Stephen787: RIP, i learned a lot from his website.
Me too - a great journalist and photographer. Very sadly missed.
Mister Joseph: 10fps is mirrorless territory.
It was explained by Richard; the camera shows a single frame live update between each shot. It doesn't show the last shot, it shows a single live image.
A mirrored camera doesn't show an uninterrupted view either as each time the mirror lifts the viewfinder blacks out. And the mirror must be up for the shutter to open so there is no live view with the non-mirrorless either.
Glad the 810 'rivals medium format image quality at ISO 64' since it is the size and weight of a medium format camera.
It's enormous. Every time I look at it I think; 'why is it so big?'And; 'How come it's so big but it still doesn't have IBIS?'.
osan: Catching up on what, with whom? Canon D1x and Nikon D5 are the only cameras in this field. On this test or the part of it we can see now, up to ISO 6400 both camera has identical noise performance. But with the new sensor Canon looks better in DR department. If you compare it to, for example, Sony A7R II then it is legitimate to ask whether Sony will be able to make a camera even remotely similar to D1X or D5. I think it will be years until Sony or other brands are caught up with Canon and Nikon in this segment. if you don't mind the cliche Dpreview seems to be comparing Apples to Oranges.
Well, Sony has a 300mm f2.8 and a 500mm f4. I think it's highly likely they will eventually compete in this segment but not with a camera like this - the future of action photography is likely to be a camera that is primarily a video camera.
Yxa: Nikon D7200 silver awardSony A6300 gold awardSome Sony bias here for sure
There was a Sony bias actually - it was AGAINST Sony. Phil and the old team kept readers in the dark for years about Sony's progress. That's why Canon users are so dumbfounded :) There were no reviews of exceptional lenses like the 135/1.8 or 16-80ZA and most of the innovations went for nothing. Phil didn't even understand why E-mount was the size it was.
There certainly isn't a pro-Sony bias now either, the quality of journalism and testing is just higher - significantly so - and Sony are producing notable and innovative products which are getting covered well. There is plenty of criticism if you want to look for it, and plenty of content about other brands.
Sdaniella: Sony's 1080p FF A7 series (gen-II) mirrorless with IBIS has a notorious overheating sensor ...
nowSony's 4k APS-C a6300 mirrorless, but no IBIS, also has a notorious overheating sensor (even for stills)
culprit: Sony's on-sensor adc sensor inadequately designed to cool properly even if properly heat-sunk.
if one is going to design on-sensor adc, do it so it doesn't falter from poorly thought out cooling inadequacies.
sony buyers, beware.
now, ... that Canon is looking at on-sensor adc, they may be the FIRST to include proper sensor cooling designs during typical use by photo/video/cinematographers
They aren't really trolls, they are astroturfers, paid by marketing agencies on behalf of rival manufacturers. DPreview should do an article on it.
The Sony forum is regularly full of cataclysmic-titled threads by people running down their own Sony gear despite having paid thousands for it. Only a fool would think these people are genuine users.
jonikon: Only a small percentage of buyers of the 6300 will ever use prime lenses with it, so why are only prime lenses used in the reviews of the Sony APS-C cameras? Answer: The Sony APS-C zoom lenses are junk glass that get terrible reviews. If Sony ever produces a good quality native APS-C zoom lens for this camera, I would seriously consider buying one, (despite it's poorly designed grip and ergonomics). I keep waiting and hoping Sony wakes up some day and gets the news that optical quality is important to serious amateur photographers and the vast majority of sub FF sensor ILC owners (me included), rarely use or even own prime lenses. Poor lens selection for APS-C is one of the major reasons I left the Sony A mount, and six years later nothing has changed, unfortunately.
You left A mount because of the absence of high quality zooms? I don't know what to say. Not only do Sony make a lot of high quality aps-c A-mount zooms - including the excellent 16-50/2.8 and the 16-105, they also make the best aps-c standard zoom you can buy and likely the best 5x zoom ever made, the 16-80ZA - which no-one who shoots A-mount aps-c should be without.
