Lightweight003: Also; the D7200: - I have a D7100 but NOTHING about the D7200 makes me want to go out & upgrade to that model. Again the so-called improvements are too small; no fully articulated screen, no GPs, or improvements in buffering, no increase in fps.. . . Now, IF I were to compare Canon's 7D to their 7D Mk2 then yes we are looking at a real & worthwhile upgrade.
3x the buffer depth is a "slight but noticeable improvement"? You are one tough hombre to please.
worldcup1982: thats great!!!now all it needs is a fast zoom (like 24-70mm eq?)and an EVF...oh wait....
No, Barn, there isn't a single m43 camera that focuses as well as the N1s. Not a single one. You find me a m43 camera that can do 20FPS will FULL autofocus tracking with each frame and I'll take back that statement. But you won't.
You keep trying to move the goalposts on the discussion. I'm not going to bite.
You're backpedaling Barn. You said they focus as well as N1, then put up specs that show they don't.
There are reasons to choose m43 over N1. AF and frame rate are not among them.
ThomasH_always: I said it before and I say it again: No Viewfinder, no buy. Its that darn simple. Another one: No raw format, no buy. Its the "Simple Checklist if Thomas will buy the new camera."
Ever since I dumped the V1+2 zooms for 40% of purchasing price I monitor the Nikon-1 development with some astonishment: What are they thinking? The dynamic range in the V1 was nice, the fast AF was indeed prime class, but the shot-to-shot time was abysmal, so was the up to 8sec waking time of the V1. That was the deal killer in the V1 for me. And than came the Mr.Robato and Homer Simpson designed V2, arguably the "most ugly shape ever devised by any camera maker". I just dumped the V1, be gone, good riddance.
The J5,4,3,2,1 all produce RAW files, or have I missed something?
koolbreez: From looking at the comparisons with the D5300, the only useful thing upgraded is the battery life. They both use the same sensor, and processing engine, so no difference in image quality. They both have the same resolutions, although the high end is listed now as regular instead of extended, which actually means no difference. Buffers are the same, shutter speads are the same. The GPS has been removed, and can't be considered an upgrade, even if people didn't use it. So how can this review state that the D5500 is an upgrade in every respect, when only one useful item has been upgraded? A better grip? There never was a problem with the old grip contributing to shaky images...lolol. This simply looks like a review to sell cameras, not print the real truth. As more time passes DPReview gets less and less reliable.
I agree, 'improved in every respect' is an exaggeration.
But, what exactly is wrong with incremental improvement of a mature design? Would you prefer they simply kept selling the old model? What would that do for you?
I did not imply the 5500 handles like a 7200, but it certainly handles a LOT better than the 5300, considering the touch screen essentially acts like a second control dial while shooting.
If I owned a 5300, I seriously doubt I would upgrade to the 5500 (same thing if one had a 7100 for the 7200 - unless you really need the buffer), but if I were looking for a camera in this class, the 5500 is very compelling when compared to the alternatives.
Unless, of course, one is a mirrorless fanboy who considers anything with an OVF obsolete technology, in which case, no amount of sane discussion of photographic facts will help.
You're conveniently ignoring the WiFi and the touchscreen, the latter of which improves the handling of the camera in every respect.
dfsaqwe: I recently sold an EM1 kit looking to downgrade to something more midrange (life+priority changes, etc). Was hoping to look back into a Nikon but I'm just thoroughly unimpressed. The technology seems almost a generation or two behind what I left behind on m43.
Also being spoiled by 5 axis sensor IS ...
Are you looking to buy a camera or a technological display?
Renzokuken: I'm from Asia and i live in Asia.
The DP team said they "garnered some surprisingly open admissions"
but if you really take time and read what he said, it's basically all sarcasm and arrogance.
"If another company made a sensor that we believed to be truly the best quality, we would not hesitate to use it."
He's implying that Canon sensors are superior in every way and no one can compete with them. Did the DP team really failed to pick up his sarcasm while interviewing him?
"If Sony Sensors are for a view photo-situations a 5% better -than Canon Sensors until now -so who cares?"
A lot of Canon shooters do. And the difference is far greater than 5%.
D Gold: >Users of the 5DS and 5DS R have much higher, stricter standards.
Respectfully, this statement indicates either a lack of understanding of the amateur photographer of today or was mistranslated. I kind of doubt the mistranslation, as that assertion is made more than once.
