One could think that Fake Chuck Westfall was running this ad campaign for a marketing campaign.
Entropius: I wonder how the AF compares to the system in the D7100, the closest thing Nikon makes? AF speed and accuracy, more than anything else, is the killer feature for the sort of action work that this thing is designed for.
The measure can be done ad hoc but repeatability of the system test and the metrics of the AF test might show lots of strengths and weaknesses of various systems (and versions of firmware).
Given the complexity of configuration options of modern sports bodies, one system may be better at detecting objects of a certain size, colour, movement speed or directional change, and being able to repeats those tests between days and weeks will be difficult if there is a lot of human variability.
Even multiple objects or other interference in between the subject and camera can be testable, but the complexity and cost involved certainly gives me pause.
I think that simple metrics (lowest light AF and speediness of acquisition) wouldn't give a full picture (no pun intended) of how well a modern sports cam works in the field.
@brownie314. This is true, there hasn't been a decent repeatable test of AF systems because there are many different modes and situations that make AF testing difficult and cross comparisons tough as well. I'd guess that finding an indoor arena that can be controlled with decent lighting and dressing up a drone or RC model would be a good start in controllability and repeatability to test various AF systems.
It could also be complicated by the choice of lens to use and whether the system was fixed or handheld.
Nonetheless, I'm guessing the 7D2 will have great AF since it is primarily targeted at wildlife/sports shooters, and eschews other trends like 4k and touchscreen/swivel screens/wifi etc.
Pretty sure the 7D2 will be very good in AF performance. Not very many complaints about the 1Dx AF and the 7D2 is derived from that.
I think the 7D2's AF performance will be a significant step up over the D7100.
As for the 7D2 rivalling the 1Dx in AF performance, there are more f2.8 sensors in the 7D2 but the 1Dx uses a dedicated Digic 4 processor for AF alone (and dual Digic 5+ for the rest) whilst the 7D2 has to 'make do' with dual Digic 6 processors for everything.
Still at 10fps, the 7D2's AF might be as good if not better than the 1Dx's AF at 12fps. Since DPR has never reviewed the 1Dx (ahem) I guess there won't be a head-to-head comparison on AF.
razadaz: Prior Photoshop cc we were told that if you upgraded to CS6 you would be eligible to upgrade to CS7, but we would not be able to upgrade from CS5. As such many made the upgrade earlier than planned. The following year they changed the rules again. The one thing I have learned from that is that I cannot rely on information from Adobe. To me it was a case of lesson learnt.
Phil Askey, if he hasn't been already. :-P
Meanwhile, at Cloud City...Darth Adobe: Camerissian. Take Photoshop and Lightroom to the Adobe mothership. Camerissian: You said they'd be left at the computer under my supervision! Darth Adobe: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
Retzius: Nice camera. However, I must say the latest releases of digital cameras are getting awfully expensive. Even for an admittedly pricey hobby, the cameras and lenses released within the last couple of years really are pushing the boundaries of "affordability" for the amateur or hobbyist.
A professional camera can also be defined by the level of support that goes along with it. Nikon Professional Services, however spotty they can be, goes a long way towards delineating what professionals will use.
The turn around time for NPS supported gear is much faster than consumer level support. A pro can use almost any type of camera, but when a problem happens with the gear, having a support system behind it is critical (and not just a backup body and lens).
Mikity: Not bad, but...I still think they missed their market. People who want a proper laptop will continue to buy one. Folks who prefer a tablet will grab an iPad or something like it, since it's quite a bit lighter and smaller.
Well said. I have a MacBook Air 13", an iPad Air and a Surface Pro. The Surface Pro comes in last for usability because it is neither fish nor fowl.I use it when I need to use windows applications on a tablet form factor (service applications that are windows specific), but for everything else the clamshell design wins out (MBA) or else the svelte and power saving tablet (iPad). If the Surface Pro 3 had a proper type cover that could hold at any discreet angle on my lap without flopping over I'd be more convinced. The 'kickstand resting on the knees' with a floppy (detachable) hinge is a disaster waiting to happen.
Kiril Karaatanasov: DPREVIEW guys do you think many D4s users shoot JPEG? Can you compare RAW files e.g. d4 vs d4s? Also is 5d mk3 and A7 in same league at all? How about 1Dx? Best will be test against A7s which seems to be closest in terms of sensor to D4s
Lots of pro sports shooters shoot in JPEG, and this camera is aimed towards sports and wildlife photography. So the answer to your first question is yes.
The reason for JPEG is that turn around time matters in pro sports and JPEG is much more compact and faster to transmit to the publisher.
Frank_BR: 1550g body only?! I bet only prism and mirror mechanism weigh half that.If Ricoh wanted to launch a new camera, it should be a MF mirrorless, as Sony will do in the coming months.
The only justification for the 645Z is it will help to reduce a bit the inferiority complex of many fans of the Pentax brand, which never had a FF DSLR on the market. Now, Pentax fanboys can say to Nikon and Canon fanboys:
- "Mine" is bigger than yours.
The 645D was out long before the 645Z came out. I think this body will do very well for Pentax and I think mirrorless is nice but still hasn't put mirrored cameras out to pasture yet.
Pentax has nothing to be ashamed about with their MF offerings.
