MarcoSartoriPhoto: This interesting price could have another positive side: more people will actually try and buy the camera and see what these weird looking things can deliver.I'm quite tired of reading about "it's just an APS-C, it's slow, the grip is odd, battery sucks" and so on.When you use these cameras you don't snap around like someone with a smartphone or a paparazzo following an actor: it's a well dedicated and specific tool and you need to know what you're doing.The battery sucks, but that's why the Quattro cameras have two in the box.SigmaPhotoPro is slow, but if you know how toproperlyexposeyour photo you don't even need it (or you can use it only to turn the x3 raw file into a tiff for a SilverEfex conversion).Using a metaphore, a sniper rifle is slow at shooting, slow to reload, has a different form factor than a machine gun, which fires faster and reload faster.P.S. I own a dp2Quattro, a dp3Quattro with the 1.2x tele converter, and a dp0Quattro.
I'm a fan of analogies and that one was flawless. Well done!
Max Iso: Not my cup of tea but i bet in time these will put most other ML out of buiz. MFT might be ok as they can sell their small size, all other ML systems are in trouble.
If the cost were equal, or even close, I'd agree. But for the cost of the body alone, you can buy a GREAT m43 setup or even any Sony A7 series you want plus several (overpriced) lenses and still be ahead. Same goes for Fuji. I'm not saying Hasselblad has overpriced their offerings, I'm simply saying that their target market isn't very large due to the cost of the system.
I saw the title of this article on the home page and cringed while experiencing an uncomfortable feeling in my stomach. I opened it up and read the first paragraph and realized they were talking about me :-)NumberSignhashtagssuck
Rishi Sanyal: I don't know about you, but I'm hoping to be over the moon with what's sure to be a stellar product.
Moon... Stellar... Hmm....
quietrich: On the DF: "trust us that the Nikon D750 is a better camera in absolutely every aspect, and one that can be had for less money."On my DF: Trust me that the Nikon DF is a more enjoyable camera to use in absolutely every aspect, and one that is worth every penny.
@armandino - *unless you could give a rats behind about video
There ya go... Added a disclaimer for you.
Jonathan Brady: So your recommendation is to pick one of two cameras which have glaring deficiencies when it comes to AF? Seriously?
Actually, you'll love this, I recently sold the 6D and picked up the 5D Mark III. Why? AF. But the 5D Mark III wasn't an option to choose from for this article. I stand by my premise. The 6D and D610 can perform in practically all scenarios, even if that performance comes with some stipulations. The mirrorless cameras have shown to not be as capable in the more demanding situations that I personally think your entry-level full-frame camera buyer will likely want to use them in.
@abortabort - you're getting angry again. Not a good look. You may have missed where I said that all of the cameras will do well in every day situations. Does reading it, again, let a little steam out of the Boiling Pot that has become your head?
Oh, and as for your comment: "Versatile,dependable AF ... necessary feature .. for the majority. That kind of defeats and contradicts 6D and center AF, doesn't it." No. It doesn't. It exemplifies the 6D. Versatile: capable of adapting to numerous situations - practically all of them, in fact. Dependable: easy to use and won't let you down. If you had bothered to read and digest the additional replies I had posted you would see that I personally have used the 6D for practically every possible situation and it's performed beautifully. Other than very demanding situations, I almost always use the peripheral AF points. They are highly dependable
It blows my mind how people can read something and then twist it inside their heads so badly that they completely misinterpret what they actually read. So...
@Eleson - I didn't say focus and recompose for action shots. I said "Rishi, I've shot action and low light remarkably well with the 6D using the center AF point. That might sound restrictive however a person purchasing their first full frame camera is likely to be focal length limited anyway and will need to crop anyway. So for sports or action it's not really a big deal. For low-light situations, focus and recompose can work well."
In the first part I didn't say "action IN low light, I said action AND low light. At the end of the paragraph, I clearly separated moving subjects from low light (where focus and recompose may work well).
So are you just here to build straw men and argue?
@abortabort - any of these cameras can definitely do everyday pictures. But not all of these cameras can do the types of pictures that people would likely want for special occasions. For instance, capturing a wedding as an attendee or a work event or any of a million other potential scenarios where light is low. Or a child's sporting event. Those are ordinary situations that don't happen every day, yet for many people they are actually the most important things to capture with a camera. You can keep getting angry all you want but the fact is the two recommended cameras are not as useful as two others that were not recommended for all situations due to their lacking AF systems. And by the way, I'm not saying that the mirrorless cameras can't possibly capture a sporting event picture or a low-light event picture, just that the user will have to work harder to obtain the same results as they would if they were using either the Canon or Nikon DSLR.
