Little value in these news updates until ACR produces higher levels of detail than is already achievable in the jpg files. We know there is more detail there than ACR can process or the jpg files would not already be beyond what many other cameras deliver with their raw files.How about showing what Fuji's raw converter does - its not like 'everyone' uses ACR to process their raw files, regardless of whether they use LR to process their output. How about DxO, CaptureOne, and several others that process Fuji files better than ACR. Though that would show the level of superiority the X-Trans sensor has over the 'end-of-life' Bayer designs, and we wouldn't want to do that to Sony and Toshiba now would we... =)
Not sure why we are worrying about low-pass filters and occasional areas of detail only visible/beneficial at ISO100 and above f/3.5. The bigger issue is the approach Nikon is taking and resulting image quality they try to market to the consumers just to have an 'edge' in the MP race no one is running except Nikon. The "grain" that is introduced due to signal amplification (seen as low as ISO400!!) is a step backwards in digital photography evolution, and is only accepted by some because they just want Nikon to be the best, be in the lead, and a considerable more who are just ignorant of what it should be.It has gotten to the same point graphics cards did 5-10 years ago where manufacturers tweaked their hardware to run benchmark tests (DxO in this arena) but yield no real benefit in the real world. As some have noticed here, the Pentax outperforms the D7100 in almost every area - but certainly in lower noise and retention of detail which gets destroyed by the "grain" in the D7100.
I try to keep up with this kind of stuff, not sure how this announcement got past me.. BUT in having recently visited the Hasselblad website, the new Lunar is nothing more than an NEX-6/7 with fancy trim... Damn!!, I was hoping for a cropped MF sensor, lol, which would have been a 35mm sensor - /sigh..
Oh well.... Who will be first with a 'real' interchangeable lens mirrorless body????****A 35mm digital body!****
Oh, sorry.. I was referring to the whinny-ass comments, not the camera….
Why do we have to hear from the gadgetographers every time a new camera is announced? Does a camera have to have more mp and speech recognition to be of benefit? Do we need 36mp to get great 2-8mp downsampled images? Is high-mp high-gain noise ok because it can look like 'grain'? The industry does not need film-like 'grain' at ISO-640 so some gadgetographers can have more mp - especially when 95% of everything they produce ends up a ~2mp image on a computer screen.Why do people complain what the newest model 'needs' when they are not even capable of using the camera they have...?
What we - need - is better performance from current technology.We need ISO-100 IQ up to ISO-6400.We need less expensive better quality lenses.We need people to stop buying these toys and force the manufacturers back to producing the most efficient, capable, digital photography tools they can for a reasonable price.
chillgreg: So lets see: vs Sony NEX 5R/6
The NEX's are
- much, much less expensive- same (similar) IQ- significantly smaller & lighter (+pancake kit zoom & 16/20 f2.8 WA)- adapters take almost any legacy lens- better articulating LCD- proper sweep panorama- 10fps burst inc RAW- extensive video controls- wifi + apps (eg intervalometer, remote control via mobile devices & multishot noise reduction etc)- touchscreen or similar spec EVF- faster AF + PD AF- focus peaking
One must REALLY like Fuji or retro styling to throw as much as twice the money at a bigger, heavier arguably less capable mirrorless camera. The price Fuji's asking buys a LOT of DSLR.
Food for thought.
PS DPR can you please review the Sony NEX 5R/6 and also add the 5R to the image comparison database.
;=)Lets see: Fujifilm X-Trans vs NEX gadgetry
- Less capable NEX bodies cheaper.- IQ not comparable, sorry.- Size subjective, if it matters more than IQ go for it.- Same lens adapters available. Only limited by product release dates.- Great how easily NEX LCD is damaged.- Sweep panorama a required feature? - Can lock exposure to correct.- FPS.. Learn subject, learn environment, anticipate shutter - learn photography.- Takes video. Thankfully Fujifilm still a photography company.- WiFi indeed welcome - not extensively useful in the field.- X-Trans IQ at such a high level multi-shot NR apps not needed.- Touch screen not needed on camera providing external control.- Same excellent 2.36mp OLED EVF. (if EVF is your thing)- Comparable hybrid AF performance - <OMD, <SLR.- Unique, unmatched 3rd party lens support. (Leica M-Mount Adapter)
An excellent digital photography tool where absolute IQ and lenses are desired. Current RAW support offset by better JPG than many others RAW.
