nekrosoft13: interesting interview, but pathetic Canon point of view. they act like their the best in everything, nothing scares them, yet every company out there is making better gear then them.
True, but how much of their lead is due to their amazing lens offerings? I tried to make the switch to Nikon but found that there were too many lenses that Nikon either didn't have (e.g., 70-300L) or Canon's offerings were simply better (e.g., the 24-70L II and 100-400L II). With the 11-24L, Canon has successfully addressed the last (major) category of Nikon lens superiority. I find that I end up shooting both brands: Canon for the lenses and Nikon for it's superior sensor.
stevevelvia50: How did distortion compare with the two lenses at the tested focal lengths, perhaps I missed that. I know that the nikon 14-24 2.8 is known for it's very well corrected distortion. If distortion had to be corrected to match the lenses at tested focal lengths, wouldn't this also have implications on corner sharpness comparisons?
Cameralabs.com has released their tests results, which include a Tamron/Nikon comparison. Their data shows the Tamron controling distortion at least as well as the Nikon at every focal lengths.
chipmaster: Looks like Tamron did a good job, between this review and Roger's they got something here! Looks like their holy trinity is out there with only the need of time to build the legacy of support and build.
I don't shoot much wide anymore and sold my 14-24, as in some ways my favorite lense but not used often.
Nikon should feel some heat, they've had the market to themselves for almost a decade and now someone comes out with something really as good and with some additional features! They had to invest in new design, tooling and price at something they will still make a profit ( Tamron that is ). Nikon has almost a decade to make back investment, hard to believe they can't sell their lense at Tamron prices and still make a profit.
I know if I go super wide again on FX the tamron would be get me a long look give its performance, VC and longer end flexiblity over a used 14-24. I am actually also thinking of replacing my 24-70 with the Tamron as VC is just nice to have too!
Dustin Abbott also asserts that the Zeiss 15mm has a 110 deg FOV, so perhaps the Zeiss was Tamron's target for FOV.
I tried the Sigma 12-24 and was very disappointed with it's IQ. The Canon 11-24 is exciting but the $3000 price tag is a no go.
Hopefully, Sigma reworks its 12-24 lens to bring it in line with its Art series, but I'm not optimistic.
I have the Samyang, and it is satisfactory for the few times that I actually need to go really wide.
rustdream: Budget at $1200? You must be joking.
Also considering that the new Canon 11-24mm L f/4 lens is $3000, a $1200 full-frame lens with this level of performance is indeed a budget lens and a bargain to boot.
From a quick websearch I found these max FX FOV figures:
Nikon 16-35 mm 107 degCanon 16-35 mm 108 degTamron 15-30 mm 110 degNikon 14-24 mm 114 degSamyang 14 mm 115.7 deg
Thus, if these measures are true, then the Nikon 16-35 really doesn't approach the 15mm FOV that the Tamron offers.
Studor13: These "tests" make me laugh.
Try doing this regularly over an entire European winter nights:Leave the lenses on a tripod and shoot 1 to 2 hour long exposures. Make sure you have a few days where you are certain to get some serious condensation coming down onto the lenses.
After 3 winters my 14-24 is still going strong without any problems. I also have the 16-35mm f4 but I don't dare risk this lens because I am fairly certain that it would die a very sudden death.
There is far more to a lens than some apparent sharpness in the corners when viewed at 100% on a D810!
And BTW, 1mm is not insignificant on an extreme wide angled lens.
Your point is well taken and is of critical importance to certain types of photographers. But there are many of us who are hobbyist, and don't throw our kit in the back of pickup trucks traveling down dirt roads and don't shoot in dust storms. For those like us, does it make sense to pay and extra $600 for a more robust instrument that has no-to-marginally better IQ? I for one don't think so (spoken as a former owner of the 14-24 who admired its output but couldn't justify keeping it for my limited purposes).
blakevanderbilt: This shootout is a little confusing to me.. Based on the review on LensRental, the results actually favoured the Nikkor slightly more, unlike this test, where even though you're suspecting a decentered copy of the Tamron, it still outperforms (slightly) the Nikon.
