JakobG: On DSC_4281 - can I ask were you focusing on the eye to camera right (the subject's left eye)?
Looks pretty good overall to me, from the Canon samples I have no real concerns other than the AF and since I shoot Nikon, your initial thoughts are a positive confirmation! :)
Yes, I had chosen a focus point on the camera's right (subject's left) eye.
Earthlight: Okay, I am surprised by the AF results. I don't think any of my Canons has ever been that much off. And yes, I have fast lenses.
The two points I'd make are:
1) We're not trying to show how 'off' the conventional AF is, we're trying to show that the Dual Pixel AF is very accurate.
2) The differences seen here are very subtle (except with the Sigma 18-35, which appears to be a difficult lens to focus). As we say in the text, we chose a lens that would make even a small discrepancy visible, then shot a high-contrast target that will emphasise those differences.
Valojuova: K-3 battery Life (CIPA) 560? On K-5 its 740. That doesn't sound good for video recording. My old K200D can take near 1000 raw pictures with lithium AA.
@Valojuova - if it helps, the CIPA figure for the K200D with Lithium batteries was 550 shots, which should make the K-3 comparable.
(The CIPA testing doesn't necessarily give you an idea of how many shots the camera takes, it tells you how it compares to other cameras)
(unknown member): Looks like a very sharp lens but difficult to know for sure as your sample images are awful subjects to determine that and/or only one image is raw processed. It doesn't help either when you guys can't be bothered to rotate your images.
Come on guys; you can do better than that!
@Basalite - the reason I've shot subjects with fore-aft separation is to make it clearer what is and isn't in focus. The camera does record which AF point was used in the file's EXIF, so I may be able to check if you want to know, for any given image (I'm not sure how I'd convey this, but I'll try).
crackshooter: As soon as I learned that the camera rememberes the micro-adjustment of AF from lense to lense, (thanks Erik Magnuson and Bob Meyer), then I really see no problem whatsoever. I am used to, and expect to tweak equipment when it is brand new, be it bicycles or a kayak...-Regards from first time DSLR buyer.
There are two questions we haven't been able to address here:
1) How often are these differences noticeable in real-world shooting with less challenging lenses?
2) If you microadjust a lens to work at one focusing distance, do you risk throwing it off, at other focusing distances? (A problem made more complicated on zoom lenses, where you have multiple focal lengths and focusing distances).
Ultimately, we're not saying there's necessarily a *problem* with the 70D's conventional focusing - it's not significantly different from the 60D's - we're saying that on-sensor focus is more accurate.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: It is ridiculous that some blame the test for the poor OVF AF results!As for me, Canon can include their 'dual pixel' autofocus system among its least of Most Relevant Innovations. People should congratulate the ones who developed this technology, as it's definitely an advance for photography....Still it puzzles me to see manual focus works even better than 'dual pixel'. One would be forgiven to ask why they bothered inventing autofocus at all.
@Erik Magnuson - that *might* explain the better results we got with the new 18-135mm STM. However, although we've not included the shots here, we also shot the 85mm on the EOS 60D and the 5D Mark III - the 60Ds results are essentially identical to the 70D's, the 5D III's OVF PDAF results were considerably better (un-adjusted).
We've already tested the lens (in Canon mount), as have several other sites - it's [astonishingly sharp](http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma-18-35-1-8/3).
The issue is mainly whether it can be accurately be focused in combination with a Nikon body - that's what this gallery aims to show.
And having only had the lens for a couple of days, few of which have been sunny and having been stuck in the office during almost all the daylight hours during that time, this probably *is* the best I can do.
rurikw: What building on DSC_4716?
It's the UW Medicine building at South Lake Union in Seattle.
Becksvart: AF accuracy?
It seems very good - I've only shot around 200 images so far, but the focus seems pretty reliable, having examined them.
Goldmandima: I do not believe0
Is this an X-Files reference?
I'm not quite sure what aspect of this requires belief.
A couple of points I'd like to make:
1) Most people will never microadjust their lenses2) We managed to microadjust this lens for this focusing distance - there's no expectation that it'll work at other focusing distances. (And that's just with a prime lens).
