I would agree, more or less, with the top 10. But the Rokinon TS is, by all accounts, a softie. Now, you say "But it's half the price of a 24PC-E or 24TS-II" True, but half price is still $900.
Speaking of Samyang/Rokinon, their 14mm really is impressive, both sharp and cheap.
I'm sure it wasn't planned, but maybe the Df is really a marketing exercise. Seriously. Of course they'll sell some, and there will be nitwits checking the camera's daily rank on Amazon. (A great way to make better photographs).
But getting buzz is expensive and love it or hate it, if people are still talking about the Df after CES, that's some awesome publicity. If a consumer decides the D800 is a better camera or the D610 is better value, so what? They're still buying Nikon even if they're not getting pure photography.
Gesture: For a beginner, I'd buy an Olympus E-PL1 with kit lens, still available for about $250. One of the best values in photography.
Usually, I would say image quality trumps the other stuff. Although the EOS-M is a great deal in terms of money for image qaulity, the fun doesn't start until after you take the photos. It's a classic qualtiy vs. convenience dilemma. I don't mind the speed of the EOS-M and love the results but if someone has no idea what to get, I'd say the Olympus.
This is an excellent lens, in a different league from Tamron and Sigma. I've owned this one and the previous model and both were outstanding. Lots of CA but very sharp. Noticeably better than the Canon 10-22.
christiangrunercom: Why is the Ricoh GR left out ? It would have nuked all the others...
Any comparison of these cameras is flawed because, not only do they have fixed focal length lenses, they have different focal lengths.
For example, the Ricoh is the best 28mm wide angle compact camera you can buy. But the Fuji is the best 35mm slightly wide angle camera. There are pictures you can take with the Ricoh that you cannot take with the Fuji--and you can shoot portraits (more or less) with the Fuji but you can't really with the Ricoh because it's too wide.
kpaddler: This site have become like reviews of car magazines. Every car gets thumbs up, and a "good buy". Yet, a year later you hear the car they raved about catches fire while on family vacation, or the front wheel comes off on the freeway while doing 80 click. Just minor inconveniences....
There is exactly 3 weak points and 3 good points in each camera. That is a good review, that is, if you want to sell anything that your dad carries in his store.
Sure, it's a buying guide but DPR is free. Popular Photo is nothing but a buying guide and they expect you to pay for the privilege of being advertised to. If you subscribe, but feel you haven't paid enough to receive advertisements, they'll sell you a "buying guide". Imagine if you went to a car dealer and the salesman said "Would you like a brochure on the 2014 models? It's just $15."
He even has the color palette down. These are great.
I hope Roger will do a dictionary of cliches as well, starting with "built like a tank". Is there any photo equipment that isn't built like a tank? Didn't think so.
Great choices here. The problem for the photo biz is not a lack of innovation but rather that digital cameras have gotten so good, people have no reason to get a new one. For most users, we have arrived at reasonably priced, foolproof auto everything cameras. Point 'em at a good subject and bingo.
qwertyasdf: DPR, go with the times!I just need to know which camera is best for selfies period
If you're planning a career in politics you'll need a camera that's good for "selfies".
onlooker: dual12 wrote:"A gold award means nothing."
Barney Britton responded:"@ dual12 - really?"
I also agree with dual12. Barney, DPR produces great reviews with a lot of data points. One needs to read them carefully and make up his mind based on how the camera fits his needs. I remember long time ago Olympus 3040Z did not get "Highly Recommended" (equivalent of "Gold" back in those days). Yet, based on the info in the review I bought it, and it was the best compact I ever had, period - for me.
It sounds like the gold award means the camera is more fun to use which is fine but it's like giving an Olympic champion a gold medal for being the most popular.
Still, if gold means the camera is fun, it's nice to know that most cameras are a lot of fun.
RStyga: Let's us dispense with the myth that all "professional" photographers know exactly what they want or what it is required. I have seen a fair share of them not having a clue about what gear to buy, not only because they fail to follow the industry's rapid changes (understandable to a certain a extent) but also because they don't even know basic technological terminology (e.g. what is VC/IS/OIS/IS).