The lenses are very close at 15mm. At 24mm, the Tamron pulls away. The result is also consistent with the LensRental test.
Gnaeus48: I enjoy reading user opinions especially professionals, however, I would not expect a sports photographer to select an APS-C camera for their work since isolation of the subject and depth of field is very important to them. Also when you consider that shooting at higher ISO goes along with the fast shutter speed they need to stop action the APS-C sensor generally does not produce low noise at high ISOs. But, for those of us who shot landscapes, still life and portraits, the 7D II is a super camera. If you check out the high ISO noise on the Nikon D7100 you will see significant noise in both the highlights and shadows as well. From the sample photos I have viewed at DPReview taken with the 7DII, I like the high ISO performance of the 7D II over the D7100.
No, I prefer my D800E for those purposes. However, for sports, wildlife, and BIF, I'm pretty optimistic that the 7D2 will be the best camera under $5000 especially when paired with superb Canon lenses.
I tend to agree. Looking at RAW files from IR, the 7D II does have cleaner files at high ISO. Part of the difference may be due to the software use (Canon's latest versus LR), but it looks very promising.
CurtM: I am a bit confused as to how this camera fits in the line up. I have a Eos70d -- bought because I am rather new to photography and it was great at video too. If I were to upgrade one day (if I ever get to the point where I am not the limiting factor but rather the camera is -- and I am not yet at that point), why would one consider this cropped frame camera over the Eos 6D or 5D with full frame? The price difference seems to be rather marginal.
The sensor is only one reason to consider this camera. This camera has most of the features and performance of Canon's flagship professional body, 1DX, which goes for $5-$6k. This camera is designed primarily for sports/action/wildlife where fast and accurate AF is at a premium. And if the camera can maintain this high degree of performance while shooting more than 7fps (the fastest current Canikon body under $5000 tops off at 6.5fps) all the better. This bad boy does 10fps while maintaining accurate tracking AF.
On top of that, aps-c provides more "reach" than any full frame camera. The pixel density is greater than any full frame camera, which means images taken will provide you with more pixels to work with. This feature can be very useful whether you crop or not. By contrast a FF cropped down to the same size provides fewer pixels to work with. Thus, many "birders" strongly prefer aps-c cameras and have no desire to upgrade to full-frame.
Studor13: What a great day.
Finally, all those Nikon D300/D7100 shooters waiting for the D400 can now finally switch over to Canon and shut the F up.
Congratulations Canon. Now you will have to put up with their continual moans and whines.
I shoot both Canon and Nikon, and IQ is only part of the equation. For action and wildlife, performance matters as much or more. For this reason, I'm considering the 7D2, but not anything Nikon offers.
photolando: I rarely hear anyone boast about GPS. Who cares? But they put GPS in the 7DII and no Wi-Fi?? IN TODAY'S world!?? I need wi-fi A LOT more than I will EVER need GPS. I don't ever need GPS. I switched from Nikon to Canon years ago because of cmos v ccd. I may go back now. FF 24 MB, tilting monitor, and wi-fi for $500 more with the new 750? Convince me to stay with Canon.
This is ironic; I'm considering the 7DMII because the D750 doesn't meet my needs. For action photography, I want 8fps minimum. Nikon requires purchase of the expensive D4s to get that level of performance.
If the 7D2 has acceptable IQ through ISO 3200, it will likely be my next action and wildlife camera.
(unknown member): OK: the first one that will post a high ISO picture (at 6400, say...) from the new 7D II will get a beer from me, as I am curious if this is the 70D, or something else.
