto-ISO enabled in M-mode? Can you still control Exp Comp in M-mode with auto-ISO?
Typical for a super zoom. Busy bokeh.
KL Matt: 33 images and not a single one tells us anything much about this lense's bokeh. I don't know about you, but if I'm gonna plunk down nearly 500 bucks for a fast prime lens, I'm absolutely going to want to know how it renders out-of-focus areas before I make a purchase. Yes, even if it's a wide angle, and yes, even if I do need to place my camera close to a foreground object. And yes, I do shoot that way with my wide angle lenses in the field and it's fun and can result in very pleasing and interesting images.
They really should have shot it as close to something as possible and let people see how the distant background look. This is how many people will this lens for. However the lens seems to be quite sharp at the corner and the color is nice too.
Mrrowe8: I keep asking this and would love to of seen the reviewer truly address this .. TheD750 kit is 1000$ More and the body only is 700$ better then the Sony A7II that's it plain and simple is the image that much better .. Especially as we look at these as prosumer not elite pro cameras ?
How about pairing the D750 with a 50/1.8, 35/1.8, or 28/1.8 lens?
mick232: As for the RAW compression issue - the same compression algorithm is used in the A99 and other Sony cameras such as the RX1. Not the dpreview review of the A99 nor any other review I am aware of has found this to be an issue when they reviewed the A99.
Now that there is a hype around the issue all over, it suddenly is a big deal even in reviews. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
"The review also fails to clearly point out that the issue is not a general problem with A7II RAW files but affects a diminishingly small subset of all RAW images in extreme cases. ("Unfortunately, one persistent issue with Sony Raw files might limit the usability of Raw files, particularly when pushed.")"
The RAW compression does not indeed affect most general users. However for those who have the 7R and wish to obtain the highest levels of IQ, a compressed RAW just does not make sense. Why does SONY do this? Is there any benefits? Small file sizes? If people care about file size, they would not have bought the 36MP 7R in the first place. At least give people the choice to turn it off, knowing this is an issue for some high end users.
User7653768119: No touch screen? I suggest Sony's next version go further: Have a numbered grid across the screen. Say you want to focus on uncle Harry in the lower left side of the shot. Instead of touching him with your finger on the screen, you whisper the number of the panel Uncle Harry is in, like "number 9". Voila, Harry is in focus! Next you whisper in a very sexy voice, "Go". Your shot immediately goes to a pre-set you've made in Photoshop. One second later the processed photo comes back to the screen and then you say in a sexy voice, "Send" and the picture is sent to all your designated friends. By this time we've almost eliminated the need for photography,I find the a7Mll a remarkable camera and respectfully disagree with your review.Thank you.
Let's just get a touch screen first, and make sure it works well.
Old Baldy: This review is so clearly and transparently intended to slate the A7ii, that I'm curious for the reasons.
One of many, many, examples here...
"The a7 II (right) is a good bit heavier than the original a7. To compensate for the added bulk, the grip has been substantially beefed up. Weight aside, the two camera have remarkably similar control layouts; the a7 II should feel very familiar to anyone who has used any of the other a7 cameras."
I'd have said this..."The a7 II has a much improved grip and placement of the shutter button to allow for more comfortable and natural handling. The body has been upgraded to a fully magnesium body, and is very solid and provides a feeling of substance and robustness missing from the original A7. The body changes and inclusion of the IBIS system has increased the weight."
See the difference?
This type of negativity permeates the entire review, and is surprising to me, from DP Review. Pity. It is truly a great camera.
I for one feel that DPR has spent way too much time in answering many of these complains that are distracting for the majority of the readers. The majority of the readers who are considering a FF camera will shop all possible options, whether they have a mirror or not. For many readers, me included, the main reason to go mirror-less is to reduce the size of the gear. Thus as A7 is getting bigger and heavier, it is impossible not to compare it to the next lightest FF camera, the D750. We do not live in a world using just SONY cameras. When we shop, we look around.
Dave Oddie: I am sure the 7200 will take great photos but most cameras with aps-c sensors do anyway.
So why not a more radical redesign of the body like the D750 with its tilting LCD to make the camera easier to use?
These days with live-view the absence of a tilting LCD is pretty inexcusable and Nikon clearly don't think the old (and ridiculous in my view ) excuse of it being a less robust camera as a result has any credence given they put one on the 750.
I agree D7200 should have a touch screen, which is fully articulated since the D5500 has it, and it should have the more updated compact body as the D750. Why doesn't it have these? Who knows.
Most ACR processed pictures look considerably better than the JPEGs. Does that mean the JPEGs in D7200 are not as good as they should be?
