ogl: Good machine with no good colour. It seems to me the colour is sacrificed to all functions.
Nonsense. Colors on digital cameras are 99% software related and can be adjusted both by changing camera setting or in photoshop.
22codfish: The Pentax K-S2 is now listed as $499.00At that price, it will offer more and out-perform all the other brands; but that camera is not necessary to be included because the K-50 is still listed for sale.
The Pentax K-50 is listed as $306.00, not discontinued, pending the official announcement of the Pentax K-70, which will replace the Pentax K-50.
There should be a Pentax camera in this group.
22codfish, do you have a reading comprehension problem? Pentax K-S2 was already included in 2016 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $500-800 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2016-roundup-interchangeable-lens-cameras-500-800/12 )
MSRP for Pentax K-S2 at launch was $749. That's the price that DPR has used for all cameras, MSRP at launch date. What part of that you don't understand?
The other cameras you listed are discontinued.
GeorgioDS: This would be a great Himalayan trek camera if it was weather sealed. Perhaps this will happen in version IV.
It is weather sealed
Joe Ogiba: Smart idea of Ricoh using the older 36mp Sony sensor to keep the cost well under $2K. Too bad Pentax did not have 4K video mode with H.265 like the Samsung NX1 to increase sales but it looks like most Pentax users are not interested .
I downloaded the video from
CPU usage was up, yes, but only averaged 20%
See this screen shot while the video was playing on native Windows 10 player
The fact is that my 3 year old desktop PC with 660 Ti graphic card has no problem playing H.265 4K clips. The CPU loads stays under %10 (mostly 1% to 2%)
As I told you I just tested it.
Either your browser or video player has hardware acceleration off. Most browsers by default ( at least on Windows) have hardware acceleration enabled so even flash videos on web take advantage of graphic card,if it's present.
even web video like youtube use GPU for video
as most browsers have hardware acceleration enabled by default.
Wrong. Not for me.. I downloaded 4K H265 video sample (called Tears of Steel) and my CPU stays under 10%. For me the graphic card handles the decoding, not CPU.
answer from google,
"Before HD was a thing, CPUs could handle video decoding easily. When HD became popular about 8 years ago, GPU manufacturers started to implement accelerated video decoding in their chips. You could easily find graphics cards marketed as supporting HD videos and some other slogans. Today any GPU supports accelerated video, even integrated GPUs like Intel HD Graphics or their predecessors, Intel GMA. Without that addition your CPU would have a hard time trying to digest 1080p video with acceptable framerate, not to mention increased energy consumption. So you're already using accelerated video everyday."
Marcelobtp: Rewriting the conclusion:EOS-1D X II shows big improvements in base ISO dynamic range relative to previous Canons, on High ISO is on par with A7rII and little behind Nikon D5. JPEG colors are muted relative to predecessors, while sharpening is a bit heavy-handed, sacrificing fine detail for punch. Noise reduction is well-controlled, but the lack of context-sensitivity and smudging of low contrast detail mean that high ISO JPEGs while they are not the best, they are still pretty good in relation to the competition.Sorry but you guys could be less negative on canon reviews.And: "It's important to keep these findings in context: the 1D X II produces very pleasing, nearly class-leading Raw and JPEG images for the most part, but it falls slightly behind in certain respects when compared to its best-performing peers."Feels like: We have to say thats not as bad as we are making it look so lets make a remark.
No, that's not the only thing the article says. The article says Canon is much better than Nikon D5 when shadows are pushed (DR) but slightly worse than A7R II
cbphoto123: This whole comparison between Sony vs. Canon, Nikon etc... Reminds me of the decades long debate between PC vs. Apple. Windows vs. Mac OS....Sony is Windows and Canon is Mac OS!
"power user prefer Linux by the way"
Not true. Aside from server side (lower cost and some easy to use software like wordpress), power user don't prefer linux. There are a some "free" and "open source" software radicals, idiots, conspiracy theorists about US govt and "backdoors" in OS, and some delusional newvbs who mistakenly think linux is more secure, yes they prefer it. It's very small minority (much smaller than Mac OS by significant margin once you remover server side crowd).
I have Windows and Linux Mint running side by side for 6 months, and Windows is far more stable, polished, and when correctly used, secure.
Most importantly a lot of power users are gamers and Windows dominate that market, totally. Plus if you run any specialized software for engineering (autocad), or audio editing, video editing, photo editing (like photoshop), linux isn't a system for you. It's incorrect to say power users use linux. They don't,
I have never had a problem with Windows usability. It's also far more versatile and useful (available software). Your analogy doesn't stand.
