tbcass: It seems to me that DPR gives an awful lot of weight to AF performance. Maybe too much. It costs a lot more than the D7200 and it has a little better AF (in practical terms) yet scored 91 pts vs 84 pts. Given the cost difference I would think they should score about the same.
LOL. Just FYI; I've done the Porsche (two syllables please) thing. Now I drive a Honda. No metaphors. I've probably spent less on Honda (over decades) now than you have camera gear. Now why is that true?
If I wanted a Tesla (and I do); no if I really wanted a Tesla then I could pay cash and keep right on chugging as if it didn't happen. So give the rich snob thing a rest please. Value matters anyway.
Yes, I know there are some goodnesses to be found; in the overpriced. Yes, I know sometimes a little better means a lot. Yes, I know what you choose is your business; if you want to pay over prices. It's just... you should know; folks do not get there by paying to much. It's the exact opposite.
It is certainly NOT business wise.
You all sound like you're betting on horses. Because basically you are. It's an addiction. GAS. The point being, not which is the least bad; but totally diverting you from the fact none are as comprehensive as even possible. Much less then adding to that some new benefits that is truly better. ...and what's the point of a new great thing if it is layered over a poor foundation negating it; in most shots or usability issues???
MANUFACTURERS: MAKE A BETTER CAMERA. Else WAIT them out. No you don't have to choose one of the very poor choices today. If you can shoot then you can hold out. They will get the hint. PRICE included!
I call BS on, "iwannabedated". It's an oversimplification. Not true logic. Not the whole picture (pun). A half-truth is a whole lie. Nothing personal; because he might really believe it. Sure there are perks to the high end; but let's not summarily forgot the cons. That's before we talk price and why it's really not OK for some things to cost 100 times more; just for 10% (overall) better. Why? Because you're still being taken; even if you don't care. What's worse; is that makes things worse for all buyers in total. Imbalanced in the manufactures favor.
As to weighted on AF. Just because new AF technology is reviewed more; that does not mean they are inappropriately pushed. Reviewing is difficult. However, I do agree in the whole and total photographers camera. At least where we have (in part) already succeeded.
Neodp: Most clear tag-line, AKA article title ever.
That doesn't mean camera phones will not improve and *MAYBE* one day even surpass larger devices. However, we are not close.
Agreed. Photographically. Then if saying you get a multi use device in a phone it's still not better photographically (generally).
For those of us who are not into compromise then the current cell phone will not cut it. Nor would the battery life for multiple usage anyway.
Also while a pocket cam is cool and certainly will continue (development/progress/sales) the problem is the same can be said for these finer pocket cameras. They don't hold a candle to M43. Nor M43 to APS-C, Then to FF etc...
Then yes where do we stop.? Medium format digital (even if gifted to me) is far to big. It 's a special case camera. Then likely more cost. There are ways to reduce size; but not starting at short portrait where enough compression for the (typical) job is required.
Then go m43? NO! Far to nascent. You have your "good enough" crappy and then your have your "good enough" good! Folks that do not really have an eye for photography don't get that.
The "brush" matters ALSO.
"Bunnies hopping all over"... and they charge extra for THAT too! LOL.
Most clear tag-line, AKA article title ever.
If fixed cams can't limit the cons (where it's KNOWN possible already) then they will always be an over-priced compromise.
Of course, removable lens systems have the same issue, sadly. Sometimes to a lesser degree.
One thing is for sure. The impossible is not the problem. They are not even trying. Not to mention Sony doesn't have the character to make a value camera with the right stuff. Their model should be "OZ".
Canon and Nikon need to get on with it.
What's happening now is test bed (like 1 inch) sensor systems. Why? Because they prefer selling the tiniest sensor possible. Not because this makes the cameras hardly any more expensive to you (each). It's because it's a lot of total profit for THEM. Your choice.
You see. If you do not get in light (really light) then that could afford you film, developing and scanning (done for you) over similar periods of time (taking less shots granted; but better ones) and for the adept, running rings around digital so called "negatives".
Is the phone more capable (at this) than a good desktop yet? Hmmmm.
That's fun; but why not a cam with wifi tethered video.... from up there. Insta spy drone. Watch on your phone.
Parades. Marching bands. Football. Any sports. Mountains, hard to reach places, etc..
Neodp: I'd rather shoot with a D3300. Go try them both.
Sink or swim Nikon. SMALLER (APS-C or FF) please.
I did not say it has to be pocket or to small. Just smaller. YMMV.