If anything, a lot of amateurs want at least as much, and perhaps more than many professionals. Just a perspective, but Canon has a rich history of saying, "You want a better image, or autofocus, etc, you are going to pay". Nikon, the same, but a bit better about feature sets and image quality on the lower end.
In the end, I hope the competition from Fuji, Sony, Olympus, etc, continue to put pressure on the big 2.
You do nice work.
I'm surprised that, all things being equal, you wouldn't prefer to have the better data in your file to work with - i.e. more dynamic range. You might call it underexposing by 5 stops and pushing the shadows, but in practice, it means more highlight detail is preserved. (And by the way, I doubt the Nikons or Sonys give you 5 more stops of DR.)
"I don't care about mirrorless in that category or meaningless 5stop underexposure shadow details etc.."
Meaningless? With reduced dynamic range, your choices are: you preserve highlights and loose shadows, or vice versa, or you combine multiple exposures in situations where it might not be necessary had your sensor captured more data. You find this meaningless?
Martin Huisman: Could someone explain to me the reasoning of the executives of Nikon on the increased minimum ISO of 200?
I must be confusing concepts, because in my reasoning an increased minimum ISO from 64 to 200 means that the sensor is actually less sensitive.As this is nearly 2 'stops' I tend to think that that's where the 4x more sensitivity of the sensor comes from...?
Once the sensitivity of the red channel was increased (it's accepting more light), it had to be balanced with the blue and green channels, which were unchanged and therefore less sensitive in comparison. Thus, the change in base ISO.
Artpt: Directed @Rishi, do you think manufacturers will get sophisticated enough to have camera bodies fine tune their PDAF with various lens using the CDAF in camera...much like manual white balance with indoor lighting?
I rough comparison is a printer's/scanner's calibration process...
Just a thought?...and as always, thanks.
@rhpetrusI'd believe that if the cameras required a few still moments in live view CDAF and again with PDAF with each new mounted lens. Since that isn't the case, I doubt any sort of auto fine tuning is taking place.
Deliverator: So, is Canon going to fix this issue in their 6D, 5DIII, and 1D X?
(I'm getting a bit tired of the trolls, so I thought I'd troll them...)
Look in the mirror. See one yet?
So, is Canon going to fix this issue in their 6D, 5DIII, and 1D X?
mpgxsvcd: I know one thing for sure. This entry level Nikon camera will be better than the next 3 generations of the entry level Canon Rebel cameras. None of them offer the bang for the buck that mirror-less does especially if you shoot video as well. However, Nikon is at least trying to make their products remotely competitive.
@PredatorsPreyI agree fully that the single DxOMark score is nearly useless. However, the DxO site posts graphs of all their measurements that allow you to make a much more informed decision. For instance, based on the DxOMark score the D7100 would appear to be a far better camera than the 7DII. But if you dig into the dynamic range measurements at higher ISOs where the birders and sports shooters are likely to be photographing, you see the sensors perform pretty much the same, making the 7DII's buffer and autofocus that much more compelling for those types of shooters.
www_zeeshan_de: Missing the innovative A7S review, missing the innovative A7 II review, but what we got here is the nothing new Nikon D750 review...
These mirrorless fanboys are insufferable...
audiobomber: What is the basis for saying the 7D II outperforms the a6000 and K-3 for noise? DXOMark shows the 7D II with the lowest score of the three for SNR.a6000: ISO 1347K-3: ISO 12167D II: ISO 1082
Even Thom Hogan, who mostly shoots Nikon, has some criticisms for those who look at only the DxO number, and not all of the available data:http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/do-you-believe-in-dxomark.html
I wouldn't rely on a single, baked down number. DxO provide a lot of detailed information, if you take the time to look for it:
Click on the Measurements tab, then select the Dynamic range tab below it. The graph shows that at base ISO up to ~ISO 400, the a6000 and the D7100 have quite a bit more dynamic range than the 7DII. However, starting from ~ISO 800 or so, there is very little difference between them. By ~ISO 3200, the sensors' performances are nearly identical.
If you're shooting a lot of portraits and landscapes at lower ISOs, the Sony and the Nikon are probably better choices for you.
If you're a birder or sports shooter who does a lot of shooting at ISO 800 and above, the 7DII's autofocus, frame rate and buffer size make it the obvious choice.
If you're in between those two, well, it's hard to go wrong with any of them. ;-)
A better open standard already exists. JPEG2000 and supports any bit depth and colour space you want to use.
You get a lot of bang for your buck in terms of image quality with the D3300, which is why I voted for it.