@abortabort - it doesn't have 1 usable AF point. All of them are usable in every day circumstances. In fact, I practically never use the center AF point unless it's a demanding scenario like low light or a moving subject. I have used the outer AF points with very good success for okay-light scenarios and subjects with normal movement in good or better light. Also, I tend to use fast primes, wide open, without issue in these scenarios. Slow zooms would be even more forgiving given the smaller aperture and resulting depth of field. The fact is, the D610 and 6D are usable in basically all every day scenarios whereas the other cameras will struggle and given that, it doesn't make sense to recommend them as the best option for a new FF buyer (IMO, of course).
I don't know that it is the single most important feature, I think that would be user dependent. But versatile, dependable AF would be a necessary feature, I think, for the overwhelming vast majority of first time FF buyers. And the AF in those 2 cameras is, I believe, not as versatile and dependable as the 2 DSLR options. Honestly, I think an affordable lens lineup would likely be more important for most people.
Rishi, I've shot action and low light remarkably well with the 6D using the center AF point. That might sound restrictive however a person purchasing their first full frame camera is likely to be focal length limited anyway and will need to crop anyway. So for sports or action it's not really a big deal. For low-light situations, focus and recompose can work well.From what I understand, the D610 is also fairly well rounded from an AF perspective. Additionally, both of these systems offer high-end, high quality lenses as well as lower-end more affordable options. For someone buying their first full frame camera, it's quite possible they are going to be stretching the budget just to get the camera so having a nice selection of inexpensive lenses would be hugely beneficial.
So your recommendation is to pick one of two cameras which have glaring deficiencies when it comes to AF? Seriously?
Satyaa: Useful insights. All the sample photos were excellent.
Needing higher shutter speed with cameras having higher resolution was something I didn't know before. Good to know.
That's because it's not true. If viewed at the same size and distance, then the shutter speed can be the same. The reason you need a higher shutter speed to avoid subject motion blur, is if you're pixel peeping the smaller pixels.
Jonathan Brady: I honestly don't believe that Canon PURPOSELY tries to limit 3rd party lenses and accessories from communicating with their cameras. I truly don't. What I do believe is that they don't care AT ALL, if they make it to where they don't. Which is fine. They don't guarantee that 3rd party accessories/lenses will work, the 3rd party companies do - so it's on the Sigma's and Tamron's of the world.But... I do feel like at least a few people at Canon, Inc are LAUGHING THEIR B***S OFF right now! hahahaha!Having said that... I'm glad my Sigma 50 Art works with my 5D Mark III :-)
You can call me naive, I can call you cynical. I don't believe Canon engineers sit around reverse engineering the reverse engineering of the 3rd party manufacturers to figure out the weaknesses of their reverse engineering, and then designing new protocols to break the 3rd party companies accessories yet still make their own function perfectly, nay, even better. No, I think they figure out new ways to make their stuff work as well as possible and don't give a second thought to the effects on 3rd party gear. And if something does happen to break, they laugh to themselves and keep on going.
I honestly don't believe that Canon PURPOSELY tries to limit 3rd party lenses and accessories from communicating with their cameras. I truly don't. What I do believe is that they don't care AT ALL, if they make it to where they don't. Which is fine. They don't guarantee that 3rd party accessories/lenses will work, the 3rd party companies do - so it's on the Sigma's and Tamron's of the world.But... I do feel like at least a few people at Canon, Inc are LAUGHING THEIR B***S OFF right now! hahahaha!Having said that... I'm glad my Sigma 50 Art works with my 5D Mark III :-)
siggo: Good start. Now would be the appropriate time to establish a policy to include use of bundled software in all reviews. Use third party (Adobe) as well if you wish to show what might be achieved, but learn from this that review should always reflect what the customer would receive.
I wholeheartedly agree, for photos comparing a common scene (test scene, shootout, etc). Reviewing a camera from a company should be about showing that company's vision for the output. Using ACR removes a lot of the color science the company developed. Just because ACR can convert all of the raw files from every manufacturer, doesn't mean the conversion is any good, or even remotely close to what the camera company envisioned or even remotely close to real life. I also believe that use of ACR/Photoshop, whatever, is also relevant and can/should be utilized in a review. Those are your "processed to taste" images.
I understand the desire to use ACR for all camera makes and models, but I'm starting to wonder if it does a disservice to the photo community as opposed to using the manufacturers bundled/recommended software...
cdembrey: iPhotographers are more interested in making photos—while Very Serious Photographers are more interested in test charts and DXO scores.
When was the last time you saw a shot of a test chart or a brick wall on a Social Media site??
I think you're missing the point of testing out a camera in general. It's to learn what it's strengths and weaknesses are, to see if those strengths and weaknesses fit with your desires for the camera (or lens). So no, obviously you'd never see those types of shots on social media. To use an educational analogy... Social media is the "exam" whereas testing the camera/lens is "studying for the exam". Some people simply show up to the exam and "wing it" while others spend time and effort studying to guarantee the best results they are personally capable of.