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.
@dosdan - that's odd, since it flatly contradicts what the K-3 product manager told us when explicitly asked.
It seemed odd that it wouldn't, since Nikon has done this for several years (and Canon later added it on at least one of their models).
Kim Letkeman: I laughed when I saw that Panasonic was (inevitably and predictably) left out of the running. One has to wonder who Panasonic ticked off to get left out of a category in which it should be able to compete very well ... after all, enthusiasts do shoot a lot of video these days.
I've shot the D300, D7000, and D70s in the Nikon "enthusiast" lineup and I would take a Nikon over any of the others listed for the system, the ergonomics and the image quality.
But ... I would take the Panasonic G6 or the GH3 over the Nikons for the smaller size, the incredible video, the same ergonomics and basically the same image quality.
And so it goes ...
@caver3d - I understand your frustration and we do what we can to minimise it, but however we approach this, it won't ever be quite right for everyone (almost right for a majority is the best we can hope for).
Kim - I thought long and hard about including the GH3, and you're right, it's a great camera. However, while its video trumps everything here, as a stills camera it fails to stomp. At which point I think we risk under-representing its strengths and essentially overlooking it in the roundup.
Duckie: However well rehashed, there is only so little existing info. Because there are only so many cameras that did come out in the year.
This is like inserting new index cards into an old archive.
We were hoping that having all those index cards together in one place, and referencing new information (test scene images and real-world galleries), might be convenient for some people.
Allen Yang: I think most readers will go for Canon 70D or Nikon D7100. It's still an era of Canikon. Sony needs time to release more lens. Other brands are just for a few people who have "special needs".
However, if you look at which lenses you intend to use, and whether ones have been specifically designed for the format, it's not quite as clear-cut as you make it sound.
Clearly there are more lenses for Nikon and Canon, but whether they're the focal lengths you want or just ones that make sense on full-frame, becomes a pertinent question.
Different product ranges don't line-up perfectly, so it's impossible to make a perfect selection, regardless of what logic you base your decision on.
We've put the GX7 (and G6) in the mid-level mirrorless class (along with the Olympus E-M5), so they will be covered.
The K-3 is a *very* impressive camera and it's not *impossible* that it would win the next roundup if it excels as we continue to shoot with it.
However, based on our shooting with it so far, it doesn't *smoke* the D7100 in any important respect, bar ergonomics. The better JPEGs and proved AF system give the D7100 an edge, but it's extremely close.
For what it's worth, Ricoh explicitly said the exposure system is used to help the AF system understand how challenging it will be to focus, **not** for tracking.
agentul: this is a very good initiative. i just hope you can complete the rest of the articles soon, with some time left for actual shopping.
The plan is that they'll all be published within the next week. There's an awful lot of work to be done before then, but we're determined to have these ready as soon as possible.
Greg Lovern: I'm confused. Why do they like the "Cutting-edge 24MP sensor" and the "100% viewfinder" on the D7100 but not the same things on the K-3? Personally I like those features on both.
We've tried to highlight the three stand-out features on each camera - the K-3's smaller, more solid build is worth calling-out over its viewfinder. A specs comparison is provided so that you can check whether one camera does or doesn't offer a particular spec.
WT21: The problem with roundups is that at any given moment, some camera is new, and some is old. The XPro 1 is getting long in the tooth. The 70D and EM1 are the lastest and greatest from their respected makers, as some examples. Not that there's any choice, of course. You have to roll with what you got. But I would argue the XE2 would be a better choice here than the XP1. I'm not a Fuji user, but I think the XE2 is competitive with the rest of this lot. The XP1 is kind of it's own thing.
This is a point in time - winter 2013 and, at this point, the cameras that are new are the cameras that are new.
Our plan is to either update or totally re-write these roundups several times a year.
YuriS: Where is Sony A7????
In a different class.
Jogger: Not sure i would agree with the EM1.. for $300 more you can get a Sony A7 with same build quality and 4x the sensor. Lenses that you adapt to it retain their original focal length rather than suffer the 2x crop penalty. Good lenses for the m43 are expensive and have slow apertures compared to FF. And EM1 video quality is atrocious and lacks common formats (where is 1080p60, AVCHD), something not factored into in the analysis.
It would be a pretty odd roundup if we talked through the enthusiast class, then recommended something in the class above. We'll add a class with the 6D, D610 and A7 if we get time.
The disappointing video of the E-M1 is listed.
dyoon153: I suppose 'what we like' section written twice instead of 'what we don't like' for Pentax K-3 is that you guys like double the amount? ;)
It's not an error - I like 'relatively unrefined onscreen interfaces.'
I've corrected it. Sorry about that.
peevee1: DPR, are you going to fix your tests (or is it widget?) anytime soon? Why at ISO12,800, daylight RAW A7 and A7r are showing f/5.6 1/6400s while D610 shows f/5.6 1/4000s? And 25,600 is 1/8000 at the same f/5.6, far from 1 stop difference in exposure?
We do not use adjustable lighting until the very highest ISO (at which point it is reduced by a whole stop). Any differences in shutter speed are down to inaccuracies in ISO, aperture and shutter speed control and the inevitable inability to perfectly exposure match.
The plan was to note any files shot at with the reduced lighting level - I'll try to identify why this hasn't happened.
reginalddwight: Bestowing the GM1 the title of Gear of the Year before getting an opportunity to test a production sample? Hmmm.....
It would be perverse to not review a camera one of our team has chosen as their gear of the year. There will be a GM1 review.
Lan: Please can we have the D800E added to the test scene too?
It's one we do intend to add to the test scene.
thx1138: All of these nice little advanced P&S cameras are about 2-3 years too late. For me I won't get anything with a smaller sensor than the Sony RX100, which is still in a camera almost as small and only really loses out with the slow f/4.9 aperture at the long end, but still has about the same DOF as this 1/1.7" sensor at f/2.5.
Nice try though.
Sorry, my mistake - it's nearer half a stop advantage to the Olympus/Pentax/Casio.
Tomee21: Not like if it were so important...but Canon's overall image quality and color rendition still looks more pleasing to my eyes.
Or you could click on the 'Print' or 'Web' buttons on the top right of the widget, where it takes the Raw files that we've processed the same way, then downsizes them to a common resolution.
TrojMacReady: As posted in the other thread:There's something odd going on with the A7R files in the comparison tool.For example all the daylight RAW shots in the tool, are nosier than the actual files available for download. In the tool it looks to have more noise than the D800, when you download the files from both, they are practically identical. A difference in sharpening applied to the files?
Here's an example:http://i40.tinypic.com/2pryagl.jpg
The crops displayed in the on-site widget are generated directly from the original file (the one available for download).
I've tried overlaying a pair of the images displayed in the tool on top of the original file (the one available for download) and I can't see a difference until I zoom in to 300%.
Having checked with the developer of the comparison tool, the process is to load the original file, crop and save each crop as a 90% quality JPEG - which is visually indistinguishable. There's no sharpening step.
I certainly can't reproduce the sharpness difference you're showing.
jpr2: I really do MISS two things in the new DPR's comparometer:
- nowhere in the scene there is an object of a relatively large, uniform surface, like it was a flat blue face of the watch, and yet with some very firmly outlined and crisp ciphers of the OLD comparometer - the bottle at the bottom can't replace that blue watch entirely, alas; the new scene is just a wee bit too busy with lots of pretty "talkative" object;
- and the ability to compare OLDER cameras with the new ones (this would be easier to rectify, but are there any such plans?);
We hope to add some old cameras but are working furiously to increase the number of contemporary cameras that are included.