The Zeiss is better, I'm sure - at more than twice the price of Canon but I prefer the one that I can focus easily ;)
jhinkey: Sigma is rumored to have the 135/1.8 sometime this year AND Nikon has a patent on a 135/1.8 IF AFS VR and likely will come out with this lens in order to compete. So it's good that we'll all have some choices in the fast 135/2 department somewhat soon.
The Zeiss 135/2 certainly looks outstanding and the lack of AF does not bother me for what I do - outstanding wide open performance across the entire frame is what I like to see (just like the 100/2 MP).
@Petka - 135 DC is not bad, but it's a dated design too. It's more expensive than the Canon but has much more CA and so-so sharpness wideopen
rhlpetrus: I just don't get how anyone would get a camera that doesn't produce a decent RAW conversion from the typical software. Any of the current competitors like the Canon G15, the Oly or the Nikon P7700 produce much better results.
Apparently this cameras is more about wow factor rather than IQ - which is important in 2013...
kewlguy: cool, silver star for an expensive compact with mushy images...
REally? consistent image? Funny, DPR's own raw and jpg comparison shows Canon G15, XZ2 being much more detailed at low iso...It's time the reviewer take a look at their own raw comparison LOL
cool, silver star for an expensive compact with mushy images...
D7100 is said to have no AA filter, but why is it still softer than NEX-7 in the studio comparison? NEX-7 studio comparison shows better micro contrast too. Is it due to lenses used?
yabokkie: half a century ago, the Japanese beat the hell out of "unbeatable" Germans and drove them out of the market.
I would like to continue to use high quality Japanese equipment but it's not bad someone else can beat them on quality, at least cost-performance for the moment.
@yabokkie; if you ever tried Leica lenses, you'll know the German optics beat the cr@p out of the Japanese lenses... not to mention Zeiss, Schneider... their market share is small because of the higher price - for a good reason!
kewlguy: I got my Canon 24 TSE for $1700, this Samyang is not cheap either. The only aberration on 24 TSE L is severe coma in the corners (unshifted) - hopefully the Samyang's better corrected in this regard (while on par in other parameters).
Nope, mine is the TSE II.
I got my Canon 24 TSE for $1700, this Samyang is not cheap either. The only aberration on 24 TSE L is severe coma in the corners (unshifted) - hopefully the Samyang's better corrected in this regard (while on par in other parameters).
For the price it should be much better than the mediocre 70-300 VR!
f/2.8? yawn... should have made it 35/2 equivalent...
vodanh1982: "The cameras' wireless capabilities allow users to remotely capture and view images from iOS devices" No Android or PC?
androids are for amateurs, PCs for gamers - not Phase One's target markets... LOL
Mike99999: To me the Fuji X-series is a case of the emperors new clothes. They basically take a Nikon D3100 or a Canon t2i, put it inside a shinier body, and sell it as if it's the greatest new thing. It is a pretty standard APS-C camera.
First of all the images look mushy at ISO 200. It doesn't look nearly as good as a D7000 or OM-D.
Second are the lenses. Everyone is hyping these lenses, as good as Leica, etc... Why? These Fuji lenses are really overrated. The corner softness is so bad I often think these are re-branded Sigma lenses.
If compactness is an issue, Olympus is convincing me better. If compactness is not an issue, Nikon and Canon get you more for less money. It just doesn't look as shiny.
I had D7000 for a year, it has strong AA filter, need good lenses. OMD? LOL as long as the sensor is smaller, no way it's comparable to Fuji's X Trans. The problem with Fuji is just that there is no optimal RAW converter...making it a high end jpg camera.
the most expensive jpg-only camera...
reach0775: dpreview will remain my No.1 source for camera reviews, but I'll really stop taking their conclusions seriously.The 6D has similar or better IQ than the mighty Mk.III, some VERY serious USPs (GPS, weight...) and it costs a 1.000EUR less!Hey, that's an awful lot of money! It's a shame they even compare those 2 within the same sentence.But taking it down because Mr. dpreviewer would have had different ideas where to save money is really outrageous arbitrariness.
Problem is, most buyer only concern about spec when comparing 6D vs D600. As a user of both system, I did try the D600 but I didn't like the color - plus my collection of Canon lenses are growing due to more better new lenses. Add to those an excellent service from Canon where I am - that's why I got the 6D.
GeorgeZ: For most users the EM5 delivers more pleasing photos without pp.For RAW shooters it's a different story. In normal light I'm still happy with my old D50, but when the time comes to buy a new camera I will switch to M43 thanks to Olympus' jpeg magic and the nice lenses available. Nikon shows nothing here that would sway ME to stay with them.
Like I said, I did use quite an extensive system of m4/3, including EM5. Sorry, the details are not up to the FF cameras with good lenses. It's reality - esp the low light details. Horses for courses, sure. I'm not saying m4/3 is bad, but it's not as good as the best APS-C system, still. NEX might be weird looking, but the sensor is better than the best m4/3 sensor currently available. The Oly defenders need to have some reality check, somehow.
Agreed, marike6. I used to have both 4/3 and m4/3. Sold them because I still prefer the outputs from my Canon and Nikon. If one needs small mirrorless, NEX is a good start over m4/3.
gl2k: Today it's not about the sensor, it's all about the body that makes the difference. Dunno about DR but regarding noise the 5200 plays in the same league as the D800.
I agree with aftab - Nikon seems to put strong AA filter over the 24MP DX sensor. A shame... T4i is sharper, though noisier.
Noise performance is good, but I wished D5200 has the crispness of D5100/T4i. It might be the lens, though. Despite being a beginner DSLR, one will need pro glasses to fully utilize the high resolution sensor.
Isit13: These IQ tests are mostly for color rendition and quality in general and not for sharpness as ive understood? Because i will not buy the fact that my D3100 beats the Leica M9 in sharpness am i right? Sorry for the offtopic question, i thought it better than to start a thread about it.
M9 uses CCD which has no AA filter - a combo you'll want for sharpness and resolution at the cost of moire. I think D5200 should do the same, no AA filter as its 24MP sensor has very small pixel pitch already and make it easy on the lenses to achieve acceptable sharpness.