Retro1976: Ugh Nikon colors are terrible.
Canons skin tones are good, but the greens and reds are not as good as Nikons. IMHO. So - Canon for skin, Nikon for the rest.
cosmaracoare: Not much of a top of the line, oh my god, can not believe it camera. Sony alpha 77II is almost two years old and does almost all of the stuff this one does plus some other things this one can not do, all for half the price. The almost ecstatic tone of this review makes me wonder if I am missing something - this site, as always, seems to continue to be biased towards anything Canon and Nikon
Nope, a Sony A77II is behind in every aspect important for this kind of action oriented camera – AF, buffer, low light and not least viewfinder performance. EVFs with their "slideshow" effect at high fps, just doesn't cut it for sports and action shooting on the highest level.
Retro1976: This seems like another example of how FF image quality isn't progressing as fast as smaller sensors. The images are not bad, it's just they are also not any better (and in some ways worse??) than what I see from crop/m43rd sensors.
This is not a FF sensor.
shademaster: I don't really understand the point of having a "flagship" APS-C body when the "flagship" lenses are all full frame. Why not just make a full frame sensor with an optional crop readout mode where you can (quickly) read out only the center pixels (in APS-C crop mode)? Maybe the design is prohibitively expensive or noisy?
So how about canon/nikon/sony offer some "flagship" APS-C zoom lenses? Then I could see having flagship bodies to go with these flagship lenses. Otherwise, a fast crop-mode readout on the FF sensor would make much more sense (if technologically possible).
@ShademasterThe Pentax 50-150 2.8 was about half the weigh and much smaller than a Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR. But it also had less build quality and slower focus and had no stabilization. The now discontinued Sigma 50-150 2.8 with stabilization was only about 300-400 g less than the Nikon 70-200 2.8. In actual use I found that the extra reach of the 70-200 was very valuable. Most of my sports shots tended to be above 150 mm.
@shademaster,The DX 50-300 also has a simpler construction with a cheaper ultrasonic focusing motor vs the 70-300. I have tried a 50-150 2.8 (Pentax) for APS-C. I find the 70-200 2.8 much more useful. Actually it is a perfect sports lens for APS-C. It is bright, built like tank and fast focusing.And you can get the extremely compact and light 300 PF4, eqv 450 lens. No, there is no problem with fast sports lenses for APS-C IMO. The problem is more, as I see, it, the lack of small, fast primes.
You dont save much in size doing APC-versions of teles. Compare the Nikon 50-300 DX vs the 70-300 FX.There are some 50-150 APS-C lenses (Sigma, Pentax), but I rather take an 70-200 even on APS-C. 100-300 eqv is very useful for sports.
Biowizard: Well that's not bad. As an OM-D E-M1 owner, I decided to call that up for direct comparison. What can I say? My lovely Oly, with its micro-4/3rds format, is all but as good an image as this Nik. To all practical intents and purposes, every bit as good.
Ever since we passed the "Scanned Kodachrome 25" standard (about 12 years ago), I've figured cameras are plenty good enough in terms of image quality. What matters is ergonomics, design and features!
And thus, Olympus wins, for me.
The OM-D E-M1 is a nice camera, but seems to be 1,5 stops behind in high ISO and 1.5 stops behind in DR. That is not "every bit as good".
PerL: Brilliant work by DPReview. So it was fake after all. There is a long sad history of hype during the whole development of the mirrorless cameras.Why could not Sony simply have stated "we have a method of simulating live view that in most cases works as well as a true live view, almost as good as an OVF"?
@abortabortLook at the comparison vs the 7D. In the 7Ds OVF the feet of the biker is moving - that is a live view. In the EVF of the Sony the feet of the biker is still - because it is a series of still images. If Sony did not put forward the "live view" as a major feature, I would not have called it a fake. But they did.
@havoc315If you call something "silly" you need to have some substance in your reply. If Sony claims that they show a live view, but instead they show a still and a black frame to trick the eye it is a faked live view. How can a faked live view be a "technological solution"?DSLRs that only shows 95 percent doesn't claim that they show 100 percent - do you understand the difference?DSLR makers doesn't claim that the OVF view represent the final image.
Brilliant work by DPReview. So it was fake after all. There is a long sad history of hype during the whole development of the mirrorless cameras.Why could not Sony simply have stated "we have a method of simulating live view that in most cases works as well as a true live view, almost as good as an OVF"?
PerL: I wonder why there is no rating for "system"? After all, that is one of the most important considerations when you buy, and in a way lock yourself into a camera brand.
Of course the system is a very important consideration when you buy into a brand – rating or at least describing the system is just common sense in a review. It is not a "terrible" idea, what is terrible is the emotional reactions some have against anything they see as critique against their brand of choice.
PerL: The flicker and darkening of the viewfinder was rather nasty in the 8 fps live view demo video.
How can it be a clash between a refresh rate of 120 per second and a capture rate at 8 frames per second? No, instead of a total blackout you see an annoying darkening, which should be a tiresome to endure during intense shooting like a soccer game where you sit and shot series for long periods.
I wonder why there is no rating for "system"? After all, that is one of the most important considerations when you buy, and in a way lock yourself into a camera brand.
I took another look. The "flicker" does not start until the shutter starts firing, so interference from the refresh rate of the capture camera cant be the explanation.
The flicker and darkening of the viewfinder was rather nasty in the 8 fps live view demo video.
ttran88: How big will the viewfinders be to compete with a .78x magnification found in the A7RII? And With the A6300 EVF, black outs are non existent. It will be interesting to see this patent materialize.
I thought the darkening and flicker of the A6300 EVF in the video on DPReview showing 8 fps shooting actually was rather disturbing (a bit down on the page):http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a6300/6
JonathanFV: LOL! ISO 3 million... I hope nobody is going to use it. Even super downscaled, it's atrocious. ISO 102400 would be my limit as far as Internet usage goes.
Really? This is ISO 204800 at web size (1000 px)http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5339981861/photos/3420404/dsc_0183_iso200-000wx
OK - so I tried to make some sensible judgement. I downloaded the ISO 200.000 and ISO 100.000 samples, resized them and added a little USM. These will work fine for many print jobs - low light sports, reportage, news. http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5339981861/photos/3419727/dsc_0180_iso100-000
Nice with a stabilized 85 - but the weight? 700g, twice as much as for instance the Nikon 85 1.8G (350g).
PerL: An insult to modern women if you ask me. "Beauty Retouch"-function... We are not living in the 1950s.
straylightrun,As opposed to the true intellectuals, which are fans of "Soft Skin" and "Slimming effects"?