Leaving A-mount because of an 'absence of high quality aps-c zooms' is just about one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard anyone do. It's like leaving the Bordeaux region of France because you like good wine.
belle100: Is this a complicated and expensive solution to a non-existing problem? Why bother when something like A6300 EVF exists already. It's hard to understand.
I think the Canon management should give their engineers a break (perhaps a holiday) and buy the know how from Sony instead. That's what I call the best of both worlds ;-)
btw, happy birthday Canon.
It's a big mistake to assume that a camera company can just introduce the same products as another company.
Canon are not choosing to be left behind by technology.
Mike Fewster: It looks rather similar to the Sony semi mirror design that they use in their A mount cameras that also combines mirrorless with a semi mirror and pdaf focussing. So similar that it is a bit hard to see what the excitement is about or why it should get a patent.
It's actually similar to the system Sony introduced in the A350 in 2008; an optical viewfinder with a secondary digital sensor in the pentaprism that could be engaged by flipping a small mirror. That enabled full time TTL live view as well as traditional optical TTL viewing.
@stuIt's not because 'current EVFs are not very good', (they are outstanding - especially the A6300's). it's because Canon is unable to embark on a process of producing a fully-fleshed out mirrorless system with the depth of Sony. At least not yet. To do so would require enormous resources and would likely lead to the shedding of a significant numbers of their customer base who are happy that Canon has not gone down the mirrorless route.
A hybrid viewfinder might keep them in the fight for longer until mirrorless reaches tipping point and Canon cannot lose by introducing a mirrorless system.
marc petzold: If that cheap Sony FE 50/1.8 AF can keep up with a Zeiss C/Y 50/1.7? maybe, maybe not..at least, the Zeiss does have 3D Pop & Character...minus the AF Feature. ;) It's also optically more delicate...and in IQ terms very good.
Re-reading your post I can see that you are confusing micro contrast/'3D pop' with subject separation due to depth of field blur. That is not what is meant at all. Any lens with a large aperture will accomplish this regardless of how sharp it is.
Microcontrast is the Separation of different tones in small structures on the SAME PLANE OF FOCUS. It needs optics with high resolution and high contrast and is visible throughout the aperture range.
@IjustloveshootingIf you have zeiss lenses and you can see the difference or perceive the micro contrast then I can't help you. Maybe get an eye test? (I'm not being facetious, I mean it).
Micro contrast is separation of different tones at high frequency on a lens chart. The line pairs are black and white. to perceive it away from a test bench you need detailed subject matter where there are distinct edges between structures. A landscape shot with small bushes/shrubs in midday sun is a good subject as there is a good blend of light and dark structures. A portrait with a face filling the frame from your batis 85 is not. Even mediocre lenses will render large structures sharply.It has nothing to do with subject/background distance. The separation is of tones on the same plane of focus. You cannot test it shooting an area of small structures with similar tone - that is known as 'local contrast'(another quality of lens rendering for you to dismiss) it must be small structures with different tones. A mediocre lens will render these as a spread of grey. A lens with high micro contrast will resolve the edges of the structures and they will 'pop'. Zeiss have been associated with this because they appear to deliberately design for the highest resolution rather than balancing edge and central resolution and their T* coating was traditionally better than Japanese equivalents.
@ijustloveshootingI posted about this in another thread where you disputed the existence of micro contrast or the ability of Zeiss lenses to give a '3D look'. It's sad that you haven't taken anything from that discussion.
Micro contrast has nothing to do with depth of field or foreground separation and you can't add it in post because it is an effect of resolution as well as contrast. Maybe Dpreview will write an article on it and then you will believe it - or borrow a Zeiss lens and find out for yourself.
TyphoonTW: 70-300mm F4.5 – 5.6 = $1,200 Is Sony slowly trying to compete with Leica?
Off the top of my head I can't think of a single Canon lens that is better than the Sony equivalent. You need to go and look at some MTF curves. You know that most Nikon lenses are better than Canon equivalents too? Canon was never considered to be the leader in optical design in the film era - Zuiko lenses were generally more highly regarded.