OMG Fujifilm, put this sensor in an SLR body ALREADY!!!
It would be outstanding stitched together for a FF sensor (the noise ceiling alone would be pushed so far beyond typical ISO range we could get 100 performance at ~3200) but if APS-C is all Fuji can/wants to do atm that is fine.Just work with 'someone' and get this into an SLR body..!
Combine the base IQ of this sensor with real AF performance, broader lens selection, true OVF, TTL lighting capability - too many benefits to list - and it would be the best implementation of the only real technology innovation we have seen directly related to the photography industry in years.
(Higher MP and accompanying higher noise 'massaged' to look like grain is not technology progress...)
It would be outstanding stitched together for a FF sensor (the noise ceiling alone would be pushed so far beyond normal ISO range we could get 100 performance at ~3200) but if APS-C is all Fuji wants to do atm that is fine. Just work with 'someone' and get this into an SLR body..!Combine the base IQ of this sensor with real AF performance, broader lens selection, lighting capability - too many added benefits to list - and it would be the best implementation of the only real technology innovation we have seen in this industry for years.
(Higher MP and more noise massaged to look like 'grain' is not technology progress..)
ogl: I don't see that the problem is solved. I see just the try to solve. Some problems are tried to be solved and solved a bit, the rest problems are unreal to solve. Corrected colours, lost resolution.The problem of X-trans sensor is not the software. The main problem is color filter array pattern of Fuji sensor.
No one said the problem was 'solved' (if we assert there is a 'problem' at all given Fuji's jpg output is better than most sensors raw conversion can produce) DPR said that raw support had been 'improved'...
Donald Duck: If you wonder what the face of the queen on that bill really looks like - go to the comparison tool and compare with the NEX-7 or any other camera with a Bayer sensors. You will be amazed how fake the X-Trans image looks like.
Non-existing black spots, non-existing diagonal lines on the face, etc.
Please....You are simply seeing the effect caused by any sensor without a low pass filter. The D800e looks like she is wearing blush, it is color moire (zoomed in) - and the diagonal lines are the most visible, even on the D800/e, 645D, etc.. not to mention the image is in color. It is not green ink like US notes nor black and white. If capturing the face on a currency note was your intent you would not do it from a distance and you would use a macro lens.
The Fujifilm X-Trans sensors are capable of showing higher/comparable levels of detail even though they are lower mp, which is the big deal about them as the lower mp count also contributes to much lower noise by comparison.
I am just waiting for DxO support, could care less about Adobe for image processing/correction. If you look at what DxO can do with the S5-Pro compared to what anything else was capable of doing when it was reviewed it is a whole new camera. Same thing will happen with the newer Fujifilm sensors.
Uran: This is not quite what I was expecting, I like the 3500 Cam the FPS still slower than my D300 with a grip, so for fast moving animals we are forced to buy the D4 or look to the Canon 7D 2 as a bang for buck option.
Apparently some 'photographers' may need to look for a D4 upgrade.
It is a good thing though the photography world had those 8fps 51-point AF bodies back in 1905 when NatGeo started publishing wildlife images - what ever would we have done up to the 21st century...
Parry Johnson: Hmmm... no D400? Perhaps it's the "unlucky #4" Japanese namesake, but I think this is a case where Nikon wants to sell a bunch of prosumer bodies before coming out with the "real" flagship DX camera. In the meantime, my D300/S just took another $50 to $100 dive in the used market.
Nikon states on their website (all of them containing information about the D7100) that the D7100 is:"The new flagship of Nikon's DX-format HD-SLR lineup.""Meet the new flagship of Nikon's outstanding DX-format HD-SLR line-up: the D7100."
SiliconVoid: In recent years I have defended DPReview dozens of times across the internet regarding their integrity and analysis, specifically regarding their ability to assess a product on its own merits and across its designed capability range - instead of penalizing a product for what it lacks in a comparison. THEN I read this review.
