ogl: The lens is the main part of the camera. If there is no sharpness at all, how to use such camera?
More relevant than any of that is that ISO 12232:2006 has more than one way of assessing sensitivity.
Every camera we encounter uses either the SOS (Standard Output Sensitivity) or REI (Recommended Exposure Index). Both based on the 18% middle grey of sRGB JPEGs.
DxO uses the separate, Raw saturation-based part of the standard. This is quite correct for Raw analysis but there is no reason to expect the Raw ISO value to correspond to the JPEG ISO values.
Camera makers quote JPEG ISO values, not Raw ones. So it's quite possible to produce multiple ISO values from the same hardware (Raw) behaviour.
As DxO puts it: ["the ISO settings reported by camera manufacturers can differ significantly from measured ISO in RAW. This difference stems from design choices, in particular the choice to keep some “headroom” to avoid saturation in the higher exposures to make it possible to recover from blown highlights."](http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/Measurements/ISO-sensitivity)
ogl = Not true, I'm afraid.
Measured ISO = Saturation (Raw) ISO, which is not the thing that the ISO ratings on your camera are based on. There is no reason to expect the camera's ISO ratings to match a Saturation ISO measurement.
calte: Did you test the e-mount version only? The pictures from Richard Butler have no camera info...
Hmm, they should say they're a6300. Sorry about that.
But yes, we've only got the E-mount version at the moment.
pcrossing: Are we going to get a full DP review of the D5. We never got one on the D4, D4s, or D3s.
Actually there was one of the [D3S](http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3s). But yes, now we have more reviewers, it's our intention that there will be a full review of this camera.
ogl - DxO doesn't report *real* ISO vs manufacturer-stated ISO, it reports what the sensitivity would be if tested to the ISO standard for Raw files, then plots this against the ISO figure for JPEGs.
There is no reason why you'd expect the two to be the same. A JPEG sensitivity created from a lower Raw ISO value just means the manufacturer has chosen to prioritise highlight capture (at the expense of *more noise*, not less). This is completely legitimate.
As Sitting Duck Photos points out, there's a 1/3 - 1/2EV discrepancy between the reported JPEG values and the image brightness you might expect, but that's a separate issue.
DxO doesn't report "*real*" ISO, it reports the figures of the part of the ISO standard needed to conduct its testing in a consistent manner.
AdamX: I would like some comments regarding the focus hunt in live view / video mode. I have a D3100 and have also used a D3300 with the 18-55VR, 55-200VR and 70-300VR. With those cameras and lenses, the hunting action is much more pronounced than what I see in the "focus hunt" video in this review. My question is, is the improvement here because of the D7100, or because of the 18-105VR lens? I suspect it is because of the D7100. I know Nikon is not the best in this area, but as a hobbyist I am fine with what I see in this video. If anyone else sees better performance on any other Nikon DSLR, I would like to hear about it. Thanks.
Focus hunting is inevitable on current Nikon DSLRs, since they're having to use contrast-detection AF (moving the focus, checking, then moving the lens again).
This is a problem in video because, once focus has been achieved, the camera doesn't have a way of knowing whether it's still in focus without occasionally hunting back and forth to confirm. The best algorithms are pretty good at just assuming they're in focus unless the contrast changes significantly, but any system without depth awareness can be prone to hunting.
HowaboutRAW: Any chance of non-lossy raws shot on a Canon or Nikon APSC body?
Not on a lens that's only available in the Sony E and Micro Four Thirds mounts, no.
Negative287: I'm confused by this review... I miss the consistency that Phil had in his reviews even though they weren't perfect.
Yes this camera can produce some nice images... However, any camera that had a list of cons that were nearly 2x what the pros were, would never have gotten a Gold rating under Phil's system.
Check the AF page, though. The AF system is probably the best we've encountered in cameras at this price (DSLR or Mirrorless). *Subject tracking* can be a little unreliable with close-up non-human subjects, but it's generally very impressive. For most people, the pros outweigh the cons.
mjdundee: I started digital in 2003 with a P&S parallel to a EOS 3 SLR and upgraded in 2004 to EOS 20D, in 2006 to Pentax K 10 D in 2009 to Pentax K 7 and in 2011 to the remarkable EOS 1 Ds II FF DSLR.
So far I support the upgrade path. The FF had the best ergonomics, great image quality and a huge choice of lenses for all possible purposes.
There was only one bad point - but this really made me think; weight!Hiking with a bag full of lenses, flash, tripod etc. was no fun at all and to carry the camera with a zoom only set the limits very soon - and it looked a bit too prominent for me too.