EOSHD: You can't judge noise levels on YouTube. Compression removes it. ISO 1600 looks worse than 25,600. There's also the matter of rolling shutter on this camera, it isn't pretty! http://www.eoshd.com/content/12631/sony-a7s-rolling-shutter-test
As EOSHD has stated, it has nothing to do with the surface area but the way the sensor is read out by the camera. Also it isn't just about shaking the camera to see rolling shutter artifacts, you can see them in fast moving subjects, especially periodic motion, like propellors.
This is a random link I found regarding rolling shutter that illustrates what can happen:http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread690785/pg1
Is it a deal breaker for most people? Nope, I think it is bad as moire artifacts on Bayer sensors without anti-aliasing filters. Most people aren't affected by that either. But those that are affected by it really can notice it, and it should be noted for the people who are interested in this camera.
580EX II has been discontinued for the 600EX (RT).
Not sure what the street price of the Mitros is, but you could find the 580 EX II (before being discont'd) and the 600EX RT for ~$375-$425 in Canada during the big sales (Black Friday and Boxing day, etc.)
turvyT: I have no particular interest either in this OM10 nor in the Pentax k3. But I'm curious about new cameras and like to be informed. K3 was announced almost half a year ago. OM10, less than two months. Still waiting for K3 review --or for Godot in this fully interesting exercise in surrealism by Dpreview. Personally I don't believe anymore in any of the excuses Dpreview has been producing about the lack of interest in the Pentax K3 by readers. I'm now convinced that under those foggy words of lame excuse there is only a lack of respect for people interested in new cameras and camera's technology.
I think DPR has really chased the consumer end of the market at the expense of the traditional photographer.
I believe the implementation of DPR Connect, the Gear Shop and more blogging, casual type of updates has taken its toll on the rate and detail of traditional camera reviews.
Also the implosion of Point and Shoots and decline of higher end SLR sales has resulted in the declining fortunes of all camera sites, and DPR is struggling not just to stay in the forefront but also to stay relevant in the future of imaging and photography.
Traditional photography and SLRs are yesterday's news, according to 'everyone', and smart phone cameras and ILCs are the future.
DSapper: What about Oil & Dust?
You have to add that yourself. No longer included with Nikon bodies (one would hope).
sillen: Purchasing a new DSLR with this hefty pricetag, you would expect specs that are competitive for a few years. At this price level you would expect premium photo resolution and high video quality such as 4K. How come the 4S only provides medioker photo resolution, and yesterdays video specs?? Imagine how behind the 4S will be in a few years, when it is so behind already at the launch date
How many megapixels do you require from a body like this?
Throughput (frames per second) and fast and accurate autofocus, and low light shooting are arguably more important than megapixels for wildlife and sports photographers.
4k video would be nice though.
tvstaff: It would be nice if Canon did the same and replaced EVERY mirror box in the 1DX. A $7,000 body should not have oil and debris issues. PERIOD. How can Nikon do this for a consumer camera and Canon is leaving it's pros hanging???? If Nixon ' s new D4 is a winner, canon will lose a lot of pros!!!
No problem with my 1dx (5th production unit) either.
ondrejbobek: Not bad, but 1D-X has faster fps, more sRAW options and stiil better(?) AF fort sports (much, much faster USM lenses)... hopefully better colors are true (from D600/D4/D800 its really hard to work with this "in tests great sensors").
The D4 and D4s sensor has better DR at base ISO and any differences are academic by ISO400, when compared to the 1Dx.
The 1Dx is on par with the D4 and edges it in the features that matter to sports and wildlife photogs. The D4s should put Nikon at parity with the 1Dx. The D3 and D3s soundly trounced their Canon rivals previously.
Aaron801: I know this is a really ignorant question, but I know nothing about this class of cameras... I'm wondering why a camera so bulky and so expensive is only 16mp?
As a sports and wildlife camera, the frames per second requirement needs a sensor that can shovel out data rapidly. Higher megapixels means higher processing subsystems that aren't core to the mission of this type of body.
The weight and bulk of the body is for durability and toughness to operate in inclement conditions, support larger capacity batteries and to balance the camera system when a long telephoto lens is attached.
katy C.: I thought he made a grip for the Canon EOS M too.
Why no mention of that I wonder?
I'm sure they'll finish their EOS M review right after the 1DIII review and 1Dx review gets posted.
I don't rely on dpr for exhaustive timely reviews any longer, and I know others who feel the same way, sadly.
topstuff: Interesting in that it tells us that IQ is not the top priority for people.
It also reveals the truth that people generally look at photography through an iPad or tablet and don't print large anymore.
It also reveals that a large percentage of shooters only really take pictures in undemanding situations, with good light and conditions.
Why else would a MFT camera win? ;)
It is not the question of absolute best image quality, but that the image quality of the gear in question is 'good enough'.
Image quality now is a matter of diminishing returns because other factors come into play, like convenience and ease of use, or lens availability.
For most people in most situations, your average $1000 interchangeable lens camera of any sort or brand will be good enough.
Otherwise we'd all be carrying around medium format backs. It is rapidly becoming even more of a fringe case to require something 'more' than the intermediate setups, whether it is 36 megapixels or 14 stops of DR or 14fps or 63 AF points.