Looks good. Shadow pushing at both high and low ISO seems to work well.
If only the camera is not so heavy... Sigh
cpkuntz: Typical Canon dull colors, plastic skin, mushy details, and blown highlights. In 2012 these sensors were badly beaten. Now they are embarrassing.
Well said Zeisschen. The other comments from cpkuntz sound like what a typical troll will say.
photo nuts: Compare and contrast Canon's response to difficult questions against how Sony and Nikon's reps handle them.
Sad day for Canon. Sigh
1) DPReview: We had an issue with the A7R with shutter vibration reducing resolution in certain situations. How do you incorporate feedback like this from your users?
Sony: We take the feedback and make note of it, and we use it to improve the next generation of products.
2) DPReview: The D600 had a well-publicized problem with oil on its sensor, which affected a lot of your customers. A lot of people were very unhappy with Nikon’s response. If something like this comes up again in the future, would you handle things differently?
Nikon: Internally, we took that issue very seriously... But the D600 issue was very important, and very sensitive and we are trying our best to avoid that kind of problem again.
@Timbukto: The sensor question is not about the 7D2. The Canon 5D Mk III, 70D are old products that get compared to the Nikon D800, D7000. So, the question about Canon sensors offering poor low ISO DR is a valid one.
Great to see DPReview using the Nikon D4S to photograph Canon's new products above.
Paul B Jones: Who are you people and why are you so angry at Canon? And why is the anger so personal? It's like Canon killed your father and you have been itching for vengeance since age seven. Except Canon didn't kill your father, they simply made a decision not to put WIFI in the 7DMkII.
There are lots of camera companies to choose from; if you don't like what Canon is offering try another brand - and try to be happy with it. Being serial grumps must be exhausting.
Because this is the world wide web and people can hide behind their computers.
We cannot take what Mr. Maeda says seriously. This guy either has NO CLUE what he is saying, is a compulsive liar or is simply delusional.
Read this DPReview interview in 2013 with the same mad man.
"However, he ruled out the idea of a larger sensor camera along the lines of the Sony RX100 to offer more of an image quality distinction between smartphones and compact cameras. 'I think the market does exist but it wouldn't be very large. We think we have a good balancing point in terms of price, image quality and size. Lots of other combinations are possible, but, once you go below APS-C the next logical size is 1/2.3 inch', he says."
1 year after the interview, we get the G7X with the RX100 sensor. Ha, ha....
Compare and contrast Canon's response to difficult questions against how Sony and Nikon's reps handle them.
BarnET: How would you characterize the typical EOS 7D owner?
The user profile of 7D owners is ‘high amateur’ and enthusiasts who want high framerates and professional photographers who want a lightweight, fast camera. And also anyone who doesn’t want to carry something big and heavy.
http://camerasize.com/compact/#568.303,520.359,ha,tjust for reference the mirrorless equivelant.
The Canon weighs almost 1 Kg more with the roughly similar image quality.great. Yeah I would consider it for not buying something heavy.
Besides I want Wifi which makes the 7D mk2 even more bulky with that 849 Wifi grip smacked on the bottom.
If the 7D2 weighed the same as the 70D and has a touchscreen (what is the point of DPAF without one), I would have considered getting it.
To Richard Butler:Your comparisons to the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses on APS-C cameras make no sense to me.
While the mirrorless offerings have an equivalent focal length of ~ 70-200 on FF, mounting the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses on APS-C cameras result in ~ 105-300 on FF.
That is not a fair comparison.
Why not compare the various ~ 50-150 f/2.8 lenses on crop cameras to 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 on FF. While the f/4 version on FF is slower by a stop, the DOF are comparable.
IMO, I'll take 70-200 f/4 on FF any day over 50-150 f/2.8 on APS-C. The only exception is the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 for m43. Why Olympus chooses to go down the 40-150 f/2.8 route beats me.
Was all excited about the LX100 until I read this little blip:
"The original version of this article stated that the LX100 has a touchscreen, which is not the case. We are very sorry for any confusion caused." - http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx100
So, out of the 3 competing cameras, Sony RX100 III vs Panasonic LX100 vs Canon G7X, only the G7X has a touchscreen which is very important for changing AF in a small format camera.
Same old same old 11+ stops of dynamic range at base ISO?
Sigh Sigh Sigh
Can't wait to see how the BSI APS-C sensor holds up. :)
photo nuts: Probably appeals to many, but with bulbous front element and weight of 1.1 kg, I don't care very much for it.
@Plastek: quality... you mean you already know this is going to be a quality lens even though it's under development? Wow! Simply wow! Can I have some of whatever you are smoking?
phoenix15: as ex nikonian, I don't understand why Nikon puts too many FF body in the market.
"...we’re seeing the industry shifting to higher priced products as volume declines."
Wow... 109 comments within a short space of time...
I am seriously impressed with the D750 specs. Great release.
Probably appeals to many, but with bulbous front element and weight of 1.1 kg, I don't care very much for it.
Clint Dunn: I love all the Fuji haters out in force. I tell ya one thing...I have been far more impressed with the quality of the 23/35/18-55 Fuji lenses I have compared to most of the Canon lenses I've owned....
Don't know about others but I don't hate Fujifilm. I love their sensors. But you have to face it: the weight and price of this lens are somewhat ridiculous when compared to its peers. It's designed for APS-C mirrorless mount!
photo nuts: Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS weighs 760 g. Price is US$1299.
Sony FE 70-200 f/4 OSS weighs 840 g. Price is US$1498.
Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 OIS (equiv. to 70-200 f/5.6) weighs 360 g!!! Price is US$1498.
Fujifilm XF 50-140 f/2.8 (equiv. to 76-213 mm f/4.2) weighs 995 g. No stabilisation. Price is US$1599.
Wow. Just wow.
Fujifilm and Sony lenses provide ZERO weight advantage for their mirrorless mounts.
@kangoo1707: DXO takes sensor performance into account when they rate their lenses. Stupid, I know, but that's how it's done at DXO.
@Clint: So, Fuji version is stabilized. But compare its weight to Panasonic f/2.8 version... if, as you say, not everything is about DOF. :D
LiOm Photography: so its bigger than a canon 70-200 f4 and has a bigger filter thread AND its more expensive??I remember how critical people were of the pana 35-100...theyre gonna have a field day with this one
brendon1000: It is f/2.8 for light gathering ability but is f/4.2 for equivalent DOF on FF. May as well compare to Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 which weighs 360g.
Canon EF 70-200 f/4 IS weighs 760 g. Price is US$1299.