EricoftheNorth: CLEARLY, *insert camera here* is absolutely LEAGUES ahead of *insert camera here*, which is proof that *insert brand here* is totally INSANE and HATES it's their own customers. Good thing I ALWAYS buy *random model* due to my MASSIVELY SUPERIOR INTELLECT.
A zinga zanga zunga dud.A thinga thanga thunga dud.Kong azootie.
nananananana: x82 viewfinder is beyond crap
the 100D has a x87 viewfinder
why does a $300 more expensive camera have a smaller viewfinder?!?!
it has stupid HDR video but they can't put a decent viewfinder or pentaprism in a $800 camera? what?
if you can't make decent optical viewfinders, close shop, because that's the only advantage left for DSLR, if you can't even get that right, why bother
The Nikon 5500 (24MP) looks like a better choice, even though cursed with a beyond-crap 0.82× VF image.
If anyone has had experience using both of these cameras, could you give us a comparative evaluation?
Or let's DPR do a shootout-style report on the competitors in this niche. Or slot.
A moving subject. Heart speaks to heart.
How did you prevent the light bulbs from flaring? They are well-controlled.
You love people, Birdman. (So do I.)
Bokeh gives me migraine.
The flower in the lower left corner shows that the other flowers do not suffer from blown highlights, but are naturally yellow and white.
Snikt228: Holy purple fringing on the 017A2442 shot over the water. It's even stopped down to F9. That's a $3000 lens too..
Even my cheapo PTLens app did a good job correcting CA.
I have CS5, but hardly ever use it. I use PSE most of the time. CS5 I use for warping. The CS5 clone tool is better, but so what. Ditto CS5 Shadown and Highlights. Maybe I'll get around to trying out Smart Objects.
Lisa Kiehls: This stuff looks pretty good. I have owned most of the top Canon cameras for years now. This one seems to have better ability to tweak the highlights and shadows without the ill effects which the 5D3 shows.However, noise is a bit on the high side. And I am not sure if the price is justified.Still, it seems that the sensors are improving.It still doesn't touch the malleability of the Nikon D750 (which I also own) but this is a decent start.
Please don't take a mallet to a D750. ;)
nicolaiecostel: From the pictures I get that you absolutely need to nail exposure. The second picture is 2.3 stops pushed up from ISO 100 and looks like ISO6400. The DR of the portraits is bad, skin almost washed out. Canon sensor tech is years behind everyone.
Let's have less of the "real world," and more premeditated, purposeful demonstrations of a camera's fortes and foibles.
iae aa eia: What a wonderful gallery! I like cars very much and I really appreciated seeing those photos. 50 megapixels is quite a hard work for a lens, especially at the corners. That's going to force themselves to try to match the sensor, make their aberrations at the corners less pronounced.
That sensor is done justice by those lenses.
For the very first time, I'm drinking in deeply satisfying IQ. I plunge into these images and I can peep nail heads and toggle switches. There's no end of detail.
mosc: I commend the 21mm but wow this lens is terrible.
I mean the camera's got a nice flippy screen, 1080p video, what you would think is a modern BSI 1/2.3" sensor, and even an EVF but that just might be the worst lens quality on a 2015 camera that doesn't make phone calls.
The space needle shot, cleverly chosen and framed by DPR for us, shows so many issues on so many levels it's staggering.
>which I may open up at some pointI thought I was the only one with unopened boxes. Must be getting jaded.
>They look better than the ones from the Nikon Coolpix P900.
Indeed they do.
forpetessake: When will DPR stop publishing misleading numbers? It's NOT "a mind-blowing F2.8-6.5 24-2000mm equivalent zoom".
You either provide conversion for both f-stop and focal length, which are mind-blowing F14.6-33.8 24-2000mm FF equivalent. Or provide the physical parameters, which are F2.8-6.5 4.6-385mm.
It's hard to believe DPR continues making honest mistakes -- writing a F14.6-33.8 4.6-385mm would have been an honest mistake, and I've never seen that.
>Yeah, right, the physics is wrong ... may I suggest you repeat >the high school course of physics, -- it sounds like a child >arguing about multiplication table at this point.
I have a B.S. in physics.
Again, strive to maintain rapport.
DPR, adjudicate, please.
georgievv: I think these samples do not represent best of what the camera is capable of or intended for. Having a 2000mm lens does not mean that you can take a clear photo of something a mile away. But the same 2000mm is ideal for wild life photography. Many DPR members already have the camera and are getting amazing shots of birds. See this flickr gallery of a DPR member myssvictoria to get a feeling of what the camera and lens is really capable of:https://www.flickr.com/photos/myssvictoria/sets/72157651158420940//
I'm not a bird watcher, but I know very well that BIRDS ARE WATCHING ME.
shum: no stab??
I do. My nerves are shot.
jnk: I shot one @ 428mm x 5.6 crop factor = 2397mm 35mm equivalent and one @ 642.6mm x 5.6 = 3600mm in 35mm equivalent
All handheld - you can download the original images here for your review: http://www.jkwebzone.com/nature/Downloads.html#11
Downsized to 2.76MP, these look great.
Alex Permit: The FZ1000 can go up to 1600mm using its digital zoom. I wonder if the image quality would be comparable to the P900 at 2000mm. Take into account that the the FZ1000 sensor is roughly four times the size of the P900.
You do get more megapixels from the p900, but i doubt youre getting 16mp worth of resolution at 2000mm
I surely did read that article, and the physics is wrong.
Please strive to maintain rapport.
brn: Warning: not for pixel peepers.
At 1:1, even this ISO100 images look terrible.
What is PP?
> f2.8 is still f2.8 as regards to light gathering, no matter > the sensor size. The 'equivalent' f-stops you quote are > only related to depth of field. This is a common confusion > in the photo community.
This is the correct physics. Why don't DPR lay the question before experts in DxO or Fujifilm, etc., and get it from the horse's mouth?