marike6: So this is where mirrorless fans come with their unrealistic views of the camera market to laugh at the EOS M.
In the meantime, Canon will continue to dominate the camera industry and they will continue to laugh all the way to the bank. :-)
> Doesn't that tell you something about yourself?
Yeah that was a little joke. I couldn't care less what names people call me. Everybody is a fan of something. Who would have thought, I'm a fan of the brand camera that I shoot with? How incredibly unusual. lol.
Man, these front page comment sections are about the least pleasant place to be on earth. Everybody has something to say. How about you worry about yourself and your images and less about what I'm up to.
> What's unrealistic about wanting a camera that does not suck?
What's wrong with the 70D, 100D, 700D, 6D, 5D III, cameras that have viewfinders, great AF systems, and mount every EF lens ever made?
Why do you want to start a whole new lens mount just to have a slightly smaller camera bag?
> Canon doesn't dominate. Canon is one of TWO brands that dominate.
Yes, I realize that. But I get called the "F word" (i.e., "fanboy") so frequently in these comments now I try to avoid mentioning my preferred brand at all. It makes it tricky to talk about gear, but the mere mention of that N company seems to upset some users, so I'm trying to erase it from my lexicon.
> What's amazing to me is that Canon is so successful
Look at their system of cameras, their lenses and flashes and you'll understand why they are so successful. Mirrorless fans seem to think ALL users want what they want, but that is not the case. Canon is only interested in a small piece of the mirrorless pie. If they wanted to, they could make miniature C300 style still camera with 15 fps, Dual Pixel AF, 4K RAW video etc. But unlike Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Fujifilm, et al, Canon absolutely must protect it's bread and butter DSLR lineup, just like that other DSLR company who shall remain nameless. :-)
Sigma has some excellent lenses in its lineup, but in general, I didn't buy a Nikon body to slap Sigma and Tamron lenses on it. I have in the past, but lately I've been using all Nikon lenses. Rock solid AF and excellent color/contrast that Nikkors are known for.
It was the same when I shot Canon. Mostly, I didn't skip L lenses to go to shopping at the Sigma and Tamron counter at B&H. On DX, Sigma and Tamron have some sharp, compact and reasonably priced f/2.8 standard zooms. And Tokina has a few great UWA zooms. There are some great values in Sigma, but on FX, I mostly stick with Nikkors.
For the Df, I'll likely use a mix of G and AIS Nikkors.
samfan: I know the 1st party manufacturers aren't under any obligation to provide support for 3rd parties. But do they really think that if they don't make their own lens such as 50-150/2.8 or 18-35/1.8 for DX, and break the support for such a 3rd party lens, I'll buy a 70-200/2.8 VR and 24-70/2.8 instead? And maybe a FX body to boot? Really?
Because the answer is no, I won't, and I also won't buy any more bodies from Nikon. If my existing bodies get way too old to still be useful, I'll rather just switch to a brand that 1) offers the lenses I need, 2) allows me to use 3rd party lenses without being too worried about the future.
Fortunately I'm in no hurry. Let's see which of the DSLR/MILC manufacturers get their sh*t together the best.
> But do they really think that if they don't make their own lens such as 50-150/2.8 or 18-35/1.8 for DX, and break the support for such a 3rd party lens, I'll buy a 70-200/2.8 VR and 24-70/2.8 instead?
Why would Nikon make a 50-150 when they offer have 3 70/80-200 lenses in their lineup? And why would you waste your time with a 50-150 f/2.8 when you could have a sharper and more future proof 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 VR lens? The Sigma weighs the same. Depending on what you shoot, a FF 70-200 on a DX camera is extremely useful, i.e. a 105-300 f/2.8 that works well with Nikon's 1.4 and 1.7 TCs.
Is the focal range from 70-100mm really so important?
And by the way, Nikon is not purposely breaking anything. Sigma reverse engineers Nikon's AF protocols which do change. Nikon is trying to improve their cameras, and they have their own lens lineup to worry about. Besides, AFAIK, Nikon does not get a dime from Sigma lens sales so Nikon's priority is Nikon, not third party lens support.