Agree. It's aps-c, and I haven't seen any aps-c sensor regardless of make that provides acceptable IQ beyond ISO3200 (and that's pushing it). Hopefully, this one is an improvement over the first 7D, which was weak at ISO1600 and had noticeable noise at base ISO.
nikonman2004: I can't wait for Sigma to re do their 85 1:4
Wow. I've seen a direct comparison--sorry, I don't have the link on hand--between the two Sigmas and the new 50 definitely has better bokeh than the earlier version. So, excuse me if I find your conclusion especially since you do not claim to have conducted a side-by-side comparison.
qwertyasdf: To be very honest, a 50mm lens, no matter the performance, doesn't excite me.
There are more superb 50mm lens out there than there are superb photographers.
I'm more inclined to see some unseen lenses, 20mm F1.4, anyone?
Hmm, I'd like that lens as well, but I suspect that it would be massively large.
I'd be more than happy to settle for an awesome 18 or 20mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 prime with AF.
jcburke: Does the SL1 use the non-STM line of Canon APS-C lenses? I shoot with a 7D and have several very expensive Canon "L" USM lenses, and I'm not going to buy a Canon camera that requires I buy another set of glass.
The SL1 is compatible with an EF (which includes "L" lenses) and EF-S lenses.
Thus, unless you have some very old lenses (30+ years or more), the SL1 can use it.
Kelton Sweet: The 610 seems to add some striations (vertical stripes) on the wall and also on the back of that painting (sitting on the easel).
I'm looking at the original cropped area of the image... with the family admiring a painting.
I noticed that as well. Add the D800 and you see the same striations. There also seems to be a lot of color artifacts (moiré?) in the walls, so I suspect that the Nikons are resolving greater detail.
So are they artifacts, or is the D610 picking up additional detail.?
Michael Ma: Wow, Sony a 7R leapfrogs any Canon or Nikon. Canon really needs to step up. Their days of purposely making cameras with lesser technology than their flagship is over. They need to not hold back now to stay in the business.
I agree, 5DII samples are needed.
Based on other comparisons, I think that you might be pleasantly surprised at how well the 5DII compared to the current generation.
With the latest generation of cameras, we are really talking about marginal gains in low-light performance!
Koemans: Just compared the Raws of the camera's..
The 6D looks way too crystal clear compared to the DF and 610. Infact, the DF actually appears slightly out of focus or more 'fuzzy' if you take a closer look. It's a shame DPreview.. i mean, if you want us to look at lab results with our own eyes and judge for ourselves, atleast be sure the focus is correct, especially with camera's in this price range.
Are you looking at RAW or JPG? Canon's JPG engine is excellent. However, it shifts the balance more towards smoothness rather than detail retention.
If you look at the low-light, high-ISO samples, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the samples. The 6D has less chroma noise than the D610 (both trail the Df, but not by much). However, the D610 retains more detail.
I wouldn't buy any of these cameras based on their superior noise handling relative to the others. I'd be equally happy shooting high-ISO with any of them.
Peter62: Try this:
Go to "Studio Comparison (low light)" and select the SONY NEX-3N to compare with the Df, D610 and Alpha 7.
Select ISO 12800.
So, why buy a camera for 3000 bucks, when a € 300 camera comes THIS close!??
Done! But I kept the 6D instead of the Alpha 7. Oh! I also switched to RAW and low light.
The best was the Df followed closely by the 6D followed closely by the D610. Trailing--embarrassingly, but not really since it is only a € 300 camera--was the NEX-3N. Looking at the drawing of the 19th-Century group looking at a painting on an easel, the 3N lost much more detail to noise. The Df was the cleanest but it was hard to say whether it retained more detail than either of the other 2 ff cameras. The 6D was next, the D610, whist having marginally more noise than the 6D, might actually maintain marginally more detail. I might find output from any of the 3 ff cameras salvageable at these settings. But not from the NEX above ISO3200 (which is pretty good performance).
Truth in advertising: I own D610, 6D, and NEX-5N. I find all 3 cameras very useful for their capabilities and designated purposes. However, they are not all interchangeable.