Benarm: hard to compare to RX100 since the studio shots of RX100 are out of focus
These lenses are almost equally sharp, if you change to the raw you can see them without adding contrast, clarity and sharpening. Canon is known for having really nice sharp and punchy .jpg's so that's why it look sharper.
it just must really suck for her to have to do real work during the off season. ever wonder what your elementry teacher did in the summer? or howabout those farmers? weird its almost like alot of careers involve having two kinds of seasonal jobs. i guess some people get off their high horse and do some other work when their main seson is over. not her, just a couple portrates. and choosing to lease instead of finance! lol
zstan: If you want to shoot at f1.0 at still have a lot of depth of field, look no further than this camera!!
lol, come on. haha looks like somebody doest get it. zstan so your saying when you crop your pictures all of a sudden, bingo more dof? oh goodness i thought full frame had less dof!! naw. you can just focus closer as your fov is wider, thats what shrinks the dof.
YouDidntDidYou: Looks like I was proved correct that the Nikon1 system will only do moderately well and only in North America.
really guy? canon does well in the mirrorless section?
anyone else think this looks exactly like the sony 18-200? like how the focus ring is in the same spot and so is the creep lock?
OneGuy: When talking about JPEG and processed files from Raw, the reviewer (Barney B) states: "Personally, I would take a noisier but more detailed image, but it really is a matter of taste."What about putting a voting counter next to the two images. The image processing that Barney came up with introduces artifacts looking like a puke.
second is better. and nay-sayers have to notice its a 100% crop and not representitave of print quality until printing a 10x15, where the first image would look mushy and flat. look at each from 5ft away and youll see.
Jack A. Zucker: No, the peaking function does not put an optical viewfinder to shame. Anyone who makes that statement doesn't know much about photography or DOF. The peaking function for example, isn't able to do eye-focusing on a close up portrait or see things like stems in a flower unless they are highlighted specifically with back or side lighting.
you guys are insane. if you have ever manual focused a f 1.4 lens on a ovf you would know. Unless you have a type m screen in your ovf it does NOT show you a representitave dof of anything shalower than f 3.5 it just doesnt happen. it may seem really shallow to you but not nearly as shallow and it is from a type m screen or evf. if you dont understand this, go put on any fast lens an either stop it down or use dof preview and see that the view thrugh the viewfinder does not change AT ALL untill past 3.5 thats why film had split prisms. they ha no autofocus sonyou needed to have areliable way to focus even at f1.4. these people dont know what they are talking about. ive used a 50 1.4 and a 85 1.4 on both ovf and evf and evf was wayyyyy easyer to get accuratly. your not guessing where the real plane of focus is inside the sherical matte cut viewfinders represented dof.
yes it would. just like printing a 10x15 instead of a 20x30. try it. i did. i think alot of people here dont print and dont ever see the true capabilitys of cameras today. just like how you dont see noise on 4x6's even from compacts. (usually)
Jim Lowell: Regarding 'angry' emails about the bloated fluff on the home page you say.."The news filter on the homepage allows you to hide certain categories permanently from the homepage feed, so you can keep your blood pressure under control by never seeing the offending stories."
Why did I have to download over 2 MB's of fluff on the home page before I finally found that link to turn off the garbage????
Are you serious?
fluff....? geeze what, are you paying for your internet in megabytes? calling articles you are not interested in, "garbage" is called being ignorant. They are well written articles that us photo enthusiusts rely on to not be bored all day long. i guess you just speed read tech reviews then stare at the wall the rest of the day?
Earthlight: Thanks Dpreview, what a nice read this was. I'm not into market to buy any of these (I have more than enough gear as it is), but it sure was nice to read your thoughts about them.
What about a microfiber cloth comparison. I'm serious: the quality differences are vast! My best cloths are no-name chinese cheapos plus a cloth that came with my Serengeti sunglasses. Some of the brand name cloths have been a total waste of money.
The hotshoe spirit levels also seem to have loads of quality variation... Some of them are skewed. Plus I lose so many of those that it is not even funny.
Most importantly, why not carry out a filter comparison. You could, of course, test the optical quality, but also be sure to test how easy it is to clean a big fat thumb print from the glass. There are big differences there. It would be great to see that kind of stuff. The daily stuff of active shooters.
What about a comprehensive article about sensor wet cleaning? DIY spatulas and pec pads? Stuff like that.
the cheapest one i sell, also fairly thin, works the best too! but i have 2 cases of a different one at home to use anyway lol. i think that filters are a waste of money unless their square. done the tests seen the smashed front elements. seen the pictures out of them, not nessisary.... unless your lenses cost more than your car.