The point is that we wanted to illustrate the ability for on-sensor to overcome the need for microadjusting - it's inherently more accurate.
JJ Rodin: So where are the HIGH resolution parts of this new 'test' scene, the old one had the old lady, the statue head & feathers as the best areas to see the ultimate resolution (Pentax 645 as ultimate) and compare but this one is really not a worthy replacement !
There are feathers towards the corners of the frame and incredibly fine patterns in the etchings on either side of the centre. There's plenty of fine detail around - you just have to really hunt for it. Have a look at the Phase One IQ 180 - that'll give you an idea of the detail that consumer cameras are struggling or failing to render.
PhotoKhan: Got to love how the "DPReviewer" found out that, in "Face-detection/Tracking AF" mode, the camera takes noticeably longer to lock focus when there's no face in the scene and then writes an whole paragraph and makes a video to make it look like a limitation.
It's called "Face-detection/Tracking AF" for Pete's sake!!!
No. The point is that, unless you specify exactly where you want the camera to focus, it'll hesitate before deciding for itself.
This is true of AF Multi and AF Face Detection/Tracking AF (which isn't just intended for scenes with faces in).
peevee1: DPR wrote: "The E-P5 is the first Olympus to include Wi-Fi"
This is not true, there were at least SH-50 and E-PL6 before it.
Those two cameras came bundled with Wi-Fi SD cards but it wasn't a feature included in the cameras themselves.
keepreal: I have found only one comment here critical of DP Review for buying into the Nikon story behind the D610.
"Nearly a year after the arrival of Nikon's full-frame D600, its replacement has arrived. The new D610 is a very minor upgrade to the D600, with just three new features"
and the forlorn hope that potential Nikon buyers will trust them after badly letting down D600 customers.
DP Review does give lots of info in most of their detailed reviews and this is useful but you have to read between the lines. In this instance they are economical with the obvious truth and I am afraid that makes them a littler less trustworthy and open to some suspicion where they get their funding from.
May I draw your attention to the following quote:
'Internet theorists have already suggested that the D610 was created to leave the troubles of the D600 behind. And the appearance of a new model so soon after the D600's launch, with almost no changes other than a new shutter mechanism, seems to give that theory some credence.'
It's not as if we've solely presented Nikon's perspective. But equally, we can't present speculation as 'obvious truth.'
Thomas Karlmann: Can anyone address what the Histogram is doing? Apparently there are FOUR colors displayed WITHIN the Histogram. Here is the bit from the E-M1's Manual:"Histogram display: Display a histogram showing the distribution of brightness in the image. The horizontal axis gives the brightness, the vertical axis the number of pixels of each brightness in the image. Areas above the upper limit at shooting are displayed in red, those below the lower limit in blue, and the area metered using spot metering in green."
Question: What are the Upper and Lower limits referred to here? Interesting!
I think we fairly regularly point out the ability to set the upper and lower limits, since those then feed into the 'highlights and shadows' display mode. This marks areas above the upper brightness threshold as red and those below the lower limit as blue - at the point you shoot.
ET2: Here is demo of Flucard but it should work with any camera.
Looks like this system is camera agnostic.
Ricoh is saying there will be a Pentax-branded version that will allow camera control, rather than just allowing images to be transferred off the card. (It's unclear whether the Pentax app and a standard Flucard will be able to do this).
But yes, Flucard is camera neutral (it's developed by the same company that co-developed FlashAir with Toshiba - it's unclear what, if any, differences exist between the two systems).
limlh: Nothing is mentioned about the rumored multi-pattern wb. If true, this must be the best feature of the k-3.
It's not 'our method' - it's an industry-agreed standard that's been used for many years.
InTheMist: This camera looks impressive. Does it one-up the D7100? On paper in almost every way!
Small correction: Isn't the D800 USB 3.0, but the D4 USB 2?
You're right - my mistake, I think.
We always quote CIPA standard battery life, which is the 50% flash figure.