So my upgrade path turned around and I went for the best comparable image quality from the smalles t thinkable body for a good variety of changable lenses.
Today Ii use the Lumix GM 1 and the PEN E-PL7 with 4 different lenses, flash and tripod and all together in a bag that would not be able to take the EOS 1DS body only. Weight is not a question at all.
The article is about being encouraged to buy the wrong lenses while shooting APS-C because you feel you're already on a path to FF ownership.
Since it sounds like you changed systems between APS-C and FF, it sounds like you haven't fallen victim to this 'myth'.
I wrote reviews during three years of the Askey era, so I've got a fair idea of how things were done.
There may be more cons than pros but the importance of the cons will vary, person-to-person and may be considered minor, whereas the strengths (and breadth of the strengths) are likely to be significant to all users.
I'm sure I can dig out some posts from Phil explaining, increasingly abruptly, that the Pros and Cons list cannot be deducted from one another to decide whether a camera is good or bad.
Mister Joseph: Does this one have Image Stabilization?
Daniel4: I wonder what the high ISO shots look like when DxO Optics Pro supports the D5. Can't wait.
If DxO supports the camera, you can download some Raw files from our [low light gallery](http://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries?galleryId=4688833174) and process them yourselves.
chipmaster: Interesting collection of pictures, clearly the review will reflect somewhat the pictures taking, LOL. Why am I not going to hold much water to what they say. Where are the pictures in the kind of situation that really push the focus and low light?
BTW we dont' need anymore posts about low DR, this is a camera built for high ISO and fast focus. I really wouldn't care much for reading about a sports car's performance on a snowy road either, duh.
Well we've already published a [low light gallery](http://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries?galleryId=4688833174) and will be looking for a floodlit or indoor game of some sort to test it further, prior to the review being finished.
farandhigh: With no doubts, this is the camera i really would like to have. Hope my dream will come true soon.
DM Allen: When taking a photo is the camera silent like the Leica Q?
Battery life figures are not unlike fuel economy/gas mileage measurements - they don't tell you what you're going to *get* as such but they let you compare between cameras.
A camera rated at 600 shots would probably have got 1200 frames.
Battersea: Looking at the photo of the two cameras makes me wonder if mirrorless will ever come in multiple sizes for essentially the same camera. A larger size could hold two batteries and offer better ergonomics especially for those who often shoot with large lenses, have larger hands or just prefer a more spacious button layout. I know a grip provides some of that benefit but not all.
@mr.izo No. That isn't what we did and it isn't what we said.
We showed the a6300 against *a* DSLR shooting the same frame rate. We then described the a6300 shooting experience compared to DSLRs in general. Not one DSLR in particular.
kolyy: This is getting really tiring. There are other mirrorless cameras beyond Sony, you know? Like the Panasonic GH4, which came out in 2014 and has 7.5fps with live view. Or the Olympus E-M1, from 2013 and 6.5fps with live view. Maybe it would be more appropriate to compare the A6300 with those? Or is it not politically correct to show that the Sony camera is not nearly as exceptional as you try to make it? Or, horror, could its "live view" be actually inferior to cameras being on the market for years?
I'll go back and address that comment in the launch article. As for the shooting experience, I'll speak to Dan, since it's a reflection on his experiences.
I think you're over-thinking the idea that we're trying to send a specific overarching message to our readers. This was literally a piece of content from the review that I gained some extra insight into while shooting in my own time, this Saturday, so spun-out as what I hoped would be an interesting article.
The standalone [4K Photo article](http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0087942697/) I wrote after the GH4 and LX100 reviews would be another example.
If we were trying to prepare a 'Current state of mirrorless vs DSLR' piece it would take much longer (and probably never get finished).
Jim Hully - no, we didn't.
No 7Ds were tested in any sense for this video. They were shot side-by-side for ***illustrative* purposes only.** (I'm really regretting including it in that image at the top of the page).
The comparison was a6300 live view vs. a [Platonic *ideal*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_idealism) of a DSLR, rather than a specific model.
The *real* competition is DSLRs, for all of these cameras.
The a6300's combination of shooting speed and AF capability meant that the next potential weak link in the chain in terms of competing with a DSLR is live view during continuous shooting.
I do take your point (though it genuinely isn't a brand issue). Maybe we should have done this with the GX8 as part of that review, though I'm not sure we were quite so impressed with the AF. Perhaps we should have shot the GX8 *as well*, so that we could write a more generic 'where does mirrorless stand, vs. DSLR' article, but we were mainly looking to make sure that work we'd already done didn't get lost in the midst of a big review.
We'll bear this in mind next time.