So this is where mirrorless fans come with their unrealistic views of the camera market to laugh at the EOS M.
UnChatNoir: Who is waiting for this? After being compromised with the EOS M now a second attempt to push this silly concept in the market but still without viewfinder. Canon, do you really think you can save your DSLR-market by NOT making a serious, credible Mirror-less camera range? By just offering a toy that maybe the full equipped Canon DSLR-user will pick up to play with, on a hot summer trip? Soon there will be only Sony's, Fujifilm X's, Olympus and even others to conquer your realm.
> Soon there will be only Sony's, Fujifilm X's, Olympus and even others to conquer your realm.
Don't know what it's like where you live. Here in the US if you look at Amazon's Top Cameras you won't find a single CSC in the Top 100 Best Sellers. Not one. Lots of Canikon cameras, not a single MILC. So it's doubtful anyone is conquering anything.
There is almost zero mindshare among professionals,the amateur space is dominated by DSLRs, and it would appear some mirrorless vendors are struggling to survive.
Josh152: Wow I can't believe they didn't put the 70D's sensor with dual pixel AF in it. It would have had the best AF in any mirrorless camera to date. Pluse a cmaera like this is begging for an EVF.
The Nikon 1 camera were the first MILC, AFAIK to have PDAF and it's likely still one of the best around for AF tracking. Robust predictive AF algorithms are one of Nikon's strengths. For video AF, the Dual Pixel system does work well from what I've seen. Canon wasn't about to put that system in this camera. It would have been bad business.
(unknown member): So let me get this straight . . . the "improvement" is Canon simply made the auto focus finally work? That's the improvement? I have been a loyal Canon fan for decades but the once mighty Canon indeed is slipping. Sony, and others, are making Canon look stupid now. Actually, Canon is making itself look foolish.
Why should Canon worry about the "small at all costs" crowd when they are outselling other vendors with their DSLR lineup, one of the two most complete SLR systems ever created?
Because you want Canon to enter the niche enthusiast MILC space doesn't mean Canon is "slipping". A camera like the A7/A7r might interest a few mirrorless fans and tech industry types, but it likely won't even be speed bump in Canon's road to market dominance. Camera systems have always been about the complete system of bodies, lenses, flashes and accessories, and in this area Canon has only Nikon as its rival.
Sony inherited the excellent Minolta mount and lenses, finally made a pretty nice FF with A900, and then they started putting EVF into all cameras causing many to completely loose interest in the Alpha line.
In video, Canon actually shipped a 4K camera, the C500 before Sony was able to ship its 4K camera the F55. So nobody is making Canon look foolish, that could be in your head. :-)
wcbert: I been shooting with Canon DSLR for over a decade ands own 12 "L" lens. I am also a Fuji X-e1 owner too. Canon has to do better alot better than this. There is no excuse they are not even trying to become a leader in the mirrorless camera world. They not even trying to be in third place!
Canon read the writing on the wall and look what Sony is doing. If not then except to become the Blackberry of the camera world.
What you may be missing is that Canon and Nikon don't want to release an MILC that will cannibalize their own bread and butter DSLR sales. Other companies have more freedom to release high spec'd MILCs without fear of hurting their own business model.
Timmbits: A bit ironic that SONY has such poor videoconferencing equipment for the video link (for Marc who couldn't be there).
> Sony a7 siblings are already putting a lot of pressure on Canon and Nikon who just wouldn't let go of mirror boxes for the larger sensors
Have you actually looked at something like Amazon's "Top 100 Digital Cameras"? Not a single CSC to be found anywhere in the list. The idea that Canon and Nikon have to change ANYTHING because of the A7 or any other mirrorless camera is one that doesn't match the reality of camera sales in 2013 at all.