It's only in the last few years that the internet's been rife with Fanboys talking about 'fabled 'L' glass'. I'm old enough to remember the reception of many of the first L designs in the late 70s and 80s. The range was marketed as exceptionally fast (which it was) not exceptionally sharp. There was even a tacit understanding that many of the designs were giving up contrast for speed.
How we've got to the stage where people imagine Sony lenses are inferior is down to the general ignorance of the different strategies of designing for digital over film and the brand loyalty of Canon users whose 'L' designation covers a range of designs - some excellent, but many mediocre. The 135L is often talked about as the best Canon prime - well go and compare it to the Sony 135/1.8 - the Sony's better.
Contra Mundum: Sony has a reputation of making expensive poor quality lenses. Everybody is guessing now, if they can do the opposite. I have my doubts.
Sony has a reputation for making exceptional lenses. You're an obvious shill.
a-flying-wuss: Are the current a7 bodies weather-sealed? I remember reading about the original a7 how it was first marketed as "weather-sealed" (before it was available in stores), but then, after it hit the stores and people started using it in bad weather, there were multiple reports of a7 units failing miserably even under moderate rain.. a few dead bodies and then Sony stopped advertising it as weather-sealed, even removed it from some of their materials if I recall correctly.
I haven't payed any attention to the a7 series after that and so I'm curious now, seeing how this 70-300 is marketed as "dust and moisture resistant": are those newer, a7 II bodies really weather-sealed (similar to Olympus E-3/E5 or Pentax K-3/K-5)? Or is it still the same kind of "gimmick" as it was with the 1st generation and you can't actually use them in rainy/dusty/snowy environments without worrying about ruining them?
So you're asking if the bodies of a system you by your own admission have had no interest in following are weather sealed because the lenses are advertised as 'dust and moisture resistant and you're worried this is a gimmick?
Lenses are dust and moisture resistant to provent condensation and fungal and mineral damage to the optics. it's nothing to do with 'weather-sealing' which is something else entirely and predominantly of interest to hikers and people who use their cameras outdoors without shelter.
If your aim is to unearth gimmicks you might find your time better spent elsewhere as the FE system tends to be quite 'gimmick' free.
fatdeeman: For anyone who can't be bothered to read all the comments it goes like this:
A lot of people said something along the lines of "it's an improvement but still not on a par with Sony sensors which is disappointing"
And then the some other people said stuff like this:
My grandpa took photos with a potato and he managed to sell photos to magazines so what's the point in Sony sensors?
Sony sensors are only better if you push shadows 17EV so what's the point in having anything better than a Canon sensor?
I sell my photography for a living and I shoot Canon so the superiority of Sony's sensors is irrelevant!
Dynamic range is a FAD!
If you knew how to process photos properly the higher noise floor and smaller usable dynamic range of Canon sensors would magically vanish!
If you knew how to expose properly it would magically cancel out technical shortcomings in Canon sensors!
If you want the best sensor you're not an artist!
Whatever, Canon sell the most so they're still the best!
As the responses to fatdeman's amusing piece demonstrate, it's not just the latest technology that many Canon users are missing out on, it's a sense of humour.
sunilkumar: 85 1.8 over $700. what am i missing? VC ok then what?
9 aperture blades versus 7 on the Nikon, plus LD glass versus no special glass on the Nikon.
Also the Nikkor is made in China and maybe the Tamron isn't? :)
naththo: I do realised that some of raw edited images are too green from Adobe whereas JPG looks more neutral green. So it still same habit of Adobe Raw processing software adding too much green to image since years ago. Why can't this be eliminated at all? I compare to the JPG and the JPG looks much neutral colour to me and I like that way it should have been, its real Sony colour not the Adobe colour. Perhaps would be good to make your own DCP profile to make it as close as Sony, that would be nicer.
@eric HenselWhat the hell does that mean? You think dpreview don't know how to process a raw file?
Raws look excellent to me. Beautiful processing.