matthiasbasler: Se we've seen both the D5500 and the EOS750/760D released now. To be blunt, neither of them makes me want to have them.
I had an EOS 400D, a Nikon D5000 and now the EOS 650D. I just love flip-out displays and the touch screen of the EOS 650D. I also liked the very good image quality compared to compact cameras at their time. What I disliked were focus issues (like the camera usually focusing on the background instead on an animal, happened often with D5000), and the loud "click", especially when doing timelapse photography in quiet environment.
What has changed since then?1. Ridiculous resolutions (I usually still shoot 8MP and created excellent looking posters from them.) Why 24 or 28MP?2. Compact cameras offer almost equal image quality under daylight and cost far less.3. ILC cameras offer 4K video, two times the burst rate, often smaller bodies, faster focus in "live view mode", no loud clicks. (See Panasonic GH4 or Samsung NX500. The GH4 even has built in time lapse mode.)
When it comes to the question of electronic vs. optical viewfinders I agree with Charrick. The only advantage of an optical viewfinder is imho the natural "look", usually because of no resolution limitations. For me as a wearer of glasses not really an argument, since I can hardly judge if an image is *really* sharp by what I see in the viewfinder. I f I want to be sure I switch to the display, magnify to 10x and then I know.
But given the fact that I sometimes started shooting with the wrong white balance and only realized afterwards I can only look forward to having an electronic viewfinder showing me white balance, exposure compensation, effects and a histogram live.Oh, and for night photography an optical viewfinder is imho useless.
(I already used an EVF on the "Powershot Pro 1", 10 years ago. It was usable, and today's EVFs are even better.)
Se we've seen both the D5500 and the EOS750/760D released now. To be blunt, neither of them makes me want to have them.
matthiasbasler: I am rather disappointed. After 14 months a predecessor is come out that looks like a slight improvement to some (like me who value a touch screen) and like a move back to others (who like GPS). Nikon can do better, I am sure, but I guess they limited the camera features in order not to compete with their higher level cameras.
For me this camera comes way too late, I switched to Canons EOS 650D, which offered a touch screen and similar features more than two years ago.
Maybe this is also another indication that the classical APSC frame DSLR cameras have passed their zenith with only marginal steps in the past two years. Look at the mirrorless camera market instead, which still has a much higher momentum and in some aspects makes these DSLR cameras look like dinosaurs. (Compare its 5fps and the 1080p video to 12fps and superb 4K video with H.265 codec of the Panasonic Lumix GH-4, which admittedly is twice the price. But even the Nikon D750 still only has 6.5 fps and 1080p.)
Correct, Sisung. I mixed up AVCHD (H.264) with HEVC (H.265). Thanks for noting.
I am rather disappointed. After 14 months a predecessor is come out that looks like a slight improvement to some (like me who value a touch screen) and like a move back to others (who like GPS). Nikon can do better, I am sure, but I guess they limited the camera features in order not to compete with their higher level cameras.
pbrandt3: Upgrade sensors & motherboards not Cameras.Wouldn't it be great to not have to buy a whole new camera every 4-5 years? The cameras are not the problem ! Make it so one can upgrade the motherboard-processor & sensor chip the same way you change memory cards. In 1964 I bought a Nikon F Fotomic and a Hasselblad 500C which I continued to use for 35 years because they were great equipment that got the job done. Imagine using a 5 yr. old digital camera on a job today.
Well, most cameras I have used where physically damaged or "worn out" after five years of usage, when I replaced them. They were no professional, ruggedized cameras, of course.
Still, in general I second your idea. I already had envisioned a camera with exchangeable components, like rear screen, sensor, processor. But chances are, it will not be half as compact as a conventional camera can be with its interwoven interal components. Ricoh had a concept like that a few years ago. Looks like it didn't catch on. (See here: http://www.dpreview.com/products/ricoh/slrs?subcategoryId=slrs)
One camera obviously nobody here has on the radar is the highly innovative Lytro Illum, a light field camera which allows things like- re-focus the image after having taken it (at home)- creating an image that's sharp from (almost) front to back.- creating 3D image from a single shotand all this (and more) with a fast F2.0 30-250mm zoom lens unimaginable for a conventional camera.
It has a fixed lens and with 1600€ it certainly is high end. So if it belongs anywhere, then into this category.
This camera gets my first place, because the light field technology imho has the potential to open a completely new chapter of digital photography.
It is said there exist people who believe that the more expensive the camera, the better the photos it creates. This is the perfect camera for them.(Ah, and don't tell them this is an illusion.)
Grevture: To me this poll is basically impossible to answer - because to me many if not most enthusiasts would happily use more then one camera in parallel, with different sensor sizes, depending on the situation.
So essentially, all the top six options are appropriate, depending on the situation and one's shooting habits in various situations.
