I know that dpreview said that the image quality is better with the Nikon but subtle . I took a look at the samples of both using as a guide the originals . It was soon obvious that dp was right , but they are not subtle , as a matter of fact the detail , contrast , sharpness and dynamic range is superior in the Nikon .
I know that. the main topic is the effects of no anti aliasing filter on high MP camera but what is surprising is the small amount who have commented on the rather obvious and surprising superiority of the pentax over all the others on all test modes . On the nikons I can see a difference between them but I admit they are small , even at 100%
Differences between the D7100 and D5200 are small . What did surprise me is that for my eyes and taste the pentax K-5II is way above all the others in every test .
I like reading about the latest technological marvel in cameraology and the comparison done between one and another , but the truth of the matter is that this differences are very small , so small as to in reality make them irrelevent . More so , reading someone saying the 6D destroyed the D600 , or that the D800 is the best full frame in the world is foolish at best . If we are as technological inclined as we say we are we should be more objective and see things as they are .About the review , the 6D seems to be another great camera out on the market especially for those who prefer Canons philosophy in imaging . Congratulation Canon on a camera well done .
All great lens have this uncanny ability to give you great sharpness and smoothness at the same time . This is one of them . Being what they are , just samples , I liked what I saw very much.
Remember guys ,this is a beta camera .
FreedomLover: You can see the single cells of the decorative purple-green leaf in the water drop pearl in the center :-)The macro detail reaches microscopic levels under the magnification of the droplet at iso3200 with very little and fine grained noise ...IMG_0146
Sorry , but I don't see it . Maybe it's me or my monitor but to my eyes it looks rather soft . Look at the image outlines . They are soft .
Bernardo Vaghi: Strong AA filter detected.
I would dare say the lack of detail is cause by the lack of sharpness . Outlines are all rather soft making the sense of detail to be low.
As usual we are jumping the boat . We all gonna have to wait for the full review and see what is causing what we are seeing .
Colors are nice , sharpness is subpar (noise reduction) What surprise me was the dynamic range which is rather low for a full framer . It's quite possible that the low dynamic range and lack of sharpness maybe be cause both by rather strong noise reduction . Colors are kept very nicely at high iso , better then the Nikon d600 . Saturation is rather higher at base iso , this might be giving the pics higher contrast at high iso , more then Nikon. We should remember that Nikon is more conservative then Canon in rather all parameters at default . This could be the differences which some are observing and mentioning .
To say that Pentax does not have lens comparable to Nikons or Canons is not saying the truth . Pentax has very good lens in it's stable . Apart from this I would like to say that right now DSLR cameras , even the low cost ones are very far ahead in image quality then what we use to get three or four years ago .
That being as it is to say that this brand or that brand has better image quality is nonsense . What we should be looking at when we by a DSLR camera , even a low cost one is Manufacturers customer service and it's line of lens and flashes and the availability of them in the area where you live .
I know some here will have a different opinion but here goes ...One of the posters here questioned why so many pixels ? I have a Nikon F100 film camera . Everytime I use it I am amazed at the detail captured by the F100 film camera in comparison with my D7000 and D300 . The point of more pixels is increase in resolution . The top tier digital cameras that seem to be getting there still have a way to go to be able to compare with good film cameras .As I see it the point of more pixels is more detail and resolution . Not only that but as i see it film cameras have more shades of colors then digital cameras . It's not my intention to revive the old debate of film vs digital . It's just to answer the question posed by someone on the point of more pixels .
We should not be defining which is better using the default sharpness of the manufacturer as we see it as this does not have anything to do with image quality but rather design philosophy . Some camera manufacturer prefer to give their images more sharpness at default then others . This is just a design decision on part of the manufacturer , so to say this one is better because it is sharper is missing the point .
deniz erdem: why do sony jpeg always have that blotchy look to them? i know the raw files are probably very impressive but why sony? why dont you have good jpegs?
Can you be a bit more speciific on the blotchiness ? Can you give me an example so that I might see it ?
This Sony camera seems to be a depature from their traditional high quality Point and shoot cameras. Normally Sony cameras always had a rather soft contrast presentation in it's images . This camera gives very punchy JPG's . Detail is very good . Even if the price is a bit high I like what I see .
I concur with RedFox88 . I'm not saying that DPreview doesn't have credibility . If that were true I would not be reading their reviews . But a camera that has vague JPG output does not deserve a gold award . Maybe a silver award would be more for it . In any event it does seem to be a really nice camera and for the price it's feature set is great .
The mayority of the people that will use this camera will most likely be shooting JPG's .
Just one thing...can somebody tell me how can you give a gold award to a camera that has subpar JPG's ? Maybe a silver award , but gold ?
seems to add a little to much sharpning in default
A camera that as per Dpreview is second to the Sony NX 7 I would not call trash unless dpreview reviewers don't know what they are talking about.
I'm pretty sure it's a fine camera for what it is intended.