Jim Salvas: I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I haven't seen TV this geeky since the early days of MSNBC, when Soledad O'Brien chatted every day with virtual reality character Null Dev about computer software.
On a Unix system, Dev Null (/dev/null) is a special file that discards all data written to it, but provides no data to any process that reads from it, kind of like a black hole. So the character's name is an inside programming joke.
DogsareGodsgifttous: GREAT VALUE! This Olympus OM-D E-M1 is the best camera I've ever owned - BLOWS AWAY MY CANON 5D system in terms of size, functions, image quality, and ease of handling. I'm a professional studio portrait and wedding photographer for 31 years and started back in the film days. Don't let anyone fool you- sensor size, prime lenses, go ahead and spend on this and spend on that. This is the best bang for the buck in years for the amount of quality you get for the price. Go ahead and spend thousands more on a "better" system, only to be outdated in 2 years or less anyway. It's not the equipment- it's how you use it folks! Great images do not have to come only from spending 5k or more for the body and lenses. Thank you Olympus for giving us high quality on par with the Canon spenders!
> at low ISO, E-M1 blows out of the water not just 5D, but even 5D Mark III.
Lol. Just look at the DPR Studio Scene RAWs. Not only does the EM-1 NOT "blow the 5D III out of the water", it doesn't even best the 100D, or 70D. The D7100 forget it.
Not sure how you think the EM-1 blows the 5D III away when it doesn't even compete with the D7100.
Any new DPR member can make all kinds of claims about pro experience, but without a gallery, the link to a website, something, it's frankly just talk.
So what can we do? Look at DPR Studio RAWs.
I don't see any "blowing out of the water" happening even with the EM-1 vs the APS-C cameras. How you guys think the EM1 is competing with a FFs for IQ is beyond me. It's a bit smaller I'll give you that.
Even if he's talking about the original 5D, the two cameras score similarly on DxOMark, but 5D sensor still has close to 1 EV high ISO advantage. But the idea that IQ "blows aways" the 5D is a reach at best owing to better DOF control of the FF sensor.
I've owned the 5D II and an EPL-5. People reading the above comments about image quality and changing systems expecting modern FF IQ might be disappointed. Even as crop sensors improve, so too do FF sensors. Besides the laws of physics cannot change. Professional looking images will often be easier to achieve with a FF camera. That's just how it is. And m43 has some good lenses, but distinct weakness in UWA and telephoto zooms. Plus the high grade EF mount lenses simply do not have any equivalents in m43 - 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 and f/4 L IS, 50 f/1.2, 135 f/2 L, 300 f/4 L IS, etc. And from an investment standpoint, the Canikon pro-grade lenses are gold, retaining their value as well as on the market.
sbansban: I was so happy to see the Ricoh GR included among the best compact cameras for travel but was surprised to find its close twin Nikon Coolpix A missing - especially when it has by far the best sensor AND lens rating from DXOMark among all cameras anywhere close to its size. Some other great travel cameras that came to my mind were the Canon G1 X, Fujifilm F900EXR (why is the F900EXR never mentioned in the same breath as the other 20X+ pocketable compacts like ZS30/TZ40, SX280, HX20V/HX50V et al?), LX7, maybe even LF1 - all of which are still very much available for purchase. And since the Canon SX280 now has a documented battery issue that Canon has failed to resolve with their latest firmware upgrades, wouldn't its predecessor - the SX260 be a wiser choice?
> The recent shown DF flop is another example of this suicidary policy
A "Df flop" is in your head only. The Df is going to be one of the best selling Nikons of all time, and it is getting great reviews left and right. See this one from professional photographer Sam Hurd:
Great looking images, build quality, nice VF, and as you can see in the video comparison with the D4 at link, the Df shutter is whisper quiet shutter, probably the quietest FF shutter on the market (note, it makes the A7 shutter sound like a car door slamming). :-)
Nikon has some of the most competitively priced cameras on the market (see D800 vs 5D III pricing, D610, D7100). I get that it's more fun to make stuff up about flops and high prices, but if you want people to take you seriously, you might at least be factually accurate.