Windows has 90% of Desktop marketshare. Neither Canon, nor Nikon, or Sony has anything that dominant.
Dan DeLion: Even dpreview’s own data doesn’t support their ratings and conclusions. On the image quality page of this review compare the a6300 to the D7200. The resolution at ISO 100 is comparable with a very slight edge to Nikon (see the resolution chart at 44 and 50.) At higher ISOs the Sony has more noise (compare any part of the dark background at ISO 6400.) In addition, the a6300 has terrible ergonomics, can’t be trusted to shoot 14 bit stills, overheats, has terrible battery life, and has a third rate menu system. How then can the Sony be rated at 85 (Gold Star) and the Nikon at 84 (Silver Star?) Apparently dpreview doesn’t examine their own data.
Dan DeLion , I have done that, both here and on IR
and you are wrong. You are delusional.
R6300 does not overheat in still and 1080p mode. Nikon doesn't do 4K. As for image quality and high ISO, they are pretty much identical (unlike what you claim) and DPR rates them as identical, correctly. Why does Nikon does not get Gold? It has horrible video, and pathetic liveview AF. That's why. Pretty simple.
Joseph Radhik: Dpreview, here's a suggestion to stop all this whining about the rating system: why don't you have separate ratings for photo and video abilities of each camera? That way you might have something like this:
D7200: Photo 90%, Video 60%A6300: Photo 80%, Video 90%Canon 80D: Photo 80%, Video 70%?
And so on.
No, wrong. If you compare ratings for D7200 and R6300, R6300 beats D7200 in every category (not just video) except Ergonomics , Value, and raw.
DPR already do have separate rating for various things.,
JackM: Conclusion: Gold award now meaningless.
Stu 5 , the reviewer shot a piece using R6300
obviously overheating is non-issue/.
As for IBIS as a requirement for video, really? Many E mount lenses have lens stabilization, including the kit
Funny that Canon doesn't even offer 4K most of the time, and A6300 does not overheat at all in 1080p. How is that an issue for you, JackM?
weathersealed: In the studio test scene seems like the A6300 has a slight green mix to the yellow colors compared to Canon 80D.
That's not an issue. Just adjust color balance a bit (incamera) if you like warmer/magenta tint. That's not a con.
SmilerGrogan: When is Sony going to produce a sensor that does 16-bit images. We're never going to compete with the medium-format people using our mediocre 14-bit pictures.
pkcpga, the difference isn't due to 16 bit. The difference is due to larger sensor on MF (more light) and larger pixels.
You will not see any improvement even on FF (let alone on APSC) by moving to 16 bits. See this article
16-bit is just waste of space (cards) and speed (slower buffer and slower burst) for zero gains.
You won't see any difference in image quality as 14 bit is more than enough to record all the data captured by the sensor
Sony, Red, and others also have 16-bit video cameras but that too is just pure marketing. Nothing more.
jazzblueAE: Cons: "USB charging makes it hard to keep a spare battery charged"
Am I the only one that doesn't understand this being listed in so many camera reviews as a con? Even if they HAD included a stand-alone charger (which would admittedly charge much faster), you still can't charge two batteries simultaneously, and is equally as inconvenient. If you choose to buy spare batteries, you should be buying spare chargers as well or it will always be "hard to keep a spare battery charged."
The only consideration I could see is if you are shooting with the camera, and a spare is charging at home, but then that's not very useful as a spare battery, is it?
Richard Butler wrote: "Being able to USB charge can be handy but if the camera doesn't include an external charger, then you can't have a second one charging while you shoot"
This sentence is bogus, dude. The camera doesn't also include a second battery so you don't even have a second battery that you need to charge. If you are planning to buy a second battery, you can buy a charger with it as as both the battery and charger are about $10
pkcpga: Not sure how the Nikon d7200 is the benchmark for comparison for a year now and the Sony a6300 doesn't match or beat the Nikon and the Nikon receives a silver and the Sony a gold. I guess cameras have gotten worse with time so they get higher awards or maybe the Sony has such a great user interface it deserves the over look.
pkcpga, you are posting nonense. As far as image quality goes, Nikon isn't better than A6300. In fact, Nikon isn't even that better than 2010 cameras like K-5 and Nex5n. As I said, there hasn't been that much jump in image quality with bayer sensor since 2010.
If the reviews were only about image quality, why would you need a camera review anyway? Just read the numbers on dxomark, and take a note that D7200 is better by 1/3 compared to 2010 cameras, a difference that isn't perceptible to human eye.