The image of the K-3 is really nice.
On which modern full frame camera would there be a noticeable difference between ISO 100 and 320?
AbrasiveReducer: I hope Roger will do a dictionary of cliches as well, starting with "built like a tank". Is there any photo equipment that isn't built like a tank? Didn't think so.
I don't think there is any photo equipment that is built like a tank (or exceptionally durable). Anything made entirely out of plastic is not built like a tank because holding it won't give you frostbite when it's below freezing outside.Anything with metal is not built like a tank because it doesn't bounce when dropped (and dents are bad).
bossa: The K-3 smokes the D7100 in any comparison apart from maybe focus tracking. This comparison is a travesty for the following reasons: A. The sensor shake reduction mechanism can do (i) amazing star tracking when combined with the O-GPS, (ii) horizon correction (iii) sensor shift (shift lens anyone?) (iv) sensor shake based AA filter
B. The new hi-res exposure system C. the silky shutter D. 25 cross point AFE. f2.8 AF system that works way down low (in the dark almost)F. Huge buffer for 23 RAW shots at 8 fps G. superior ergonomics (ISO right where you need it and DOF Preview on the shutter button lever etc etc)H. The Green Button and numerous exposure modes Nikon never heard of.
The K-3 is a no brainer when compared to the D7100.
PS: The new AF system also uses the new hi-res exposure system to differentiate and track.
I'm not picking a favorite here, but to be fair:-Your points about the sensor shift system are valid.-"hi-res exposure system" - metering sensor resolution has little to do with metering accuracy. -silky shutter - Nikon's APS-C shuttersare quiet too-25 cross point - Nikon off-center non-cross points are still extremely good, and will pick up even the tiniest bit of detail in the right direction. I often forget that they're not cross points.-f/2.8 AF system - why does that matter? Nikon's AF is extremely accurate, even with f/1.4 lenses. I don't think it'd benefit much from having dedicated f/2.8 sensors.-buffer: fair point-superior ergonomics - that's debatable. I agree about ISO, but prefer Nikon's dedicated switch for turning on LCD backlight. -exposure modes - "TAv"? Nikon has that too. Just set manual mode and auto ISO to get exactly the same thing.Also, when you take lenses into account, Pentax is really lacking some high end telephoto lenses.
Looks ok, although it seems like some detail is lost to noise reduction even in the base ISO shots. Moving up the ISO scale, it still seems like the JPG engine should be doing a better job (because modern full frame sensors are so good that anything below ISO 800 is basically considered low).
It would be more interesting to look at processed raw files without noise reduction applied.
Yanko Kitanov: This sample's aim is to that the AF is not accurate or it shows that someone had hard-time focusing?
Yes, the nose/glasses rim is in slightly better focus than the eyes, but absolutely no one cares. You have to pixel peep and stare pretty hard to see, and you really can't blame AF or the photographer's focusing capability when it's that close and there's time pressure to take the shot quickly. Also, the shutter speed isn't high enough to guarantee a perfectly sharp image (people move, and 1/50 doesn't give much confidence), so focus being millimeters off isn't too relevant.
Axibis: Is DSLR going to die soon?
Mirrorless cameras are more portable, but still can't match the AF tracking capability of DSLRs at the same price point, and have short battery life. That's two pretty big shortcomings.
Well, having a continuous quiet mode is a bonus, but I really hope there are more changes under the hood than a new shutter mechanism and tiny framerate boost.
Graham Hill: Wow, this lens is soft. What is the point??
Given that you can get a used, autofocusing 80-200/2.8 for $600 (or less if you're willing to compromise on AF speed), this lens is a stop and a half slower than what you could get for that price.
Mr Fartleberry: I want to believe ... but the fact is no one is abandoning their Canikony lense in any class to use the Sigma. Unless they're a shill like I've seen in the Canadian photo press.
Nothing against Sigma but your past history follows you around. It's just not a simple case of throwing your shittty underwear in the wash with a sheet of Bounce and think you'll come out smelling like .... mountain meadow.
"past history follows you around"....I think Sigma right now is an excellent example of how a company can turn around from a bad reputation by doing an exceptional job. They're not just making lower quality, cheaper versions of common lenses anymore. Recently, they've put out:-18-35/1.8: no other manufacturer has a f/1.8 zoom-35/1.4: as good as (or better than) first party versions for a lower price-USB dock: adjust lenses without having to ship them offAnd that adds to their already strong portfolio with lenses like the 120-300/2.8 (no one else has a 300/2.8 that zooms back)In terms of lenses, Sigma right now is on track to beating first party manufacturers at their own game. If they continue to play it right, Sigma could come out smelling like mountain meadow.
Digital Shutterbug: According to the specifications page, it doesn't have LIve View, and it has no viewfinder. Framing must be a real chore.
I think you're supposed to line that little light up with the shutter button...that gives you a rudimentary sight that you can use to aim.
And every photographer has the FOV of every focal length memorized, so no problem, right?