Jeff Greenberg: $45K & $47K? Are they helium injected to make them ultra-light?What is trade-in value of EF 17-55mm f2.8?Will I sell more stock images with them?Like, $92K net more within a year or two?Just askin'.
+ no fov change when focussing and v. little abberations.
edit. whoops someone said that down there already.
itsastickup: The Sony system is very attractive but for one issue: none of the pro/semi-pro zoom lenses have great bokeh, and some are downright awful. Canon lenses thrash Sonys at bokeh.
I really do want to buy in to Sony but this issue is a show-stopper.
almost sounds like someone hasn't tried said lenses but is sure that canons are better because they start with c.
Simon97: I agree with DPR's assessment. Shoot this thing RAW to get the 24mp resolution expected.
Noise at higher ISOs is a disappointment. Low noise at high ISO is part of the attraction of larger sensors. Compared the other cameras RAW noise is two stops worse and nearly 3 stops vs. the K5. The Sony 16mp sensor seems to be the current APS-C champ. This camera is a victim of the megapixel race. RIP
well thats funny.... better noise reduction in body..... almost like there wasnt noise to begin with.... "almost"
Ashley Pomeroy: Nah. I'm not a brand snob, but 24mp is absolute overkill unless you're a technical landscape or architectural photographer, or a working professional who absolutely needs a high-resolution file, in which case the noisy output and flimsy body aren't very impressive.
I can picture the typical consumer being angry when those 24mp images take ages to upload to Facebook and display on an iPad screen. For a compact, fast-shootin' camera like this I would prefer a really good 12, 16mp or so file with excellent image quality at ISO 1600 and Fuji-esque dynamic range, so that I can shoot in suboptimal conditions and still have a usable result. Twelve more megapixels is neither here nor there.
you would be suprised how many people come into my store asking about 60d's and d7000's and when you ask them things how do you usually use your images? atleast half of them are destined for facebook. alot of my customers have never printed images befor either..... but then again, have you?
micahmedia: How come there are slight differences in exposure between your studio shots? Wouldn't a consistent shutter/aperture/ISO setting make for a more useful comparison between cameras?
I.R.L exposure varies continually as well. variations in transmitted energy thru the atmosphere change often too. id complain to the sky first.
slncezgsi: Many people here are fighting whether Sony A65 or A77 produce better or worse results in RAW than other cameras. I would only like to point out that this largely depends on the RAW converter used. DPreview has settled on Adobe Camera RAW and I am fine with that (guys, I really do not expect you to try every RAW converter on the planet to get the results).
Some time ago I was intrigued by the rather uninspiring RAW conversions done for Leica X1 and Ricoh GXR A12 50/2.5 (looked worse than Olympus XZ-1) and just tried to play with other RAW developer (RawTherape) and gor MUCH better results detail/resolution wise.
Well, just a thought.
ya and besides these days all cameras >900$ have excellent image quality, some are "better" but there is more to photography than the "best". it can be fun too! i dont shoot over 1600 iso normally so cameras get more scrutinized on things like controls, speed and build quality.
vtinitus: This camera is now officially leading my want-to-have list.Anyway, I'm looking to purchase body only, replacing it's 'mason jar' kit, which certainly cannot deliver its resolution, with a piece of more capable glass.
Does somebody know if Tamron's SP 17-50/2,8 can keep up with that sensor? What is about legacy lenses (I'm proud owner of some gorgeous M42x1 lenses)?
I'd appreciate your help.
P.S. I'm actually not so into megapixels as my question might suggest, I'm just looking to get the a body/lens combination I'll be happy with even in 5 years from now.
16-105 can be had cheap used and its not too bad. but ide get a couple primes. 35 1.8 and mabe a 50, forget zooms their lasy. but i hear the tamron is pretty nice. m42 is nice but inconvenient unless you like still life. then its sweeet. i have a m42 500mm from atleast 20 years ago. its actually pretty sharp but slow to focus and doesnt mount like a well made oem does. so it sits on display with the other 7 film lenses i thought i would use more often.
Shirrif: DPReview seems to be paid by Sony as at full review lewel that's is currently only Sony they do. Maybe it is easier to give Gold for Sony if it is only one they test? This is sad time for Nikon fanboys like me...
this would be a fun competition, but current weather limits submissions to white on white challenges lol