If you add the D600 to the scoring module on page-25 you can see what is supposedly areas that would allow it to score differently (higher in this case) and it is interesting that the areas showing better performance are simply not substantiated in the pages of the 6D review. Not to mention areas of heated debate and comparison (the 6D's inferior 11-point AF system and Canon's tired old 63 metering zones) where even though DPR hops on the bandwagon to proclaim Canon's failings of the 6D their own testing shows that the 'lowly' 11-point AF and 'zone' metering system out perform the D600.
What the hell is that, does DPR write the reviews before or after testing???
"By babola (4 days ago)SiliconVoid...you should get out more."
heh, I do not actually comment that often, nor follow forums much - but yes when I do, one could assert a bit long-winded. =)
(@Comitant)I do not own a 6D.I do however own a 5DmkII - Rebel - Nikon D700 - D300s - and Fuji S5Pro.My criticism was based on the accuracy of test data provided versus the resulting score - and the evolving assertion of DPR that this feature or that feature matters to everyone so we have to award points for them.
lensberg: This nagging perception that Canon sensors are in anyway inferior to their Sony / Nikon counterparts exists only in theory... and is primarily propagated by DXO...
Despite the extravagant ratings that DXO awards Sony sensors... the reality is that Sony camera's doen't even come close to touching Canons image quality... in both RAW & JPEG...
Isn't it miraculous with Toshiba's foray into sensor development... Nikon manages to catapult that maiden sensor to take the top spot amongst DXO's APS-C sensors... considering the fact that noise is eating away at detail beyond ISO 3200... talk about bias...
The 6D is an outstanding camera as far as pure IQ goes... The level of captured / retained detail in anything from 12800 and above is simply awe inspiring... Personally i'd rather have better noise control compared to better dynamic range... Nikon in true fashion try to give you the best of both worlds - a jack of all trades... Canon on the other hand is the master of noise control...
Not sure you completely understand DxOs comment on sensor testing Revenant.
There are several parameters that have significance at the sensor level because they provide a base to understand what is happening in A/D processing (S/R ratio, DR (white to black, not color) color depth, and DxO measures at that level.There are other factors such as tonal gradation and ISO performance that have little relevance if tested at any other level than what can be achieved by the user. Therefore DxO measures all dynamics again so they have results for both 'sensor level' and 'print sample' across all parameters. Producing a scale between 'input' and 'output'.
The fault in ranking is they score from the 'print sample' not the 'sensor level', nor do they average across the ISO range.
In the end they score a camera on the best possible output of an arbitrary standard (~8mp image) regardless of how poorly the camera performs across the remainder of its ISO range or at an unprocessed sensor level.
Alec_c: In a nutshell, a camera that might have been great but put down on purpose, that has the ability to take some great pictures if you can overcame handling difficulties, which should not been there.Overall, that Canon smart samurai so full of himself (see pic of his interview) , should really be proud looking how a universe of Canon users continue to support his nice life of leaking on our heads. There will be people to buy that, as there were ones buying the 60D, which is a similar concept. Not me.
How about we just concede the 'one' accurate assessment you provided - it is subjective.I am on my 3rd 40D, and while it is a great camera and body it is 'less' ergonomic in feel than the 6D. If you had limited your criticism to the joystick I would have agreed 100%. Not that the pad does not work, but I like being able to have it just 1/2" from where my thumb rests.As for everything else, grip size, texture, distance from the lens mount, shutter button angle, thumb rest depth, etc the 6D is almost 'superior' to the 40D but easily 'better'.The one gripe I have not fully gotten past (and delays my upgrade to date) is not being able to use the AE-Lock and AF-Point buttons for zoom in/out like practically every other Canon in history.. it does have the ability to set a default zoom percentage for the One-Button-Zoom function though - so you can jump straight to your desired chimp-level.. heh
SemperAugustus: Few comments about the review:1.- The multi-exposure feature works on RAW as well. 2.- The WiFi connected to the PC via Remote Control (EOS Utility) gives complete control of every aspect of the camera. Live view, download and even time lapse capture. it just makes sense for Canon to eventually upgrade their iOS and Android EOS app to match the functionality of the Remote Control Utility.3.- The fact that the 6D compares to the 5DMIII speaks volume about the capabilities of this camera. So yes, it does not have 41 focus points, so what?4.- It does not have a swivel screen, it has a separate screen altogether. It gives you control with any iOS or Android device, that is a way bigger, better and more flexible option than a swivel screen. this is like when Apple ditched the floppy disk.... some people complained about it.5.- They completely left out a review of the included software which is top-notch. Including the above mentioned remote control utility.