Cane: Does everyone that buys a fixed lens camera like this primarily focus on street shooting? I don't fill my hard drive with pictures of strangers I spied, so I just can't see how to be happy without UWA, portrait, and and a little reach.
Not everyone does street shooting, but a fixed 35mm lens can be used for a lot of things in addition to street shooting. I guess I'd personally find it limiting, but if I used it for a while, I'm sure I'd get used to it and work with what 35mm gives me.
On another note, if you post a message and don't see it immediately, but there's no obvious error or failure, it's a good idea to wait a few minutes just in case the server on the other end is just being slow. And it's perhaps a good idea for the server to warn ("are you sure?" kind of thing) when suspected duplicates are detected.
cmvsm: How does the Canon score a Gold Award at 78%, yet the Nikon D5200 scored 79%, but received a Silver Award? Furthermore, all other cameras reviewed within the last year, that scored a 79 or above, all received Gold Awards, except for the Nikon D5200.
I really could care less either way, just trying to understand DVR's scoring/rating system, as its a bit inconsistent.
But why does it matter?Anyways, I think the SL1 got a gold award because it was smaller without introducing too much compromise. The Nikon got a higher score because it brings a feature set that's tough to match for the price, but is otherwise just another iteration of the D5xxx series.Reviewers see a lot of cameras and probably get bored, so they generally are biased towards ones that are interesting in some way, even if they don't offer any photo-related advantage or better value. That's why a camera might get a higher score even though it's more expensive and does less.
About conflict of interest: I agree that there can be conflict of interest if the gearshop and site advertisements were dominated by one brand. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Quite a few brands are featured prominently in the gearshop and DPR advertisements. The reviewers would be equally biased towards each brand, and the bias would cancel out.
The other possibility is bias if one sponsor is contributing significantly more than others. There's no way we can know that, though. If that's the case, we can only hope that the reviewers aren't tempted by money. That's somewhat believable, since they imply that their salary stays the same regardless of which one they favor and people in charge of making money aren't reviewers.
Jonathan F/2: $3000 and the Sony RX1's C-AF is nowhere near my bargain basement priced Nikon V1. Wake me up when the rest of mirrorless world actually gets decent continuous autofocus.
well, how often is efficient AF tracking needed with a 35mm lens? It's probably not going to be used for action shooting very often, if at all.But I agree that $3000 is way over the top. A D600 with a Sigma 35/1.4 would actually be cheaper, can take other lenses, and has better AF tracking.
FreedomLover: Beautiful music, well made cheesy video :-)
Unfortunately a real world clip shows the new autofocus failing twice in 12 seconds:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R59wD_4dsl4
That's still a lot better than CDAF on other cameras. The only way to keep a moving model train in focus like that with another DSLR is to use the viewfinder and keep the focus point on the head of the train....but you can't really record through the finder.
I think a really good idea is to go to KEH, and go through the used DSLR bodies there, looking for ones that match your needs. Then, do a second check on other sites that sell used gear to see if you can get an even better price.
For example, if you're shooting sports in good light, a Canon 1D II can do a better job than a lot of options on this list, while costing less. If you just want a solid camera with good controls, you get a Nikon D200 for less than $300. Or if you're adventurous, you could get a first generation pro DSLR (D1 or 1D series) for a really low price.
Unless you're looking for megapixels, high ISO performance, or video, you can save a lot of money by going for the oldest DSLR on the used market that still fits your needs. And even if you want MP/ISO performance/video, buying second hand versions of new cameras can still save you some money.
Aris25: No metering in video mode!!!!!!!!!!!!! At least give us that!!!!! This is rediculous!!!! We cannot change aperture in video mode, we can't see if the exposure is right cause we dont have metering in video mode, we can't use flatter picture profiles because of banding and fpn .... But we have headphone jack with live meters for audio, and mic input for clean audio recording!!!! Does anyone in Nikon Tests the versatility in video mode before they put it in production... The D7100 its an amazing stills camera but for video... i dont think so... The picture quality overall isn't that bad if you have the time to denoise the footage(sometimes and in the lowest iso)... and if you have the time to exit from live view to change the aperture ... and then to check how is your exposure ... and then come back to live view ("ohhh the white t-shirt is overexposed") Then you have to exit from live view.........Nikon Rulessssss
You can change the aperture, if you stop buying lenses that don't have aperture rings.
Benarm: whatever you do, don't give your kids a mirror-flipping camera, by the time they grow up, those cameras will be like a rotary telephone
-Don't give your kids a mirror-flipping camera-And don't tell them to go after fast action shots either!
Like I said in the comment in the article, I like the idea of recommending cameras to kids and applaud DPR for looking into this area...but I also think that they should consider used DSLRs and not pay so much attention to getting the most compact setups possible.
With less than $200, you can easily get a used Nikon D50/70/100, or a Canon 300/350/400/450/1000/20D. Those cameras offer full manual control, good feature sets, very good image quality (better than the compact options, and arguably better than the Nikon 1 series), and IMO would make great learning platforms. You also have access to a large selection of cheap glass that can be natively mounted. With Nikon, that includes old MF glass.