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.
Well, the JPEG engine seems to have improved, thankfully, over the V2/J3 generation, but has the sensor? Please, DPR, when can we see the new studio scene test shots and download the raw files?
Rooru S: No longer listed in Canon USA huh? Interesting...
@tkbslc:Interestingly, the two EF-M lenses released in the US are still listed on the Canon USA web site. If they disappear, though, ...
dpr4bb: Is a switch of the Rebel DSLR series to mirror-less imminent?
@rrccad:Good point! So many of the pieces have slowly been coming together, though. It sure seems as though Canon can just flip a switch whenever they think it's time and they're there.
Is a switch of the Rebel DSLR series to mirror-less imminent?
Aspenz: Don't like it, don't buy it, simple as.
The IQ is pretty decent and high iso has improved. I've never seen a difference between the M43 and N1 images anyway apart from iso, and it's more or less equal now. If anything, the Olympus cameras have sharpening haloes and M43 in general has poor rendition of highlights. It's funny when the M43 crowd equate themselves with APS-C or worse still FF, when there clearly is a difference.
And as good as these are they're still jpegs. If you know what you're doing with the raw files there's lots of details to be gotten.
Yes, I completely agree that their *overall* sensor score is not particularly useful. What's your opinion on the usefulness of the other sensor scores and the detailed measurement results?
Ben Herrmann: I really have to chuckle when I read some of the comments here. It goes to show that all of us "see things differently." I personally think that the Nikon and Olympus tough cameras "trounce" the Canon D30. To me, the Canon D30's images look smeared - no detail at all. Of all 3 of the touch cameras shown here, I'd have to say that I would go first for the Olympus, but I'd be happy with the Nikon as a very tight second. But the next guy may disagree - and that's life.
But it's interesting (and sometimes hilarious) to view how folks look at images - which can often be a result of the monitors they view them on, the calibration involved, if any, and a wide variety of variables could come into play - not to mention vision in general and personal IQ standards.
I looked at a few of the landscape photos at base ISO. I agree that the D30 photos look less detailed, but even at 50% view, results from the Canon are the only ones that look like photos. The rest look like watercolor paintings, the WG-4 a little less so. I had never looked at these rugged cameras before. Yuck!
@HowaboutRAWSaying that DxO *sensor* scores should quantify anything other than sensor performance is clearly a viewpoint. DxO measurements quantify sensor performance, not overall image quality.
@HowaboutRAWThanks for shedding light on your viewpoint.
@DarkShiftDo keep in mind that appreciating the DXO measurement results requires an actual understanding of what things like DR and SNR mean...
@HowaboutRAW: What will one see if one looks? Do tell.