DPR being very disappointed by the exclusion of a touch screen, providing no significance other than it is available on a recent consumer body - which lacks ~any external controls to begin with...Why would Canon put a touch screen on a body that already provides 95% of all shooting controls via dedicated buttons on the outside of the camera - how much easier do you want access to be than a button you can access without looking??
The target consumers for this body are those focused on getting everything they can from digital technology as it pertains to image quality - something Canon has not failed in with the 6D.
(btw Tonio, it is 97% and I can assure you it has little field relevance. I have shot film since 1976 where even fewer cameras had 100% vf coverage than they do today, to the extent that it was not even a specification mentioned in product brochures.)In the rarity you get something in those outer 10-pixels of the frame you feel just ruin the image - you just crop it out.
That really only leaves the video performance category. Which we really do not need to go into to be honest, video was not meant to be zoomed into - and 1080p is 1080p is 1080p.It is understood that Nikon fans are foaming at the mouth with their newly acquired ability to do full frame 1080p video, but unless you are going to consider certain aspects as beneficial when seen in both brands DPR is simply catering to Nikon fans in their praise. The D800 for example has little if any significant advantage in video since uncompressed video out is now available for the 5DmkIII. However there is one aspect of the D800 video which is considered a fair trade off (referring to slight/occasional moire in the D800) because of some areas of higher detail being sometimes visible. HOWEVER, when that is done by another brand/model (6D in this case) it is the primary factor of why DPR rates the 6D with a lower video score??
The higher score for the D600 in Low Light and high ISO performance is quite small, but if we again go back to page 19 of the review and look how it is not even possible to discern the diameter of the small gold beads, determine whether the thread of the belt is thread or simply white paint, and absence of almost all texture of the woven belt material in the D600 images, it does not in any way validate the D600 as being better in any way. Matter of fact, both the Sony and 6D provide better image performance than the D600 by the same margin - yet both score a little bit lower? What criteria is DPR measuring, are they measuring at all??Perhaps there is a different set of criteria that DPR uses for different brands that they do not feel the need to share with viewers...
The only area that the D600 can even be suggested as 'better', and an extremely subjective aspect of image quality, is page 20 where it references the amount of shadow detail captured. Something only identifiable in a grossly overexposed test image. How is that even a test criteria, you would never attempt to use that image so what difference does it make what unusable information can be seen in an unusable image. If DPR hopes to achieve any credibility in this area of testing how about just bring up the shadows in a 'final' 'useable' image so it can be shown how negligible the real world differences are. Even if the difference gained a point for the D600, that point would be easily trumped by every other area of image performance by the 6D.
Sorry, DPR has shown no data to support the D600 having better image performance to warrant a higher scoring analysis IF measured by the same standards - in fact they have shown just the opposite, yet do not reflect that in scoring.
In the area of image performance, where the D600 supposedly has both better jpg and raw according to the comparison graph, we clearly see on pages 15 and 19 that the 6D betters its competitors image quality, and stands on its own in that area only bettered by its higher-end sibling. Scoring according to DPR is not supposed to be based on 'how it compares' but on the equipments own merits - yet the images provided on these pages and the resulting scores obviously indicate an unknown factor. (Different set of criteria for different brands? Conceding to DxO's 8mp down-sample score?).
In recent years I have defended DPReview dozens of times across the internet regarding their integrity and analysis, specifically regarding their ability to assess a product on its own merits and across its designed capability range - instead of penalizing a product for what it lacks in a comparison. THEN I read this review.