And the bottom option does not work either - because sensor size does matter to people. Just not a single one.
I agree. I am an enthusiast and I do own both an APSC-DSLR and now a 1/1.7" sensor compact and I really used both during my last holidays. The APSC sensor (and a good lens) are superior in low-light conditions such as astrophotography, obviously. And it can get you a nice blurred background. But the small compact Olympus XZ-2 gets you as close as 1 cm to (or below) a flower, which results in very different possibilities. During daytime I wouldn't say the one or the other does "better" images in terms of sharpness, quality, CA and so on.
This is all about choosing the right tool for the specific job.
toni2: Just comparehttp://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos550d&products=canon_eos600d&products=canon_eos650d&products=canon_eos700d4 cameras, 3 years... and same features!Same MP, same focus points, same screen resolution, almost same viewfinder, last 3 models have articulated lcd, stereo sound (600d have only mono), the same battery ...And still, every time the price is higher.It will not be for research that is behind, right?
Many people here seem to think a touch display is no new feature. I can tell you it is one of the two features why I didn't buy the Nikon D5200. Getting quickly to *almost any* setting with two touches is a big advantage. The other one is that the Nikon D5200 has no choice of aspect ratios (in LiveView) and only three image sizes, the "smallest" one being 6MP. I often have cases where 2MP is all I need.
I'm not saying the 650D is perfect. I don't like the position of the on/off switch and that it is combined with the video mode. Too often switched to movie mode accidentally. Nikons solution (ring switch around shutter button) is far easier to use imho.
Really strange, this mini-upgrade.
I hope the dpreview team will check whether the firmware has been improved; there certainly are some areas which deserve attention, such as f.e. the fact that on the 650D the continuous burst rate drops to 1 image per second after three images if the chromatic abberation correction is turned on. (This is documented nowhere, I had to figure it out myself.) I wish Canon added features like a digital ND filter or recording sound notes to the firmware, but I fear that's not the case - otherwise they would have mentioned it.
I have this lens. Here is my personal impression:- Not having to change lenses really IS comfortable.- Image sharpness is good enough for travel photography. No point in using this lens with 24MP, but on my Nikon D5000 it's sharp enough for everyday use.- It is clearly in an inferior position compared to the AF-S Nikkkor 70-300 1:4.5-5.6 KIT zoom lens (which is not a top lens either), both with respect of image quality and minimum aperture at 270mm.- My lens arrived with a strong zoom creep. I sent it in to be repaired. Nikon re-adjusted it without any hassle. Afterwards it was much better. Meanwhile zoom creep is noticable again, but remains acceptable.- One disturbing thing not mentioned in the review, is, that bright out-of-focus lights can appear not as blurred disks, but as rings! This was prominent on several real-world photos of mine, (e.g. with trees in the background where the sky peeped through the leaves). If you need a pleasent background blur, choose another lens!
Prince25: Hi, I'm trying to make up my mind on which DSLR to purchase for my first ever DSLR. I am confused if I should wait for this Nikon D5200 or just get a Canon 7D instead. I'm planning to shoot both videos and photos in night time setting. I also want to shoot a time lapse of the night time sky. Any suggestions will be helpful. Thanks! :)
> I also want to shoot a time lapse of the night time sky.
In this case make sure you properly test-drive your camera.I had a EOS 400D once, and together with a PC you could do time-lapse images. The EOS400D had a very reliable exposure in low light, so night-time-lapse movies came out well.
Then I bought the D5000, a predecessor of this one, which had a built-in time-lapse mode. I tried the same, but unfortuately the D5000 had a *unreliable exposure* under low light, so with a fixed aperture the exposure time of subsequent images of the same scene differed by as much as factor 2 (aka 1 EV).It was almost impossible to darken/brighten the images afterwards in order to get a flicker-free time-lapse movie, so I gave up.I addressed this issue to the Nikon support, but they did't believe me and told me the it was the light intensity that changed, and the camera adapted to this. (But if so, why did the resulting images have different brightness???)Hopefully dpreview can test this.
I had hoped the D5200 would replace my D5000 camera, but alas, it disqualifies itself by the set of resolutions offered.12MP were more than enough for me - I had great 75x50cm prints from them. Why do I need 24 MP? But the real problem is that the "lowest" resolution offered is now 6 MP. Unfortunately I used the D5000 (among others) for photographing house facades in order to texture models - 2MP is all I need for this. Sure, I can downsize the images afterwards, but isn't this ridiculous, having to by a larger SD card and spending extra work just because the camera cannot shoot small images?Plus, the D5200 is still not able to record images in other aspect ratios, such as 16:9 or 4:3, a feature offered by almost every other camera nowadays.Maybe Nikon thinks this would make it hard to switch through the options? Not if the user could choose a few preferred combinations of size, quality and aspect ratio, and just cycle through these. It would require only one button!