tkbslc: Wow, that D7200 looks good even up to ISO 12800! Barely any difference between it and the Canon 6D.
Have a look at the water color paints in the top left. Still quite a bit of difference there, to my eye.
DaddyG: Great review - the degree to which you highlight the 7D's poor dynamic range is long overdue. You do a great job on explaining why this is so important.
This level of negative publicity is long overdue, and can only be good for us locked into the Canon system. Surely Canon must concentrate on improving its sensor technology.
However, it is odd that you do not list it as a 'Con'. Because, for me & many, it is this camera's greatest disappointment.
Perhaps negative publicity was not the right term.You're right. The user/customer should decide - with knowledge. The knowledge of Canon's poor ability to resist lifting shadows has now brought more clearly into the light, thanks to this review. And, more importantly, the real-world implications.
Great review - the degree to which you highlight the 7D's poor dynamic range is long overdue. You do a great job on explaining why this is so important.
Greg VdB: Err... it was added already over a month ago... (http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6778992695/photos/3055280/rawcomparison_dpreview)
Did you mean you re-shot with a newer camera or re-render with the final version of ACR? (Or did you simply want to launch another pointles pixel-peep battle between people spending too much time in front of their computer screen instead of their camera screen?)
Indeed - what's new here DPR - what's the difference between these findings and those from a month ago? Maybe it is the production version now?
Thanks DPR for not posting another 7D advertisement posing as a 'review'
Wes Syposz: she never really explains why she prefers a FF...
She does. Focal length remains at 1x
I echo ScottRH below. This write-up, while interesting, reads a bit like an advertisement. Nowhere were the D810's shortcomings mentioned. E.g. why purchase a D4S?
There's a lot of talk about how mirrorless now have autofocus as good as SLR's. But there seems to be lots of big white lens' on the sidelines.What's state of the art for sports photography these days?
The Davinator: Too much time is wasted on comparing ridiculously high iso ratings that make up such a minute amount of where photographers normally reside. There must be a small underground movement of people producing 20x30 landscape, street, or portraiture at 100,000 iso that I must be missing.
They were probably saying a similar thing about ISO3200 ten years ago.
macjonny1: Canon, no one cares about these boring lenses. Maybe do something innovative instead of a MK II version of a lens that is just fine the way it is. Spend your resources getting out of the obsolescence that you seem to be heading at light speed.
I was considering the EF-S lens but the sacrifice in aperture does matter.IS means naught for, e.g, astrophotography.
12fps in jpeg. Anyone know what does it does in RAW & buffer size? thx
Eleson: So , as a fast action shooter, how does it stack up against the alternatives?
It depends how the AF works. No. of points is a small part of the picture
joe6pack: What took Pressy so long??? This article belongs in 2013!
They got pwned by Xiaomi MiKey, costing just $0.79!
No doubt Xiaomi copied their design. But then, it is hard to say if Pressy's idea is original or not. After all, controls using 3.5mm plug has been around for quite some time.
thanks joe 6 pack for completing the article.
Great work. With 4k vid coming out, I guess we'll be seeing all types of stuff like this soon (frame grabs)
Lucas_: IMHO it's outrageous to give a Gold Award and an 87% note to this camera and Silver with 80% to the fantastically innovative Sony A7 ( not to mention the A7R, which is clearly at another level and got Gold / 82%! ). It's about time DPR realizes that their reviews "conclusions" have actually become a joke! I can appreciate the level of camera features/controls details and specs they cover ( which IMO is the good value of the review ), but I've learned to just don't care at all about their final conclusions ( sometimes hilarious ) and rating!
Surprising that a camera that is based on a 2012 model is such highly rated. I thought ratings were relative to today's (2014) technology?I'll be interested to see what the EOS 1200D gets, which is essentially a rebadged EOS 550D.
This review is not as thorough as we're used to seeing from DPR. For example, no comment about OVF Autofocus tracking performance (is it the same as the 7D minus the two modes?)How about the movie resolution quality. I heard it's majorly lacking compared to, say, a GH3. No mention from DPR.Too highly focused on the new DP AF I feel.
(However, it's great how you can click on the IQ commentary and the widgets then display accordingly).
IZO100: This review before the Canon 70D ? Why ?
What is the market share of this toy again ??
It would be interesting for DPR to segregate such reviews into performance by photographic subject, e.g. sports/wedding/landscape/macro (etc) performance compared to competition. Comparing MILC v APS-C would be interesting in this format.
Lovely lights, but perhaps he could have searched for a more pleasing foreground.
Thanks DP Review. This is the first site I've seen with thorough testing of the DPAF system and fast primes. It seems good things take time.
Dubious focusing in low light wide open is nothing new. Canon's older primes provide inaccurate focus in low contrast situations. (From my experience: EF 85 1.8, EF 50 1.4, EF 50 1.8).