RDCollins: Sorry, Sony, but I need an electronic or optical view finder! The option you offer is far too expensive and compromises the camera's compact size.
At almost $450, the FDA-EVM1K is definitely expensive. Also, there really are no other options. Compare that to the Olympus VF4, which has the same resolution but cost only $280. On top of that, there even cheaper options: VF2 and VF3.Anyway, the RX100II is nice and all but if one needs an EVF, might as well go for a NEX6 or GX7, which are also wifi capable.
Deardorff: 14 degrees? ABOVE zero???
That is not cold. They are claiming it won't freeze up in the cold so why isn't it good to 30 below which is what our winters generally hit when bad weather comes in.
Sounds nice, but I already use my gear in sub zero temps with good success.
It says -10C or 14F, so definitely subzero.
PK24X36NOW: DPR viewfinder size fiction continues. "Dividing (viewfinder magnification) by the crop factor" is essentially an assumption (in this case) that the MFT sensor is 1/2 the size of a FF sensor, which it is not. It is little more than 1/4 the size.
The correct relative size calculation is as follows:
17.3 * 13 * 100% * 1.48 = 332.852 sq mm
35.9 * 24 * 100% * 0.7 = 603.12 sq mm
So the new Oly's "wonder viewfinder is actually little more than 1/2 as big as a typical FF dSLR viewfinder.
PenGun: Makes no sense to me. The Fuji X cameras will just murder it in almost every way and cost less.
And stabilization, weather sealing, burst rate, lens selection, wifi, etc.
"Quality is what I need.."
Then why you shooting with an APS-C cam? Go FF or MF.
"Makes no sense to me"
You make no sense.
Mirrorless Crusader: Hmm, I could buy a huge heavy 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom from CANIKON for $2500, or a lightweight portable 24-80mm f/2.8 for $1000 from OLYMPUS. Tough decision, there.
"You skipped right over APS-C to make a point, huh?"
Well a Nikon 17-55/2.8 costs $400 more and weighs twice as much.
Timmbits: I was eyeing this... but I just discovered on camerasizecom that this this is a bit larger than the APS NX300 - isn't MFT supposed to be more compact?
also, does anyone know how this compares to the GX1 and the Oly sensor (in the omdem5, epl5/5, ep5) ?
GX7 has built in EVF that tilts and pop-up flash, with more physical buttons and dials. Also, the sensor is stabilized. These things, which the NX300 don't have, add to the size.
brdeveloper: Too many moving parts. Is it shock-resistant?
At least it doesn't have a slapping mirror.
ChrisKramer1: LOL! Only Panasonic could come up with a camera that looks exactly the same as the Sony NEX 7, costs exactly the same but with a sensor that is half the size!
As far as I can see, the NEX-7 are still more expensive than the GX7 ($999). Also, you don't get wifi, touch screen, tilting EVF, real hotshoe, etc. on the NEX-7, let alone access to m43 lenses.
Interesting scores, which shows the NX lenses are basically as good, and in some cases better, than the Nikon/Canon (closest) equivalent.
The macro (19 pts) has a higher score (with better sharpness) than the Canon 60/2.8 (18 pts).
The 45/1.8 has a score (22 pts), higher than the Canikon 50/1.8 (both 19 pts); again with better sharpness.
At 21 pts, the 30/2 is lower than the Nikon 35/1.8G (22 pts) but better than the Canon 35/2 (17 pts on a 7D); but the Samsung is a pancake, so it's pretty impressive.
It seems Canon needs to make more EF-S. Anyway, those Samsung lenses looks good.
yabokkie: a little bit embarassing
When calculating equivalence on 135 format (fullframe), lens speed doesn't change. So, the 24/1.8 is 36/1.8 on FF, which means it has an angle/field of view (AoV or FoV) equivalent to a 36mm FF lens because of the 1.5 crop factor, but the light gathering ability is still F/1.8.
You only multiply the f-number by the crop factor to calculate equivalent depth of field (DoF) on FF, which would be like the FF 36mm lens stopped down to F/2.7. This is either better or worst depending on your preference and situation.
Michael de Ruijter: What are we supposed to do? Grab a fistful of dollars and toss it away?
You can start by doing small things locally, like donating food, clothes, and some time voluteering. Giving money, even a tiny bit, to charities help as every bit counts. No need to "Grab a fistful of dollars and toss it away".