It worked with film SLR's and it will work now. Mirrorless or not. Lose the BRICK!
It used to be a 1000 noisy cameras. Now it's a thousand noisy test cameras.
I don't care what you choose. I mean other than pretense. Did you know that drives up inflated pricing? Offended easy? Why bigger? Did you order one? LOL.
Also, when did I say you can't like the D500? Why exactly (in your world) can't I just not prefer a D500 generally (and at it's current price). Aren't you being hypocritical? Why can't I actually support why I would say such a thing? You?
What can't the D3300 do? Is the difference really worth it? Even at th radical low end. If you have a trust fund about to disappear, unless you waste it then I understand; but how then is your view relevant? That's no comment value. Most people include price as one metric. Not all.
As it is. You guys are not contributing. I could joke with you(for laughs); but you know you couldn't take a joke and would just falsely accuse me. I'll stick to reason and substance.
I do not require you to like the truth or my opinions. Nor even my logical preference.
DSLR's will change or die. Same mirror-less.
I'd rather shoot with a D3300. Go try them both.
No. Sony has gone too far using "XA" for a camera phone. Legal or not; that's just wrong. Not earned. "XA" is EARNED by Olympus.
Sony has parted ways with its competitors to do a 'Hail Mary' and put all its resources in to better cameras. While that's exactly what we want, all manufactures to do; Sony still lacks form, controls, dependability, open upgrade-ability, lenses and its all with ludicrous pricing (plus still doing proprietary, predatory necessary-accessory add-on prices). But Sony is doing good with the specs list. That would be a good thing; but...
But be warned. If Sony is known as a top selling camera company; you will never see an affordable or value camera again! But as it is; Sony still is not a photographers camera. Respecting the good engineers and the positive progress they have made.
Altogether though; a camera system is a whole. Not one part.
Never forget. Just search "Sony rootkit"; for their true character.
"It's a tale of extreme hubris." -Wired
In honor of Michael Reichmann
To the children of The Light,
All will bow their knee to The Saving Light. Yes *all* will call Him LORD. This is a prayer for us to get prepared now; for The great wedding of all weddings. That we might respond today; to His merciful proposal of Grace to all men. Do you know Him? He is perfect. Be ready. Be ready!
CaMeRa QuEsT: I was expecting Canon to have leveled-up to Nikon's AF performance by now, given how much improvement they have brought forward with their latest sensors' DR, but, alas, Nikon still seems to have the upper hand in AF capabilities and DR across its range, only now it also has caught up to Canon in skin colors while Canon is actually doing worse? Bravo for Nikon. Now if they could only up their QC and have something to counter Canon's Dual Pixel LV AF, they might stave their terrible sales slips of late...
@Tonywong When your right your wong, Tony. You're not wrong.
...Sep for the car thing. We do not need a sport car for four wheeling. Nor an expensive 4x4 Hummer spawn either/neither.
Neodp: What you should have done is a little competition with someone who knows what to do with a D3300 vs. another with a D5 an let them battle it out for finished pictures. Same with Canon and SL1 vs. 1D X MII. LOL. The David and Goliath test.
You won't see that though.
Hey, thanks for the test evals.
bernardly: Google is hastening the end of photography as we know it by setting Nik Collection free.
Afraid of competition? Don't you know if it did kill photography (don't hold your breath) business; then one would adapt. If business didn't allow failure then you'd have no free market system. Oh no! Opps.
Yes see; your gifts and even one of them is not limited to just one vocation. This doesn't say you can not specialize in something else.
The rumors of the photography business death are greatly exaggerated. However; if you think it's the same then you're going down. Hard.
After all; do you really want all things to stay the same? Think deeper.
In with the good; out with the bad. Let's start with better systems *and* better value. Else manufacturers GO HOME!
Dance in the rain!
mario loconte: Snapseed algorithms are much better ... but I can't understand the reason they don't develop a desktop version
RawTherapee is awesome. It's slicker. ufraw transitions faster to Gimp. I can use both. I tested both before saying that.
I don't think we need to give the reviewers a hard time. They seem to be working their tales off! If you think I'm kissing-up; then just wait till I notice them doing something really bad.
I think we need to give all manufactures a hard time; for not making better cameras and even at affordable prices. Why? Because no matter how you slice it and dress up that pig; we are still talking about mass produced items.
Not because the Japanese (where ever) make better stuff. Others CAN do that. It's because they have less costs such as cheap labor.
Skipper494: Vertical panorama? Looks horizontal to me. You guys are smokin', right?
...while smokin'? ;)