Toccata47: Hmm, same imaging pipeline as the A7 yet a lower score for image quality? Oddly again, a lower score for video. I suppose the categorization makes scoring complex but I think an a72 with ibis would be head and shoulders above an a7 without a rig.
It's hard not to feel an bias toward nikon here, particularly as canon cameras are left out of the drop down menu now (6d?), though it's probably a knee jerk reaction to seeing the disparity between sony and nikon cameras using the same or similar sensors. Is there definitive proof the 750 uses a different sensor?
"If that is the case, and it does seem to be, then every review will need to be updated going forward. For example, …"
For example, we should update the review for Nikon D100, D200, D… by comparing to the sensor in D7200, and this makes sense to you?
Tommygun45: This review is fair. Anyone who has bought Sony cameras understands part of their marketing strategy. They always cripple or leave a few features out in order to include them on the next camera. Or this is done for economic reasons to keep costs down and to make the product as appealing as possible. Plus its not like they are the only manufacturer to do this. *See D7100 Buffer.
You need look no further than taking out the electronic level in the A6000 as an example of this kind of behavior. Simple, small things, but still annoying.
The A7II is an awesome camera, but obviously it could be better. If they gave it a 100% Gold Award and said it was the best camera ever made I guess Sony wouldn't have to make an A7 III with better tracking, larger PDAF focusing points, and better high ISO noise performance. But who would that benefit? No one.
We should thank the review for being critical where criticality is due. <- Not a word but it should be.
"What I mean is D750 got a huge 90% and it can also be put in totally negative comparisons as they do with the A7II, like:- Heavy and bulky compared to modern mirror-less full frame cameras- Low light ISO capability not up to highest standard set by A7S- AF system not on par with D810 and Nikon and Canon pro cameras"
These are grossly unfair. A7-II is called heavy by comparing to its peer. D750 is in fact quite light and compact compared to other FF dSLRs, and D810 in particular. The D750 is about 100g heavier than the A7-II.
D750 has better ISO performance than the D810, although the latter has better DR at lower ISO.
D750 has the same if not better AF than D810, and D750 is cheaper and lighter than the D810.
Like many have said, RAW files are the concerns here. It does not recognize RAWs from Olympics and Panasonic so this impacts those m4/3 users.
nerd2: Nikon is the ONLY company that provides affordable standard prime lens (35mm 1.8 DX at $179). Nikon is also the FIRST company to provide descent APS zoom lenses (12-24, 17-55, 18-135, 18-200 etc). Oh and there are tons of third party lenses too.
I wonder why anyone ever thinks that nikon lacks APS lens. It does not.
"D750 + 70-200 f4 VR: $2300 + $1200 = $3500"
Match f2.8 with f2.8 please, and OEM vs OEM because the fundamental costs between OEM and 3rd party are very different. Oh Gee, Nikon does not have any 50-150/2.8, don't they? Otherwise try picking the cherry this way ...
D7100 + Sigma 17-50/2.8 VR = $1000+$500 = $1,600D750 + Nikon 24-70/2.8 no VR = $2200+$1700 = $3,900
"And nikon forces DX users to go somewhere else? "
Or m4/3, like you and I did. Every sale to another company is a loss for Nikon.
Unless, Nikon is preparing to exit the DX market eventually to be either a FF only company or a FF-pro plus mirror-less-consuer that replace the whole DX dSLR line. Both of this will cause DX users to slowly go somewhere else (mirror-less). For small and light FF, with the new SONY FE 28/1.8 for $400, you can get a FF (A7) walk around kit for the price of a D750 body alone.
"A 50-150mm f2.8 would not be lighter /cheaper than the excellent 70-200mm f4."
Besides the fl that is too long for the DX, a f2.8 lens is a f2.8 lens in allowing twice the amount of light to reach the sensor thus lowering the ISO needed for a particular shot. A FF f4 just can't shoot at f2.8. To know how small a DX only 50-150 can be, you need to look at the previous gen Sigma and Tokina's versions.
If you have a D71/200, a D6xx is really not an upgrade — poorer AF point coverage will take you one step backward. So the real all around "upgrade" is the $2,200 D750.
None of you can explain what is the reason for the DX users to be *happy* about Nikon not making f1.8 DX only primes in 18 or 16 mm fl? Nikon could have asked all of us to use the FF 35/1.8, but when they did make a DX only 35/1.8, it took the market like storm. There is a great demand for these, while the overall dSLR camera and lens sale are down. Nikon could make a lot of money if they do it.