Adrian Van: The 70D meets or exceeds (with new AF) all (or most) of the functionality features and performance of the current 7D in specs (dpreview suggests in their summary section), so does this means it is the current flagship APS-C for Canon, until a 7D mark 2 comes out next? If it works as well as it appears by specs, it is a solid competitor to Nikon D7100. Although what lenses you already have will make a difference on which brand to choose. Both cameras are very good! Like the articulating screen of 70D which is exceedingly useful for live view video recording. Canon and Nikon continue to step up the functions of their top APS-C in latest models, especially with video functions, and better AF during recording.
Depends on your priorities/preferences. The D7100 has more AF points and I expect the 7D replacement to have more too but the 70D has PD on 80% of the sensor (for better LV). Both 7D and D7100 have OVF with 100% coverage while the 70D is only 98% but has articulating touchscreen. There are more differences (like slower burst rate and less robust than the 7D, etc.) but you start to see where Canon is positioning the 70D.
happypoppeye: EM-5 is $1000 ...this is an under $1000 list. Ok, so its close, but how is a $1000 body with no lens a best ILC or SLR?
@Timmbits: I initially thought DPR "also mean the under $1000 limit is placed on list prices, not street prices" but that's not true as the K-5 and the D7000 all had much higher list price than $1000 but currently have sub $1000 street price currently.
That said, I agree that the E-PL5 probably should've have been listed instead of the E-M5 as it is almost half the price for the same IQ; it is the better option if you don't need the EVF, weather sealing, etc. While I'm at it, I would've put a Samsung NX20 or NX300 than any Canon as well.
@happypoppeye @Valterj: try again - http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Interchangeable-3-0-Inch-Tilting-Touchscreen/dp/B0074WDEY6/ref=lh_ni_t?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
The $1149 is with the weather sealed 12-50mm. The 14-42mm (with the $999 kit option) is cheaper and is equivalent to the non-weather sealed kit lens of the other cameras on the list. So the E-M5 with a lens is indeed less than $1000 currently.
I was also figuring out why the E-M5 was in the sub $1000 list and that was the reason I found.
I know Amazon "owns" DPR and one would expect DPR to know the price but actual/street prices do fluctuate and a lot of products are sold via Amazon from various stores, further complicating things. Looking at Amazon right now for example, the GX1 body is $244.99, $5 cheaper than what is listed on the article, and the the kit is currently $439.29, also lower than the article.
Because DPR listed it's MSRP instead. If you bothered to click the link to the Amazon page before commenting, you'll see the body is actually $899. With a kit lens, its $999... so it's under.
Why do so many people speak/comment first before looking for info for themselves?
peevee1: Really and truly, choosing a Rebel shows how disingenuous this list is. Rebel is a literally WORST camera in its category - it has the worst sensor=image quality (the worst dynamic range, the worst noise, the worst color depth), it has the worst tiny pentamirror viewfinder not even covering the whole scene, it has slow processor/sequential shooting speed, it has weak 9-point AF system, it has the worst 1-dial control, it has the worst plastic non-weather-sealed body... What kind of service do you do to your readers putting the worst camera in its category to the top 10 list? Sheesh! I understand that is the best seller because of the brand name Canon had earned - up to 4 years ago - but since then they only sell their name piece by piece, and your site should inform public about things like that.
A bit harsh but I agree. Anyone I know who started with a Rebel and didn't stay with the basic kit setup, have either gone with a FF Canon or moved to other brands completely.
But the reality is, a potential iLC user buys Canon and sticks to the kit only. If other companies do as well as Canon in marketing and stores like BestBuy don't just try to sell you a Canon by default, other brands would do much better as so many cameras these days are better than the Rebels in many ways.
ezradja: Probably it's just me, but I find the selections not very good anymore. Probably because of new breeds of serious compact camera such as x100, rx100, g1x etc even pentax q or nikon 1 are more interesting to me these days...
sensibill: Omission of cheap SLT models such as the A57 is odd, given the broad lens assortment and quite low price vs. the Nikon and Canon low to mid DSLR options.
The inclusion of models that obviously are NOT "under $1000" like the OM-D is similarly confusing. I don't see why body-only pricing qualifies for a list like this.
On the other hand, it's refreshing to see the ridiculous 'CSC' term being forcibly retired. ILC isn't perfect, but better.
A new E-M5 w/ 14-42mm is $999 on Amazon... could be found cheaper if you look around.
I thought I would be compelled to replace my Mk1. Good thing I don't have to, phew. Or is it a good thing? Panasonic updated the 14-140mm, and the new one is smaller, lighter, brighter and cheaper! Olympus updated the kit 14-42mm so it's smaller, lighter, faster and quieter. Did Panasonic get lazy with this one?
The 20/1.7 MkII is still a good lens though, but I'd get the Mk1 for the lower price if I hadn't already.