There is a significant difference between a person who makes money out of taking photographs, a photographer (in the artistic sense), and one who knows about photographic technology and application. Neither category implies any of the other.
In most fields, a professional is someone who, among other things, knows a bit more than everybody else. My dentist wouldn't qualify but my doctor would.
With cameras, all that is required to be a professional is to call yourself one. That's it. And that's why the president's personal photographer and Ken Rockwell are both seasoned pros.
JDThomas: It's a custom handmade camera of which only FOUR were made and this is the only one that the whereabouts can be accounted for.
If it were a rare prototype Ford Model T nobody would blink an eye. But it's a Leica so idiotic judgements must be passed about "rich people showing off their wealth".
Guess what? Rich people show off their wealth all the time WITHOUT Leicas. They fly around in private jets, drive expensive (new and antique) cars, and pay exorbitant amounts of money for rare food.
So what if a rich person is a camera enthusiast and wants to own a rare hand-made camera? How's that different than some rich car-lover buying a rare one-of-a-kind automobile?
I don't know if it's still true but in Japan, collectibles (cameras, guitars, cars if you had room) were a tax dodge.
The other day, I shot an elephant in my pajamas. The folks at Antiques Roadshow were way off, even at the time for a real Luxus. The reason this stuff is in decline these days is that people who know the history and importance are leaving the scene.
Still a lot of dough for a little camera with no phone, no plastic, and--yikes--a viewfinder. No multitasking with this thing.
First, I look for a camera with a gold award. That doesn't narrow things down much so then I see what Ken Rockwell recommends and buy something else.
spiderhunter: It appears that Canon and Nikon are so complacent with their toaster-sized DSLRs that they are blind to what is going around them. They can reduce the size of things but they just don't do it. The song "the times they are a-changing" comes to mind. Sure, they still have their lion's share of the pro market but I feel Sony has rocked the boat. The Sony FF mirrorless are still not there yet when it comes to AF tracking abilities ( but great for non-action work) and battery life but given time and more RD, they will get there. I hope the size of truly capable pro models will get lighter, not heavier.
Hand phones got lighter and smaller. The early models were gigantic by comparison. Compactness and portability is what manufacturers should aim for. Yes, there is a limit as to how small FF lenses can go but striving to reduce sizes and making things lighter are surely the way to go.
Go Sony, go! Show them the way!
It seems there will always be companies who insist on making money from traditional designs this while innovators like Sony don't make money from cameras. Wake up, Nikon & Canon! There's money to be lost and you're missing out on it.
Cane: So funny listening to people's viewfinder battle. Are any of you really trying to convince the other side of something? It's like yelling at clouds.
There are no sides. And it isn't a battle. Like it, buy it. Don't, don't.
There's no reason Nikon or Canon or...even Sigma couldn't make a lens this good--if size, weight and price were not a consideration.
ThePhilips: Wow. I'm talking about the price: wow.
At that price, instead of taking photographs, it's cheaper to invite the models personally.
True, but the Canon f/1 is not intended for the same purpose as Otis so there is no way to compare the two.
razadaz: I think the foundations to all this were set when Adobe started requiring activation for their products back with CS2. First it was a case of anonymous activation, later they started to require full details of everything down to your shoe size. Now it's pay by the month. Eventually I believe they will move all their software into “the cloud” to make pirating impossible as no installation will exist on your computer. Bit by bit we were led like lambs to the slaughter. I have always thought it was a shame that more people didn't complain when they first brought in activation. It never prevented piracy it was just the first step on a slippery path to total control.
Newcomers to photography will sign up to this because they have never known anything different. After all, this is the generation that happily sign up to a 56 page itunes agreement.
This reminds me of when Verizon calls and I explain I love the phones but the data plan is not happening. But if you think $60+ a month is ok for a phone I guess you'll hardly notice another $10 for software. Alll these necessities add up.