JPEGs from ACR seem to have obvious uncorrected chromatic aberration, but the equivalent out-of-camera JPEGs do not have that issue. Is ACR not capable of correcting chromatic aberrations for the lens on this camera?
clickstation: Am I missing the part where they test the buffer depth?
Also, are you sure there's no exposure compensation on Manual mode? The device has a touchscreen, are you sure you can't change the ex.comp there?
How come the reviews aren't standardized, with a checklist of the things that **must** be in the review? The reviewer can add their own personal touch here and there, but those standardized items must be there.
Canon's modus operandi appears to be to annoy their customers into purchasing the biggest and heaviest DSLR possible ;)
No touch screen?!?
Kaso: Strengthen the technical analyses of cameras and lenses. Stop the wimpy essays like this one, which is already one too many! No need for opinions by some pretender sitting in a cafe with a fruit-brand notebook and typing out a stupid stream of unconsciousness.
@intruder61:Yes, I can see how "democracy with a free mind" is difficult to cope with for you:http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55323762
Another spectacularly prejudiced and intolerant mind with many admirers to boot ;)
Still no control over minimum shutter speed for auto-ISO in the A and P modes???
Lots of complaints here about the fact that the X-A2 does not use an X-Trans sensor, just like X-A1 didn't. Must be a big drawback, obviously...
Be that as it may, how come the X-A1 photos from DPR's new studio comparison scene look so good, JPEG or RAW, compared to the other Fuji cameras that do use the X-Trans sensor?
As always, the reactionary types are out in full force. They can always be counted upon to resist progress ;)
retro76: I picked up the J4 recently for $399 on sale (same sensor as V3). I also picked up the Olympus OMD-EM10 and Sony NEX 6 from Amazon (thanks to Amazon's amazing return policy). I ended up keeping the J4 and returning the other two bodies for the following reasons: 1) The J4 is faster and more accurate in focus 2) The J4 touch screen is better than Olympus 3) Nikon's color and metering is better. While high ISO noise is better controlled by Olympus and Sony, the high ISO grain is nicer leaving more detail on the Nikon. Overall unless you pixel peep, the Nikon images look better in print than the other two bodies. Olympus has some strange color hues and often clips highlights whereas the Nikon seems to do better in the highlights and the Olympus in the shadows. The Nikon has a sharper kit lens, the IS works better, and I love that the "lens-cap" is built in. The Nikon menu system is better than Olympus and the minimalist design and handling makes for a better travel companion.
Glad to hear you ended up with the camera you deserve ;)
Some of the comments here are so crass, they border on hooliganism. I trust that the DPR team will not be unduly influenced by them.Many thanks, again, for taking the time and the effort to bring us the DR comparison in this review. The technical depth that this type of analysis brings to the reviews here is indeed very much appreciated. Please keep up the good work.
Coyote_Cody: I wonder if Canon is stuck in the:
'video too sharp (GH4/etc) looks too non-film like', so we make our video low rez and low detail & colors weak to approximate the old mostly low rez video film of Yesteryear ?
You think ?
Canon needs better DSPs and better video algorithms - very obvious to most of us.
I respect Canon for many things, but living with head in sand or in the past is NOT one of them !!
They are too fine of a company to be this neglectful of video and many other features that are missing in their cams - all/most of their cams - they have the money - they should use it for development !!
Plz pleasantly surprise us/me Canon in 2015 !!
Coyote_Cody wrote: "Canon needs better DSPs and better video algorithms - very obvious to most of us."
This reminds me... The iPhone 6 camera appears to be punching way above its weight class. I haven't seen any rigorous analysis to suggest one way or the other, but might it be that despite years of head start with something that is a core competency for their business, traditional camera makers like Canon have now decisively fallen behind companies like Apple in image/video processing expertise?
locke_fc: Wow, so we're finding out just now that less DR equals less ability to lift the shadows??
Rishi, many thanks to you and the rest of the DPR team for putting in the time and the effort to bring us the DR comparison in this review. Some of the crass commentary here might falsely suggest otherwise, but the technical depth that this type of analysis brings to the reviews is indeed greatly appreciated.
Stefan Keller: your drawings of the AF points are made as a photographer would make the Layout of the AF-Points,but Canon made a gap between the 3 "blocks", which is a bit annoying selecting the right pointand cuts of the AF-point expansion at one side when selecting a point beneath this gap :-(
This is a very good point. The gaps are rather large, too. And they fall right on top of the rule-of-thirds vertical lines.
///M: Sony A7R- "◾Lack of uncompressed Raw" - what is the point then?
Luckily, for regular readers of these comments, HowaboutRAW has made some falsifiable statements that have been readily proven false by independently available evidence, so his/her jig is up. Sadly, the incessant drone of his/her unsupported claims continue to muddy the waters for unsuspecting casual readers.
Rishi, thank you so much for taking the time and addressing so many questions and comments.
As far as I'm concerned, the only step forward that would have meant anything would have been a better sensor with better dynamic range and better high-ISO performance. The facts presented in this review leave no room for doubt. This sensor is no better than the V2/J3 sensor. And they are both behind Sony's 1"-inch type sensor. So DxO was right after all, and we're still stuck with visible noise in the shadows at base ISO. The V2 was fast enough already. Can we get better IQ now?
MFiftysomething: I had V1 and now have V2, which I like but Nikon has given me no reason to upgrade to V3. A system also needs lenses and while there are a couple of nice ones, it is just not enough choice, competiton is so good all round these days, Nikon need to wake up.
Is there any evidence that supports your claim that the V3 sensor is as good as the Sony sensor?
The PB test shots are almost useless for a proper controlled comparison to V2/J3. The IR test shots use a much better lens for the V3 than they do for the ones from V2 and J3. The V2 and J3 test shots at IR look awful, by the way.
The DPR test shots will be the only ones that will do the trick, if they use the same lens as before.
Because of the DxO results and some of the V3 shots that I've seen here and there, including samples from Nikon, I have my doubts about the V3 sensor being in the same ballpark as the Sony one, but if objective evidence shows that it is, then that would be really nice.
DxO sensor scores are what they are, but what I care about are their measurement results, which are objective and useful for comparing sensors. I recommend that you read what IR says about DxO:
MFiftysomething:The only improvement over the V2 that would be worth anything for me would be a better sensor with better high-ISO performance. Something in the ballpark of Sony's 1"-type sensor would be great.Aside from unsubstantiated and dubious claims, I have seen no objective evidence that the V3 sensor has better high-ISO performance than the V2 one. I'm eagerly waiting for DPR to publish RAW files for test shots from their new studio scene to get a good idea about the high-ISO performance of the V3 sensor. DxO's measurement results have not been very encouraging, I'm afraid.