> When they showed sample test images from the A and the GR, it was obvious the GR hadfar better sharpness and contrast - it was day and night.
I don't know what you were seeing, but there was very little difference in sharpness and contrast between the Coolpix A and Ricoh GR. That said the Coolpix A had richer colors, better high ISO performance shown in the DxOMark test.
And the DPR samples from the Coolpix A look brighter with better colors.
marike6: Question for staff: is there any chance of reshooting these Nikon Df Studio samples?
I know you guys work hard on this stuff, but these Df samples seem a bit out-of-focus.
Thanks Richard. I know that you guys work really hard on the reviews.
But surprisingly in RAW, the text "As with you, so also with us" (above the center focus point of the scene) is nice and crisp on the Fujifilm X-Pro1, X-M1, G-M1, Nikon 1 J3, et al. Whereas the same text seems a soft, and blurry on the Df.
Since the studio samples are a big part of each camera review it would be nice to have each new camera well represented. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to comment.
@kecajkerugo, @Eric Hensel
I've said the same about the EM-1 RAW studio samples below ISO 800 they are soft.
Besides, I'm not the only one saying these Df shots look "blurry" or back-focused. See the comments below. A Fujifilm X-E1 RAW file processed in LR, it should not noticeably better sharper than a FF DSLR.
Patrick Kristiansen: If one needs 40+mp's to crop a pic into something worth watching, one is not taking one's pics right. And 16mp is enough for just about anyone without a very special need. Not many lenses justify a higher resolution either. And not to mention the need for exceedingly high shutterspeed and/or tripods. Nah, super-high resoultion is bonk imo. Can't wait to receive my em1 and 12-40 lens. And can wait even less to try out my OM-lenses on it.
> Every aspect of every other camera is bad to these micro 4/3 zealots.
There is an interesting dynamic with extreme fans of that format. For them, ALL cameras should be as small as possible, that is unless really nice cameras like the EM-1 or GH3 get released.
Shallow DOF, who needs it? Unless you mention the 1" sensor cameras. Then the argument becomes, "the Nikon 1 and Sony RX cameras have far too deep DOF". Yuck.
IQ? For fans, if DxOMark scores a m43 camera higher than a older APS-C or Canon DSLR, that means you need a FF to get better IQ, and even then, FF is not that much better. Besides, everybody knows that FF cameras are too heavy for most mortals. :-)
Lenses are pricey, software corrected and easier to design. But for fans, m43 lenses are as good or better than the best pro-grade, optically corrected FF lenses. And so on.
Goal posts often get moved about. But it's all good. I keep my hacked GH2 because it's a good video camera, at least resolution wise.
BKK Street: Nice write up. Most of the tourists I see lugging around DSLR's would be better served with one of these. (Or an RX100 for most situations). And GM-1 and Fuji's are just gorgeous. Do miss the availability of a fully articulated LCD on all the models listed though.
Why would they be better served?
People don't exactly "lug around" a consumer DSLR like a T5i, D5200 or K-50. Those cameras are small, lightweight, offer bright, clear viewfinders for easier framing/composition and have available tons of inexpensive large aperture primes and zooms. And for IQ, it doesn't get much better out of all the crop sensor cameras.
Jogger: Thank goodness for Sony supplying the sensor. If Oly had to rely on Pana sensors the EM1 would still be in the dark ages. At least now they can almost compete with Canon APSc SLRs on image quality.
Nikon APSc sensors (D5300) are still many times better though. Now Oly has to bite the bullet and license AVCHD from Sony/Panasonic.
> I guess Nikon is on its kness for many years now as all of their sensors are made by Sony
Not true at all. The D7100 and D5200 sensors are Toshiba. The D4 , D700, D3200 and D3s are all Nikon designed in-house and fabricated by Renesas. Sony makes great sensors but notice the class-leading D7100 and D5200 sensor is made by Toshiba not Sony.